DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Characteristics of Lessons Using Analogies Planned by Pre-service Science Teachers

예비과학교사가 계획한 비유 사용 수업의 특징

  • Kim, Minhwan (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Hyeree (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Noh, Taehee (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2017.12.06
  • Accepted : 2018.01.17
  • Published : 2018.04.20

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the characteristics of planning lessons using analogies by pre-service science teachers. Eight pre-service teachers at a college of education in Seoul participated in this study. After the workshop of instructional analogies in science education, they planned lessons using analogies. We also conducted semi-structured interviews. For the analyses, we used a revised framework from a previous work which characterized the dimensions of teaching through analogies. The analyses of the results revealed that most pre-service teachers planned to use analogies in beginning or developing lesson and to present analogs before target concepts. The degree of activity allowed for students was not high. Many did not recognize the necessity of assessment and did not include assessment in planning lessons. They planned clarified mapping strategies which are teacher-centered and also not to cover unshared attributes and multiple analogies, because they thought that students could misunderstand mapping and unshared attributes could make students confused. Most planned to use figures, pictures, and videos to help students understand analogies that they presented. Educational implications of these findings are discussed.

이 연구에서는 예비과학교사의 비유 사용 수업 계획에서 나타나는 특징을 분석하였다. 서울 소재 사범대학에서 교수 설계와 관련된 강의를 수강 중인 8명의 예비과학교사가 연구에 참여하였다. 비유를 사용한 과학 수업에 대한 워크숍을 실시한 후 비유 사용 수업을 계획하도록 하였고, 반구조화된 면담을 실시하였다. 비유를 사용한 과학 수업의 맥락을 정리한 선행 연구의 분석틀을 이 연구의 맥락에 맞게 수정 보완하여 사용하였다. 분석 결과, 대부분의 예비교사는 수업의 도입 단계나 전개 단계에서 비유를 사용하고, 목표 개념을 도입하기에 앞서 비유물을 제시할 것으로 계획하였다. 학생의 활동도에 대한 고려 수준이 높지 않았고, 많은 예비교사들이 비유 사용 수업에서 평가의 필요성을 인식하지 못하고 수업 계획에 평가 과정을 포함하지 않았다. 학생들이 대응 관계를 잘못 이해하거나 비공유 속성이 학생들에게 혼란을 가져올 수 있다는 이유로 예비교사들은 대응 명료화 전략을 교사 중심으로 진행하고 비공유 속성을 다루지 않으며 다중 비유를 활용하지 않겠다고 계획하였다. 마지막으로 대부분의 예비교사가 그림이나 사진, 영상 등을 활용하여 자신이 제시한 비유에 대한 학생들의 이해를 도울 것이라고 하였다. 이상의 결과를 바탕으로 교육적 함의를 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Duit, R. Science Education 1991, 75, 649. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606
  2. Orgill, M.; Bodner, G. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2004, 5, 15. https://doi.org/10.1039/B3RP90028B
  3. Dagher, Z. R. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1995, 32, 259. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320306
  4. Noh, T.; Kwon, H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 1999, 19, 665.
  5. Lawson, A. E.; Baker, W. P.; Didonato, L.; Verdi, M. P.; Johnson, M. A. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1993, 30, 1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300906
  6. Aubusson, P. J.; Fogwill, S. In Metaphor and analogy in science education; Aubusson, P. J.; Harrison, A. G.; Ritchie, S. M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, NL, 2006; p 93.
  7. Harrison, A. G.; de Jong, O. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2005, 42, 1135.
  8. Treagust, D. F.; Harrison, A. G.; Venville, G. J. Journal of Science Teacher Education 1998, 9, 85. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009423030880
  9. Glynn, S. M. In The Psychology of Learning Science; Glynn, S. M.; Britton, B. K.; Yeany, R. H., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1991; p 219.
  10. Harrison, A. G.; Coll, R. K. Using Analogies in Middle and Secondary Science Classrooms: The far Guide-an Interesting way to Teach with Analogies; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2007.
  11. Noh, T.; Kwon, H.; Lee, S. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 1997, 17, 323.
  12. Thiele, R. B.; Treagust, D. F. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1994, 31, 227. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310304
  13. Jarman, R. International Journal of Science Education 1996, 18, 869. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180710
  14. Nashon, S. M. Research in Science Education 2004, 34, 475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3229-4
  15. Treagust, D. F.; Duit, R.; Joslin, P.; Lindauer, I. International Journal of Science Education 1992, 14, 413. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140404
  16. Ko, S.; Choi, S.; Yeo, S. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education 2007, 26, 276.
  17. Choi, J. The Journal of Elementary Education 2006, 19, 477.
  18. Kil, Y. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction 2008, 12, 493. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2008.12.2.493
  19. Jang, M. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education 2006, 25, 191.
  20. Park, K. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education 2008, 25, 379. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2008.25.3.379
  21. Yang, C.; Lee, J.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2014, 34, 187. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0187
  22. Yang, C.; Song, N.; Kim, M.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2016, 36, 681. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0681
  23. van Driel, J. H.; Beijaard, D.; Verloop, N. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2001, 38, 137. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
  24. Aubusson, P. J.; Harrison, A. G.; Ritchie, S. M. Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education; Springer: Dordrecht, NL, 2006.
  25. Wong, E. D. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1993, 30, 367. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300405
  26. Oliva, J. M.; Azcarate, P.; Navarrete, A. International Journal of Science Education 2007, 29, 45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708444
  27. Thiele, R. B.; Treagust, D. F. Instructional Science 1994, 22, 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889523
  28. Curtis, R. V.; Reigeluth, C. M. Instructional Science 1984, 13, 99.
  29. Kim, Y. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 1991, 11, 1.
  30. Brown, D. E.; Clement, J. Instructional Science 1989, 18, 237. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118013
  31. Clement, J. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1993, 30, 1241. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007
  32. Coll, R. K.; France, B.; Taylor, I. International Journal of Science Education 2005, 27, 183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000276712
  33. Dagher, Z. R. Science Education 1995, 79, 295. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790305
  34. Zook, K. B.; Maier, J. M. Journal of Educational Psychology 1994, 86, 589. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.4.589
  35. Friede, A. W.; Gabel, D. L.; Samuel, J. School Science and Mathematics 1990, 90, 674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12046.x
  36. Rule, A. C.; Furletti, C. School Science and Mathematics 2004, 104, 155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb18237.x
  37. Zook, K. B. Educational Psychology Review 1991, 3, 41.
  38. Spiro, R. J.; Feltovitch, P. J.; Coulson, R. L.; Anderson, D. K. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning; Vosniadou, S.; Ortony, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989; p 498.
  39. Chiu, M. H.; Lin, J. W. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2005, 42, 429. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20062
  40. Noh, T.; Kim, C.; Kwon, H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 1999, 19, 107.
  41. Else, M. J.; Clement, J.; Rea-Ramirez, M. A. In Model Based Learning and Instruction in Science; Clement, J. J.; Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, NL, 2008; p 215.
  42. Kim, Y.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2015, 35, 1063.
  43. Choi, S. Y.; Lee, E. J.; Kang, H. K. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2006, 26, 167.
  44. Nottis, K. E. K.; McFarland, J. Electronic Journal of Science Education 2001, 5.
  45. Harrison, A. G.; Treagust, D. In Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education; Aubusson, P. J.; Harrison, A. G.; Ritchie, S. M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, NL, 2006; p 11.
  46. Niebert, K.; Marsch, S.; Treagust, D. F. Science Education 2012, 96, 849.
  47. Kim, K.; Yang, C.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2009, 29, 898.