Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Elementary Teachers' Understanding Level and Actual State About Scientific Inquiry

초등교사의 과학적 탐구 이해의 수준과 실태 분석

  • Lee, Dongseung (Department of Chemistry Education, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Park, Jongseok (Department of Chemistry Education, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2019.02.25
  • Accepted : 2019.05.01
  • Published : 2019.08.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to draw implication for scientific inquiry study by investigating level of understanding and actual state regarding the elementary school teachers' scientific inquiry. The survey was conducted toward 42 elementary school teachers who work at the D city by using questionnaire of Views About Scientific Inquiry. Actual state of understanding of scientific inquiry was investigated by categorized the responses to the level of understanding of the eight aspects of scientific inquiry in three levels (informed, mixed, naive) based on analysis criteria. And analyze whether the characteristic of the subjects affect to level of understanding about aspect of scientific inquiry. As a result of the analysis, the two aspects among the eights aspects of scientific inquiry; 'Inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked' and 'Research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected' were appeared to have high rates of informed level of understanding. In the remaining six perspectives, most of elementary school teachers had naive and mixed level of understanding, so informed level of understanding took a relatively low proportion. It implies that elementary school teachers who teach inquiry in the field have limit to understand about scientific inquiry. These results indicated that experiences that have taught students and science related training courses that open sofar have a little influence to increase comprehension about scientific inquiry. Therefore, it is required to reinforce the teachers' understanding about scientific inquiry and to formulate different form of plan unlike existing way of teaching for teaching scientific inquiry.

본 연구는 초등교사의 과학적 탐구에 관한 이해 수준과 실태를 조사하여 과학 탐구 지도에 대한 시사점을 도출하는데 목적이 있다. D광역시 초등교사 42명을 대상으로 과학적 탐구에 관한 관점(Views About Scientific Inquiry)설문지를 사용하여 설문조사를 실시했다. 응답한 결과를 분석 준거에 따라 초등교사의 8가지 과학적 탐구에 관한 이해 수준을 3단계(전문가적, 과도기적, 초보자적)로 구분하여 과학적 탐구의 이해 실태를 조사하였다. 그리고 연구대상의 특성이 과학적 탐구 수준에 영향을 미치는지 분석했다. 그 결과 과학적 탐구의 8가지 특성 중 '탐구 방법은 의문 해결에 적합해야 한다'와 '탐구 결론은 반드시 수집된 자료와 일치해야 한다'는 2가지 특성에서 전문가적 수준 비율이 높게 나타났다. 나머지 관점에서는 대부분의 초등교사가 과도기와 초보자적 수준으로 나타났고 전문가적 수준은 상대적으로 매우 적었다. 이는 현장에서 탐구에 대해 가르치고 있는 초등교사의 과학적 탐구에 관한 이해가 제한적이라는 것을 시사하고 있다. 그리고 연구대상의 경력, 과학관련 연수이수 여부는 과학적 탐구에 관한 이해에 큰 영향을 미치지 않는다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 이러한 결과는 학생을 지도한 경험과 현재까지 개설된 과학관련 연수들이 과학적 탐구에 관한 이해를 높이는데 큰 영향을 미치지 않는다는 것을 시사하고 있다. 따라서 과학 탐구 지도를 위해 초등교사의 과학적 탐구에 관한 이해를 증진시킬 필요가 있고 이를 위한 기존의 교사 교육 방식과 다른 형태의 방안이 마련될 필요가 있다.

Keywords

Table 2. Relation between aspects of the scientific inquiry and questionnaire11

JCGMDC_2019_v63n4_280_t0001.png 이미지

Table 1. Aspects of the subjects

JCGMDC_2019_v63n4_280_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Example of questionnaire11

JCGMDC_2019_v63n4_280_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Standard of categorization of the responses level11

JCGMDC_2019_v63n4_280_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Example of standard of the responses analysis

JCGMDC_2019_v63n4_280_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Elementary school teachers' level of understanding about 8 aspects of scientific inquiry

JCGMDC_2019_v63n4_280_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. Level of understanding regarding aspects of subjects

JCGMDC_2019_v63n4_280_t0007.png 이미지

Table 8. Example of most frequent response about scientific inquiry

JCGMDC_2019_v63n4_280_t0008.png 이미지

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Benchmarks for Science Literacy; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 1993.
  2. National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practice, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2011.
  3. Hanauer, D. I.; Hatfull, G. F.; Jacobs-Sera, D. In Active Assessment: Assessing Scientific Inquiry, Springer: New York, NY, 2009; pp 1-9.
  4. Nott, M.; Smith, R. International Journal of Science Education 1995, 17, 399. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069950170310
  5. Hanauer, D. Scientific Discourse: Multiliteracy in the Classroom; Continuum: London, 2006.
  6. Next Generation Science Standards., The next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards, 2013.
  7. Young, A. M. Teachers' Understandings of Inquiry and Reported Use of Scientific Practices: A Survey of NTSA Conference Attendees. 2013.
  8. OECD. PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathemetic and Financial Literacy, PISA, OECD Publishing Paris. 2016.
  9. Lederman, N. G. Research on nature of science: Reflections on the past, anticipations of the future. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7, (1), Retrieved July 13, 2012, from http//www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v7 issue1/foreward/index.htm. 2006.
  10. Anderson, R. D. Journal of Science Teacher Education 2002, 13, 1. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982
  11. Lederman, J. S.; Lederman, N. G.; Bartos, S. A.; Bartels, S. L.; Meyer, A. A.; Schwartz, R. S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2014, 51, 65. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125
  12. Senler, B. Science Education International 2015, 26, 166.
  13. Antink-Meyer, A.; Bartos, S.; Lederman, J. S.; Lederman, N. G. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2016, 14(Suppl 1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9576-3
  14. Sung, H. S.; Shin, J. Y.; Chun, J. S. Biology Education 2016, 44, 191. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2016.44.2.191
  15. Song, M. S. The Research of Science-mathematics Education 2016, 39, 179.
  16. Ministry of Education, Korea. Science curriculum; Ministry of Education: Seoul, 2015.
  17. Crawford, B. A. Supporting Teachers in Inquiry/Science Practices, Modeling, and Complex Reasoning in Science Classrooms; South Africa, Pretoria: Paper Presented at the Southern Africa Association of Maths, Science, and Technology Education Annual Conference. 2016.
  18. Wenning, C. J. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online 2007, 4, 21.
  19. Hodson, D. International Journal of Science Education 2014, 36, 2534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
  20. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996.
  21. National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, 2000.
  22. National Academy of Sciences. Guiding Principles for Scientific Inquiry. Scientific research in education. Washington, DC, National Academy Press: 2002.
  23. Chinn, C. A.; Malhotra, B. A. Science Education 2002, 86, 175. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  24. Pasley, J. D.; Trygstad, P. J.; Banilower, E. R. Horizon Research, Inc., 2016.
  25. Lederman, N. G.; Antink, A.; Bartos, S. Science & Education 2012, 23, 285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
  26. Osborne, J.; Collins, S.; Ratcliffe, M.; Millar, R.; Duschl, R. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40, 692. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  27. Oh, P. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2007, 27, 37.