Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of the Uses of External Representations in Matter Units of 7th-Grade Science Digital Textbooks Developed Under the 2015 Revised National Curriculum

2015 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 1학년 디지털교과서의 물질 단원에서 나타난 외적 표상의 활용 실태 분석

  • Song, Nayoon (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hong, Juyeon (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Noh, Taehee (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2020.07.10
  • Accepted : 2020.09.08
  • Published : 2020.12.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzed the uses of external representations presented in the matter units of the 7th-grade science digital textbooks developed under the 2015 revised national curriculum. The level, form, presentation, and interactivity of external representations presented in 5 types of digital textbooks were analyzed. As for the level, the macroscopic level of representations was mainly presented. The macroscopic level and microscopic level of representations were presented together in the particle description. As for the form, visual-verbal and visual-nonverbal representations were usually presented across the board. Very few audial-verbal and audial-nonverbal representations were presented. Visual-verbal and audial-verbal representations were mostly presented in formal form, and visual-nonverbal representations were mostly presented in illustration without movement. The presentation of representations was analyzed in three aspects. First, visual-verbal and visual-nonverbal representations were mainly presented together and none of audial-verbal and visual-nonverbal representations were presented together. When the representations of the audial-verbal, visual-nonverbal, and visual-verbal were presented together, some of the information presented in audial-verbal representations was repeatedly presented in the visual-verbal representations. Second, audial-nonverbal representations not related to learning content were presented along with other representations. Third, there were few cases of arranging visual-verbal and visual-nonverbal representations on the next pages. Audialverbal and visual-nonverbal representations were always presented synchronized. As for the interactivity, the manipulation level was mainly presented in the main area, and the feedback level was mainly presented in the activity area. The adaptation level and the communication level of interactivity were presented very few. Based on the results, the implications for the direction of constructing digital textbooks were discussed.

이 연구는 2015 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 1학년 과학과 디지털교과서의 물질 단원에 제시된 외적 표상의 활용 실태를 분석하였다. 5종의 디지털교과서에 제시된 외적 표상의 수준, 양식, 제시 방법, 상호작용성을 분석하였다. 외적 표상의 수준은 거시적 수준의 외적 표상이 주로 제시되었고, 입자적 설명은 거시적 수준과 미시적 수준의 외적 표상이 함께 제시되었다. 외적 표상의 양식은 주로 시각언어와 시각비언어 표상으로 제시되었고, 청각언어 표상이나 청각비언어 표상은 거의 제시되지 않았다. 시각언어 표상과 청각언어 표상은 대부분 형식적인 형태로 제시되었고 시각비언어 표상은 운동성이 포함되지 않은 정화상이 가장 많이 제시되었다. 외적 표상의 제시 방법은 세 가지 측면에서 분석하였다. 첫째, 주로 시각언어 표상과 시각비언어 표상이 함께 제시되었고, 청각언어 표상과 시각비언어 표상이 함께 제시된 경우는 나타나지 않았다. 청각언어, 시각언어, 시각비언어 표상이 함께 제시된 경우, 일부는 청각언어 표상의 정보가 시각언어 표상에서 중복적으로 제시되었다. 둘째, 학습 내용과 관계없는 청각비언어 표상이 다른 외적 표상들과 함께 제시되었다. 셋째, 시각언어 표상과 시각비언어 표상을 다른 페이지에 배치하는 형태는 거의 나타나지 않았고, 청각언어 표상과 시각비언어 표상은 항상 동시에 제시되었다. 외적 표상의 상호작용성에서 설명 영역은 조작 수준의 상호작용성이, 활동 영역은 피드백 수준의 상호작용성이 주로 제시되었고, 두 영역 모두 적응과 소통 수준의 상호작용성은 거의 나타나지 않았다. 이상의 결과를 바탕으로 디지털교과서 집필 방향에 대한 시사점을 논의하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Publication cost of this paper was supported by the Korean Chemical Society.

References

  1. Van Someren, M. W.; Reimann, P.; Boshuizen, H.; De Jong, T. Learning with Multiple Representations; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 1998.
  2. Ainsworth, S. Learning and Instruction 2006, 16, 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
  3. Tsui, C.-Y.; Treagust, D. F. In Multiple Representations in Biological Education; Treagust, D. F., Tsui, C.-Y., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, NL, 2013; p 3.
  4. Berthold, K.; Renkl, A. Journal of Educational Psychology 2009, 101, 70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013247
  5. Ainsworth, S. Computer & Education 1999, 33, 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
  6. Mayer, R. E. Multimedia learning; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2001.
  7. Mayer, R. E.; Moreno, R. Learning and Instruction 2002, 12, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00018-4
  8. Moreno, R.; Mayer, R. E. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999, 91, 358. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.2.358
  9. Mayer, R. E.; Moreno, R. Journal of Educational Psychology 1998, 90, 312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312
  10. Seufert, T. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13, 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00022-1
  11. Rau, P. L. P.; Zheng, J.; Wei, Y. Computer & Education 2020, 144,103699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103699
  12. Mayer, R. E.; Anderson, R. B. Journal of Educational Psychology 1992, 84, 444. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.444
  13. Wang, C.; Fang, T.; Gu, Y. Computer & Education 2020, 143, 103683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103683
  14. Kalyuga, S. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19, 387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9051-6
  15. Kang, H.; Yoon, J.; Lee, D. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education 2008, 27, 158.
  16. Kwon, Y.-Y.; Yoo, H. B.; Jeong, E.-Y. The Korean Journal of Biology Education 2011, 39, 517.
  17. Kim, H.-J.; Son, Y.-A.; Min, B.-M. The Korean Journal of Biology Education 2009, 37, 390.
  18. Noh, T.; Yoon, M.; Kang, H.; Han, J. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2007, 51, 423. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2007.51.5.423
  19. Oh, M.-K.; Jeong, E. Journal of Educational Research Institute 2019, 21, 179. https://doi.org/10.15564/jeju.2019.05.21.1.179
  20. Jo, K.; Jho, H.; Yoon, H.-G. New Physics: Sae Mulli 2015, 65, 343. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.65.343
  21. Kang, H.; Kim, Y.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2007, 27, 190.
  22. Yoon, H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2020, 40, 61.
  23. Kim, N.; Chang, J.; Song, J. School Science Journal 2018, 12, 309. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.12.3.201810.309
  24. Noh, T.; Seo, I.; Cha, J.; Kim, C.; Kang, S. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2001, 21, 497.
  25. Merritt, J.; Krajcik, J. In Concepts of Matter in Science Education; Tsaparlis, G., Sevian, H., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, NL, 2013; p 11.
  26. Harrison, A. G.; Treagust, D. F. In Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice; Gilbert, J. K., De Jong, O., Justi, R., Treagust, D. F., Van Driel, J. H., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht, NL, 2003; p 189.
  27. Singer, J. E.; Tal, R.; Wu, H. K. School Science and Mathematics 2003, 103, 28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18111.x
  28. Lin, H. S.; Cheng, H. J.; Lawrenz, F. Journal of Chemical Education 2000, 77, 235. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p235
  29. Treagust, D.; Chittleborough, G.; Mamiala, T. International Journal of Science Education 2003, 25, 1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306
  30. Falvo, D. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning 2008, 4, 68.
  31. Kozma, R.; Russell, J. In Visualization in Science Education; Gilbert, J. K., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, NL, 2005; p 121.
  32. Mayer, R. E. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13, 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6
  33. Clark, R. C.; Mayer, R. E. E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2008.
  34. Domagk, S.; Schwartz, R. N.; Plass, J. L. Computers in Human Behavior 2010, 26, 1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.003
  35. Moreno, R.; Mayer, R. E. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19, 309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
  36. Griffiths, A. K.; Preston, K. R. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29, 611. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290609
  37. Nakhleh, M. B. Journal of Chemical Education 1992, 69, 191. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191
  38. Ministry of Education. Science Curriculum; Ministry of Education: Sejong, 2015.
  39. Tasker, R.; Dalton, R. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2006, 7, 141. https://doi.org/10.1039/b5rp90020d
  40. Mayer, R. E.; Fennell, S.; Farmer, L.; Campbell, J. Journal of Educational Psychology 2004, 96, 389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.389
  41. Moreno, R.; Mayer, R. E. Journal of Educational Psychology 2004, 96, 165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.165
  42. Kang, H. The Effects and Uses of Drawing and Writing to Promote Transformation of External Representation in Middle School Chemistry Instruction; Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul, 2006.
  43. Veronikas, S.; Shaughnessy, M. F. Educational Psychology Review 2005, 17, 179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3952-z
  44. Moreno, R.; Mayer R. E. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, 94, 156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.156
  45. Dewey, J. Interest and Effort in Education; Houghton Mifflin: Cambridge, MA, 1913.
  46. Moreno, R.; Mayer, R. E. Journal of Educational Psychology 2000, 92, 117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.117
  47. Atkinson, R. K.; Renkl, A. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19, 375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9055-2