Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Analysis of Thought Change of 11th Grade Students related to Conservation of Mass and Volume Change by Responsive Teaching

반응적 교수법에 의한 고등학교 1학년 학생들의 질량 보존과 부피 변화에 대한 사고 변화 분석

  • Received : 2020.02.08
  • Accepted : 2020.07.04
  • Published : 2020.09.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted on four 11th grade students at a high school in a small town to determine the effectiveness of responsive teaching. The three phases of the responsive teaching method proposed in the previous study were subdivided into six stages; Step 1 is elicitation of students' thoughts related to macroscopic world, Step 2 is drawing of students' early thoughts related to microscopic world, Step 3 is disciplinary connections with ideas of the particle, Step 4 is to clarify the learner's thoughts on the particle by the teacher's involvement, Step 5 is deepening students' thoughts, and Step 6 is expanding ideas. In Step 4, students came to the recognition that the cause of mass was atoms and that the cause of volume was molecules. In Step 5, students led to a shift in thinking that could ignore the volume of the molecules themselves through the properties of protons and neutrons that affect mass from a particle perspective. In the Step 6 of expanding ideas, students explained molecular motion by the concept of material point which ignores the volume of particles. This steps gave students perspectives on the relationship between the mass and volume of particles required by Avogadro's law. The students recognized that some systems could be studied only indirectly because they were too small, too large, too fast, or too slow to observe directly.

이 연구는 중소도시에 소재한 고등학교 1학년 학생 4명을 대상으로 반응적 교수법의 효과를 알아보았다. 이를 위하여 반응적 교수법의 3단계를 세분화하여 6단계로 구성하였다. 1단계는 학생들의 거시적 생각 드러내기, 2단계는 학생들의 초기 미시적 생각 이끌어내기, 3단계는 입자에 대한생각을 학문과 연결하기, 4단계는 교사가 개입하여 입자에 대한 학습자의 생각을 명료히 하기, 5단계는 학생 생각 심화하기, 6단계는 학생 생각 확장하기였다. 4단계까지의 과정을 통해 질량의 원인은 원자이며, 부피의 원인은 분자라는 학생들의 생각이 명료하게 드러났다. 5단계에서 학생들은 양성자와 중성자가 존재하는 공간을 매우 작으므로 분자 자체의 부피는 무시한다는 개념에 도달하였다. 그리고 생각을 확장하는 6단계에서 입자의 부피를 무시한 질점의 개념으로 분자 운동을 설명하였다. 이를 통해 학생들은 아보가드로의 법칙에서 요구되는 입자의 질량보존과 부피변화의 관계에 대한 관점을 획득하고, 어떤 시스템은 직접 관찰하기에 너무 작거나, 너무 크거나, 너무 빠르거나, 너무 느려서 간접적으로만 연구될 수 있음을 인식하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Niaz, M. Sci. Ed. 1995, 79, 19. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790103
  2. Stevens, S. Y.; Shin, N.; Peek-Brown, D. Journal of Education Quimica. 2013, 24, 381.
  3. Pierson, J. L. The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning 2008, The University of Texas at Austin.
  4. Robertson, A. D.; Atkins, L. J.; Levin, D. M.; Richards, J. What is responsive teaching? 2016 New York, NY, Routledge. 1-35.
  5. Ball, D. L. Elem. School J. 1993, 93, 373. https://doi.org/10.1086/461730
  6. Maskiewicz, A.C.; Winters, V. Paper Presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2010, Chicago.
  7. Maskiewicz, A. C.; Winters, V. A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 429. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21007
  8. Kavanagh, S.S.; Metz, M.; Hauser, M.; Fogo, B.; Taylor, M.; Carlson, J. Practicing responsiveness: Using approximations of teaching to develop teachers' responsiveness to students' ideas. Journal of Teacher Education 2019 Advance online publication.
  9. Bain, R. B. Rounding up unusual suspects: Facing the authority hidden in the history classroom 2006 Teachers College Record, 108(10), 2080-2114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00775.x
  10. Moje, E. B. Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise 2015 Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254-278. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.254
  11. Levin, D. M.; Grant, T.; Hammer, D. Attending and responding to student thinking in science 2012 The american biology Teacher, 74(3), 158-162. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2012.74.3.6
  12. Empson, S.B.; Jacobs, V.R. Learning to listen to children's mathematics 2008, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. pp. 257-281.
  13. Shin, N.; Koh, E. J.; Choi, C. I.; Jeong, D. H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2014, 34, 437. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.5.0437
  14. Lee, J.; Lee, B.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2018, 62, 243. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2018.62.3.243
  15. Sangmyeon, A. 청람과학교육연구논총 1993, 3, 368.
  16. Hammer, D. M. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 1996, 5, 97. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0502_1
  17. Radoff, J.; Hammer, D. Attention to Student Framing in Responsive Teaching Routledge: New York, 2016; pp 189-202.
  18. Hogan, K. International Journal of Science Education 1999, 21, 855. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290336
  19. Hammer, D.; Sikorski, T. R. Implications of complexity for research on learning progressions. Science Education 2015, 99, 424. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21165
  20. Nayeon, J.; Kim, E.; Paik, S.-H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2019, 63, 123. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2019.63.2.123
  21. Watkins, J.; McCormick, M.; BethkeWendell, K.; Spencer K.; Milto, E.; Portsmore, M.; Hammer, D. Sci. Ed. 2018, 102, 548. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21334
  22. Colestck, A. A.; Sherin, M. G. What Teachers Notice When They Notice Student Thinking: Teacher-Identified Purposes for Attending to Students' Mathematical Thinking. In Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics, Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D. Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2016; pp. 126-144.
  23. Harrer, B. W.; Flood, V. J.; Wittmann, M. C. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 2013, 9, 023101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.023101
  24. Hammer, D.; van Zee, E. Seeing the Science in Children's Thinking: Case Studies of Student Inquiry in Physical Science; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, 2012.
  25. diSessa, A. A. Cognition and Instruction 1993, 10, 105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
  26. Portides, D. P. Science & Education 2007, 16, 699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9001-6
  27. Brodie, K. Working with learners' mathematical thinking: Towards a language of description for changing pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education 2011, 27, 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.014
  28. Colley, C.; Windschitl, M. Rigor in elementary science students' discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education 2016, 100, 1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243

Cited by

  1. 반응적 교수를 위한 교사교육 프로그램을 통한 화학교사의 교수 유형 및 장애 요인 분석 vol.65, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.4.268