• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.33 no.7
• /
• pp.1354-1366
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study was to analyze the types of teachers' questioning between verification laboratory instruction and discovery laboratory instruction. Results were that there was no difference in questioning types in verification laboratory instruction and discovery laboratory instruction. Most teachers in two types of laboratory instruction used closed questionings more than open-ended questioning. This shows that teachers' laboratory instruction processes are focusing on 'get the content' rather than consideration of the characteristics of laboratory instruction types. Such results show that the teachers in verification laboratory instruction and discovery laboratory instruction provide little opportunity for children to improve in scientific thinking. Therefore, teachers should make good plans with a questioning strategy that can be adapted to the types and characteristic of laboratory instruction. If teacher's questioning is practiced well in the science class, it can improve students' scientific thinking and science laboratory instruction.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.418-427
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to describe the elementary teachers' teaching behavior procedure in verification-type laboratory instructions. In order to do this, we should know first what constituted the teaching behavior elements in the teachers' instructions, before the teaching behavior can be analyzed. Thirty sets of instructions were recorded and their transcripts were used in this study. The results of this study indicated that the number of teaching behaviors numbered twenty four in total, and that the teaching behaviors could be classified into nine categories, and finally the procedure used in verification-type laboratory instructions generally followed seven steps. These steps can be described as follows; reminding subjects of the preliminary learned concept, presenting inquiry type questions or introducing the main concept, explaining the method used or presenting the predictable outcome/matter for verification, performing lab-based activities, presenting the outcomes, applying the main concept, and finally closing the instruction. For the purpose of promoting more authentic scientific inquiries using these types of instructions, the authors's claims were discussed.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.235-241
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to identify the main laboratory instruction types with Classification Scheme of Laboratory Instruction (CSLI) in elementary and secondary schools science. For the purpose, the validity of the instrument CSLI was 4.23 and laboratory instructions were collected in 100 elementary schools and 30 secondary schools. Before analyzing the collected laboratory instructions, the inter-rater reliability about the analysis results was identified as 0.91. The results of this study were found that in elementary school, the main laboratory instruction types were verification type and discovery type and in secondary school were discovery type and verification type. In the category of the procedure, a large part of the procedures of laboratory activity in both elementary and secondary schools was given to students by worksheets or teachers themselves. In the category of approach, inductive approach was the main in elementary and deductive approach in secondary.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.342-355
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study was to develop a classification scheme for laboratory instruction, which could occupy a central and distinctive role in science education. For this study, literature on laboratory instruction types were analyzed. Utilizing several of these theoretical frameworks, a Classification Scheme for Laboratory Instruction (CSLI), which clearly represents various features of laboratory instruction, was created. The developed CSLI consisted of two descriptors: one is the procedure for laboratory instruction, and the other is a way of approach. The procedure is either designed by the students or provided for them from an external source. A dichotomy also exists for the approach taken toward the activity: deductive or inductive. Validity was established for the CSLI. In addition, laboratory instruction according to CSLI was divided into four types: verification, discovery, exploratory, and investigation. Although this study demonstrated only limited features of laboratory instruction due to the absence of a field test, it serves as a model for more comprehensive studies.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.306-319
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to investigate high school students' learning style, perception of types of laboratory instruction, and the relationship between the learning style and preferred type of laboratory instruction. The participants of this study were 19 female high school students, from Incheon in Korea, who showed outstanding science grades. Dunn et al's revised Learning Styles Inventory (1997) was used for testing students' learning style. The students were asked to choose preferred and not preferred types of experiments and describe the reason of the choices after implementation of 4 types of experiments: verification, discovery, explorator, and investigation laboratory instructions. The findings of this study were as follows: Firstly, the students had a certain common learning style irrelevant to their personal characteristics, i. e; they showed high (self, teacher, parents) motivation and structure stimuli that was common in Korean students. Second, outstanding students prefer unstructured and open laboratory instructions. And those students were highly influenced by sociological and emotional stimuli. Third, students' learning style was related to their preferred type of laboratory instruction. Students preferring unstructured and open laboratory were influenced by sociological and emotional stimuli, while those preferring structured and closed laboratory were influenced by physiological stimuli.

• Communications of Mathematical Education
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.735-760
• /
• 2009

Most of every teachers' life is occupied with his or her instruction, and a classroom is a laboratory for mutual development between teacher and students also. Namely, a teacher's professionalism can be enhanced by circulations of continual reflection, experiment, verification in the laboratory. Professional development is pursued primarily through teachers' reflective practices, especially instruction practices which is grounded on $Sch\ddot{o}n's$ epistemology of practices. And a thorough penetration about situations or realities and an exact understanding about students that are now being faced are foundations of reflective practices. In this study, at first, we explored the implications of earlier studies for discussing a teacher's practice. We could found two essential consequences through reviewing existing studies about classroom and instructions. One is a calling upon transition of perspectives about instruction, and the other is a suggestion of necessity of a teachers' reflective practices. Subsequently, we will talking about an instance of a middle school mathematics teacher's practices. We observed her instructions for a year. She has created her own practical knowledges through circulation of reflection and practices over the years. In her classroom, there were three mutual interaction structures included in a rich expressive environments. The first one is students' thinking and justifying in their seats. The second is a student's explaining at his or her feet. The last is a student's coming out to solve and explain problem. The main substances of her practical know ledges are creating of interaction structures and facilitating students' spontaneous changes. And the endeavor and experiment for diagnosing trouble and finding alternative when she came across an obstacles are also main elements of her practical knowledges Now, we can interpret her process of creating practical knowledge as a process of self-directed professional development when the fact that reflection and practices are the kernel of a teacher's professional development is taken into account.