다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기
초등과학교육 = Journal of Korean elementary science education, v.34 no.2, 2015년, pp.164 - 182
AI-Helper
This study aims to analyze science-gifted elementary students' understanding of 'Living Things' with ontological domains. As research subjects, this study selected 80 science-gifted students who belonged to Education Institute for Science-gifted Elementary Students at University of Education, and th...
| 핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
|---|---|---|
| 생물에 대한 학습은 무엇을 필요로 하는가? | 생물에 대한 학습은 대규모의 개념적 구조조정에 필요한 근본적인 개념상의 변화를 필요로 한다(Carey, 1985). 학생들이 생물에 대한 비전문적인 이해에 불만족을 느끼고 생물학적 이론을 수용하도록 돕기 위한 개념상의 변화 전략을 교수법에 강조해야 할 필요가 있다(Venville, 2004). | |
| 직관적 인식의 특성은? | 학생들은 대부분의 과학 영역에서 다양한 직관적 인식을 표현하고 있음을 많은 연구를 통해 입증되었다(Duit, 2007). 직관적 인식은 종종 안정적이고 확고하며 교육을 받아도 잘 고쳐지지 않는다(Hellden Solomon, 2004). 또한 과학 개념을 채택한 후에도 직관적인 인식들은 계속해서 학생들의 추론에 영향을 끼친다. | |
| 3단계로 구성된 검사지 중 1단계에 대한 설명은? | 1단계에서는 초등 과학영재학생들이 생각하는 살아있는 것의 종류에 대해 알아보고자 하였다. 살아있는 것 하면 떠오르는 10가지를 적게 하고 그중에서 가장 중요하다고 생각되는 것을 하나 선정하여 선정한 이유를 적도록 하였다. 이를 통해 살아있는 것을 종류별로 분류하고 빈도 분석하여 어떤 부류를 가장 많이 살아 있는 것으로 생각하는지 알아보았다. 또한 열거한 10가지 살아 있는 것 중에서 중요성의 기준을 살펴보고 살아있는 것에 대한 개념의 판단기준에 대한 인지구성을 파악하는데 중요한 단서로 삼고자 하였다(Yorek et al., 2009). |
Ahn, J., Chun, M., Park, K. & Jeon, S. (2010). The analysis of the science gifted's characteristics present in linguistic literation in the animal development inquiry activity program based on creative problem solving (CPS) model. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 20(1), 107-130.
Allen, M. (2010). Misconceptions in primary science. Open University Press.
Ashworth, S., Boyes, E., Paton, R. & Stanisstreet, M. (1995). Conservation of endangered species: What do children think?. Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 14(3), 229-244.
Babai, R., Sekal, R. & Stavy, R. (2010). Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 20-26.
Brebner. J. T. & Welford, A. T. (1980) Introduction: an historical background sketch. In: Welford AT (ed) Reaction times. Academic Press, New York.
Brooker, R. J., Widmaier, E. P., Graham, L. E. & Stiling, P. D. (2008). Biology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Campbell, N. A. & Reece, J. (2008). Biology, 8th Ed. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
Caravita, S. & Falchetti, E. (2005). Are bones alive?. Journal of Biological Education, 39(4), 163-170.
Carey, S. (1985) Conceptual change in childhood. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & DeLeeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change
for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27-43. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
Cho, E. & Paik, S. (2006). A comparison analysis of intellectual characteristics between science-gifted education students and general students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(3), 307-316.
Chung, W. & Cha, H. (1992). How do Korean students conceptualize living things and nonliving things?. Biology Education, 20(2), 147-151.
Duit, R. (2007). Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education: a bibliography, full version March 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html
Hage, R. & Rauckiene, A. (2004). Ecocentric worldview paradigm: The reconstruction of consciousness. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(1), 50-58.
Hatano, G., Siegler, R., Richards, D., Inagaki, K., Stavy, R. & Wax, N. (1993) The development of biological knowledge: a multi-national study. Cognitive. Development, 8(1), 47-62.
Hee, K., Chung, W. & Jeong, J. (1995). How do Korean young children conceptualize living things and nonliving things?. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 15(1), 126-131.
Hellden, G. F. & Solomon, J. (2004). The persistence of personal and social themes in context: long and shortterm studies of students' scientific ideas. Science Education, 88(1), 885-900.
Hewson, P. W. (1996). Teaching for conceptual change. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp.131-140). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Jeong, K. (2009). Ontological categorizing of high school students about rocks and crust, plate tectonics. Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 56-68.
Johnston, A. T. & Southerland, S. A. (2000). A reconsideration of science misconceptions using ontological categories. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching April, 2000, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Kang, M. (2008). Early childhood teachers' grounded conceptions on identification between biological and nonbiological objects. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 153-170.
Kellert, S. R. (1993). Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 53-69.
Kim, K. & Park, M. (2009). Changes in young children's understanding of 'living things' by picture activity. Korean Journal of Children's Media, 8(2), 65-98.
Kim, K., Lee, S., Han, S. & Noh, T. (2008). An investigation the elementary school students' perceptions of the scientific and technological prefessions by using the 'drawing scientific and technological workplaces'. Elementary Science Education, 27(3), 307-317.
Kinchin, I. M. (1999). Investigating secondary-school girls' preferences for animals or plants: a simple “head-tohead” comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 95-99.
Kurdziel, J. P. & Libarkin, J. C. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: Students' ideas about the nature of science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 322-329.
Kwon, J. (2007). Earth science pre-service teachers' earth concept based on The ontological categories. Unpublished master's thesis, Korea National University of Education.
Lindermann-Matthies, P. (2002). The influence of an educational program on children's perception of biodiversity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 33(2), 22-31.
Mickle, J. E. & Aune, P. M. (2008). Development of a laboratory course in nonmajors general biology for distance education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(1), 35-39.
Mickle, J. E. & Aune, P. M. (2011). A simple, inexpensive, dynamic, & hands-on exercise for prompting discussion of the characteristics of living things. American Biology Teacher, 73(3), 164-166.
Park, M., Kim, Y. & Oh, K. (2012). Effects of the diagram-drawing learning method on the science-related attitudes of the middle school students. Teacher Education Research, 51(2), 390-402.
Piaget, J. (1979). The child's conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Raven, P. H., Johnson, G. B., Losos, J. B. & Singer, S. R. (2005). Biology, 7th Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Russell, P. J., Wolfe, S. L., Hertz, P. E., Starr, C. & McMillan, B. (2008). Biology: The dynamic science. Belmont, CA: Thompson, Brooks/Cole.
Ryu, J. (2010). The effects of screen layout of PDA and yipes of Task on response time and users' preference. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 16(1), 71-94.
Shepardson, D. P. (2005). Student ideas: What is an environment? Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 49-58.
Siegal, G. & Peterson, C. C. (1999). Becoming mindful of biology and health: An introduction. In M. Siegal & C. Peterson (Eds.), Children's understanding of biology and health (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Skamp, K. (2012). Teaching primary science constructively. Cengage Learning.
Slaughter, V., Jaakkola, R. & Carey, S. (1999). Constructing a coherent theory: Children's biological understanding of life and death. In M. Siegal & C. Peterson (Eds.), Children's understanding of biology and health (pp. 71-96). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H. & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students' misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 373-400.
Tamir, P., Gal-Chappin, R. & Nussnovitz, R. (1981) How do intermediate and junior high school students conceptualize living and nonliving?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(1), 241-248.
Venville, G. (2004). Young children learning about living things: Case study of conceptual change from ontological and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 449-480.
Venville, G. & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1031-1055.
Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Plants or animals-which do junior high school students prefer to study?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(5), 415-426.
Wandersee, J. H. & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61(2), 84-86.
Waxman, S. (2005). Why is the concept "living thing" so elusive? Concepts, languages, and the development of folk biology. In: Ahn, W., Goldstone, R. L., Love, B. C., Markman, A. B., Wolff. P. (eds), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 49-67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Yen, C.-F., Yao, T. W. & Mintzes, J. J. (2007). Taiwanese students' alternative conceptions of animal biodiversity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 535-553.
Yorek, N., Sahin, M. & Aydin, H. (2009). Are animals 'More Alive' than plants? Animistic-anthropocentric construction of life concept. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 369-378.
*원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다.
Free Access. 출판사/학술단체 등이 허락한 무료 공개 사이트를 통해 자유로운 이용이 가능한 논문
Copyright KISTI. All Rights Reserved.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.