최소 단어 이상 선택하여야 합니다.
최대 10 단어까지만 선택 가능합니다.
다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.35 no.5, 2015년, pp.895 - 905
Citizens should be sensitive to the complex and controversial SSIs (Socioscientific Issues), be able to make a responsible decision with evidence and empathy, and furthermore take political action for the larger welfare. The premise of this research is that understanding the nature of science (NOS) ...
핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
---|---|---|
명시적인 접근은 어떤 한계를 갖는가? | 개념 또는 명제로서 받아들여진 과학의 본성은 그것에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 추론을 통하여 합리적인 판단을 내리고 의사결정을 내려야하는 상황에서 적절한 형태로 변형되지 못한다. 그리고 맥락 또는 상황과 괴리된 채 일반화된 지식으로 남아있게 되는 한계를 갖는다. 과학의 본성에 대한 이해는 개념 그 자체를 지식으로 습득하여 갖고 있는 것 보다는 사고방식이나 가치체계, 인식론으로서 과학 활동에 적용하는 것이 보다 중요하므로, 과학의 본성을 지도할 때는 과학의 본성 이해의 맥락 간 전이를 반드시 고려하여야한다. | |
과학의 본성에 대한 이해는 어떤 영향을 미치게 되는가? | 과학지식이 형성 되고 발전해나가는 과정에 반영된 가치와 신념에 대해 이해하게 되는 것 또한 과학의 본성을 이해하는 것이다(Abd-El-Khalick, Waters & Le, 2008; Lederman, 1992, 2007). 과학의 본성에 대한 이해는 과학 커뮤니티에서 공유되고 있는 규준을 습득하고, 쟁점에 대한 논의과정에 합리적으로 참여하는 데 큰 영향을 미치게 된다. 그러므로 과학의 본성에 대한 이해 없이 과학기술과 관련된 복합적인 사회 문제를 해결 할 수 있는 능력을 갖춘 시민을 양성하는 것은 매우 어렵다고 할 수 있다(Lee, 2013). | |
과학의 본성에 대한 이해를 높이기 위한 대표적 교육 방법에는 무엇이 있는가? | 이러한 인식을 바탕으로 과학의 본성에 대한 이해를 높이기 위한 다양한 접근 방법에 대한 논의가 지속적으로 이어지고 있다. 과학의 본성에 대한 이해를 높이기 위한 대표적 교육 방법으로 암시적 접근 (implicit approach), 명시적 접근(explicit approach), 그리고 명시적-반성적 접근(explicit-reflective approach)의 세 가지 방법이 제시되고 있다(Lederman, 1992; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). 암시적 접근을 통한 과학의 본성 교육 프로그램은 과학의 본성에 대한 직접적인 언급 없이 과학을 하는 방법이나 과학의 기능을 설명하는 가운데 학생들을 탐구활동에 참여시킨다. |
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students' conceptions of the nature of science. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Oregon State University, Oregon.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers' views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785-810.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653-680.
Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first-grade internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377-394.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377.
Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563-581.
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers' understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436.
Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177-209.
Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S. W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Reconceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670-697.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.
Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315.
Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677-687.
Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418.
Kolsto S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, Y-H. (2013). Nature of Science (NOS) Presentation in the Introductory Chapters of Korean High School Life Science I Textbooks Using a Qualitative Content Analysis. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(1), 173-197.
Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 137-163.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389-407.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future: A report with ten recommendations. King's College London: Fulmar Colour Printing Company Limited.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2011). National science curriculum. Seoul: MEST.
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Natioanl Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science education for the 1980s. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learing science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research (pp. 45-77). New York: Springer.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2000). Making connections between the nature of science and scientific inquiry: A science research internship for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Akron, OH.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645.
Tamir, P. (1972). Understanding the process of science by students exposed to different science curricula in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9(3), 239-245.
Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students' understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147-171.
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
Yoo, M. H. (1999). (The) development of scientific history program and its effects of application on middle school science instruction. (Unpublished master dissertation), Seoul National University, Seoul.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.
*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
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.