[논문]교과서 분석을 통한 과학의 본성에 대한 여러 관점의 비교 -전통적 접근, 과학의 특성, 가족 유사성 관점을 중심으로-

조헌국

doi:10.14697/jkase.2019.39.5.681

[국내논문] 교과서 분석을 통한 과학의 본성에 대한 여러 관점의 비교 -전통적 접근, 과학의 특성, 가족 유사성 관점을 중심으로-
A Comparative Study on the Various Perspectives on the Nature of Science through Textbook Analysis Centering on the Consensus View, Features of Science, and Family Resemblance Approach 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.39 no.5, 2019년, pp.681 - 694

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

This study intends to delineate the characteristics of various perspectives on the nature of science (NOS) through the textbook analysis. Thus, centering on a science textbook called Science Laboratory Experiments, this study analyzes the elements of the NOS from three different perspectives: the consensus view, features of science (FOS), and family resemblance approach (FRA). While the consensus view highlights the similar elements of the NOS across the topics, the FOS is concerned about empirical ways for doing science. The FRA rather focuses on socio-cultural aspects of science activities. While the consensus view is useful to reify the features of the NOS, the FRA helps to understand science from various viewpoints. Regarding the philosophical account for three perspectives, all of them are ambiguous to some extent. The consensus view holds contradictory dispositions e.g., relativism vs. (post-)positivism, and critical realism and instrumentalism. The FOS supports empirical tradition but cannot effectively cope with the anomalous situation. The FRA is useful to show up the ways of science in both microscopic (personal) and macroscopic (social) viewpoints. However, the broader concept about science may mislead understanding of the NOS. Consequently, this study provides some implication for improving the framework of the NOS and teaching the NOS in the classroom.

Keyword

표/그림 (9)

그림 Figure 1. The exemplar uses of family resemblance approach to the nature of science
표 Table 1. Elements of the nature of science from the consensus view (Erduran and Dagher, 2014)
그림 Figure 2. Comparison between the consensus view and features of science
그림 Figure 3. A systematic framework of family resemblance approach to the NOS
표 Table 2. The content of textbook of Science Laboratory Experiments according to 2015 revised national curriculum
표 Figure 4. A coding example of textbook analysis on the NOS (Shim et al., 2017)
그림 Figure 5. The NOS analysis according to the various perspectives: consensus view, FOS and FRA
그림 Figure 6. Observation of strata in the geological era for the investigation of mass extinction
그림 Figure 7. Activities on the biogenesis in the textbook (Shim et al., 2017)

참고문헌 (95)

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.

상세보기
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.

상세보기
Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the Nature and ‘Goodness’ of Argument among College Students, Science Teachers, and Scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605.

상세보기
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: ‘Views on science-technology-society’ (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.

상세보기
Aldersey-Williams, H. (2011). Periodic tales: A cultural history of the elements, from Arsenic to Zinc. New York: Harper Collins.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Artieres, P. (2011). Michel Foucault. Paris: Herne.
Arya, A. P. (1998). Introduction to classical mechanics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2014). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ views of NOS. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1083-1115.

상세보기
Bacon, F. (1994). Novum organum: With other parts of the great instauration. Chicago: Open Court.
Bady, R. J. (1979). Students’ understanding of the logic of hypothesis testing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(1), 61-65.

상세보기
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of pus survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95.

상세보기
Bayir, E., Cakici, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists’ views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1268-1312.
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, 352-377.

상세보기
Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Stengers, I. (1996). A history of chemistry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bianchini, J. A., Whitney, D. J., Breton, T. D., & Hilton-Brown, B. A. (2002). Toward inclusive science education: University scientists views of students, instructional practices, and the nature of science. Science Education, 86(1), 42-78.

상세보기
Cho, E, Kim, C., & Choe, S. (2018). A study on the plurality of nature of science in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(5), 721-738.

원문보기 상세보기
Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Clement, J. J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Model based learning and instruction in science (Models and modeling in science education). New York: Springer.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463-494.

상세보기
Cofre, H., Nunez, P., Santibanez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 205-248.

상세보기
Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill Pub. Co.
Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism : An introduction to Roy Bhaskar's philosophy. London: Verso.
Constantinou, C., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2010). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143-172.

상세보기
Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Test on understanding science. Princeton, NJ: Educating Test Service.
Cooper, M., & Hunter, M. (2006). Robert Hooke: tercentennial studies. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical concepts in physics: The historical relation between philosophy and scientific theories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C.-S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: a critical review of research. Science Education, 95, 961-999.

상세보기
DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352.

상세보기
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2019-2139.

상세보기
Duschl, R., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 78-107). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practice and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 311-328.

상세보기
Feyerabend, P. K. (2010). Against method. London: Verso.
Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: selected essays and interviews (D. F. Bouchard, & S. Simon, Trans.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Giere, R. N. (1997). Understanding scientific reasoning. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy : A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the Horse’s Mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639-2665.

상세보기
Huh, K. (2012). On Michel Foucault’s concept of discours. Concept and communication, 9, 5-32.
Hunter, M., & Schaffer, S. (1989). Robert Hooke: New studies. Wolfeboro, NH: Boydell Press.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 999-1021). New York: Springer.
Jammer, M. (1989). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. Los Angeles, CA: Tomash Publishers.
Jenner, B., & Titscher, S. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jho, H. (2014). Implications of science education as interdisciplinary education through the cases of scientists and artists in the modern era: Focus on the relationship between science and the arts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(8), 755-765.

원문보기 상세보기
Jho, H. (2018). Trends in research on the nature of science: A bibliometric analysis with R-mapping tool. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(18), 937-956.

상세보기
Khine, M. S. (2012). Advances in nature of science research: concepts and methodologies. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kimball, M. E. (1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110-120.

상세보기
Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists: A report on the HOSG instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33-47.

상세보기
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
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.

상세보기
Lederman, N. G. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessment? Science & Education, 7(6), 595-615.

상세보기
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.

상세보기
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: a historical perspective. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 331-350). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lee, S. W.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Students’ domain-specific epistemological beliefs: A comparison between biology and physics. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(2), 215-229.
Levere, T. H., & Shea, W. R. (1990). Nature, experiment, and the sciences : essays on Galileo and the history of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Liou, P.-Y. (2015). Developing an instrument for assessing students’ concepts of the nature of technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 162-181.

상세보기
Liu, S.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1055-1073.

상세보기
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161-174.

상세보기
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht: Springer.
Maudlin, T. (2010). The metaphysics within physics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maudlin, T. (2012). Philosophy of physics: Space and time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
Ministry of Education (2015). National science curriculum. (Vol. 2015-74). Sejong: Ministry of Education.
Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (2013). TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/frameworks.html.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
National Research Council (2012). Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Newman, H. B., & Ypsilantis, T. (1996). History of original ideas and basic discoveries in particle physics. New York: Plenum Press.
Newton, I. (1952). Optics: Or a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflexions & colours of light. New York: Dover.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Peters-Burton, E., & Baynard, L. R. (2013). Network analysis of beliefs about the scientific enterprise: A comparison of scientists, middle school science teachers and eighth-grade science students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(16), 2801-2837.

상세보기
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261-278.

상세보기
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
Porter, A. C. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Rubba, P. A., & Anderson, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.

상세보기
Sankey, H. (2008). Scientific realism and the rationality of science. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What Scientists Say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727-771.

상세보기
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, 610-645.

상세보기
Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shim, K.-C., Park, J.-S., Lee, G.-Y., Son, J.-W., Moon, H.-J., Park, J.-Y., et al. (2017). Science Laboratory Experiments. Seoul: Visang Education.
Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493-509.

상세보기
Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multidimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621-1638.

상세보기
Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: high school science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1143-1168.

상세보기
Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of technology: Implications for design, development, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2875-2905.

상세보기
Weedon, C. (1996). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1978). Philosophical investigations. London: Basil Blackwell & Mott.
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.

저자의 다른 논문 :

활용도 분석정보

상세보기

다운로드

내보내기

활용도 Top5 논문

해당 논문의 주제분야에서 활용도가 높은 상위 5개 콘텐츠를 보여줍니다.
더보기 버튼을 클릭하시면 더 많은 관련자료를 살펴볼 수 있습니다.

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format