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.40 no.2, 2020년, pp.141 - 150
The purpose of this study is to critically review the skill-based approach to scientific inquiry in science education and to explore the meaning of science practices that are emphasized in recent science education reform movement. An extensive review of relevant literature was carried out, and the r...
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
---|---|---|
과학 탐구에 있어 과학적 실천은, 과거 SAPA와 비교해 어떤 특징을 지녔는가? | 하지만 SAPA로 대표되는 기능 중심의 접근은 탐구 기능의 위계적인 관계와 전이성 또는 일반화 가능성을 주장하고 발견을 통한 학습을 강조하였다는 점에서 과학에 대한 현대적인 철학적 관점에 비추어 비판을 받아 왔다. 이와는 달리 과학적 실천을 강조하는 최근의 입장에서는 과학적 실천을 총체적인 것으로 이해하고 실천의 전개양상이 내용이나 맥락에 따라 다르다는 점을 강조하며 과학 수업에서도 학생의 아이디어를 중요하게 고려하고자 한다는 점에서 대비된다. 즉, 과학적 실천은 기능 중심의 과학 탐구에 대한 하나의 대안이 될수 있으며, 따라서 과거 SAPA로부터 유래한 기능 중심의 접근에 대해 집중적이고 비판적으로 논의한 본 연구의 결과는 과학적 실천의 의미를 이해하고 학교 과학 교육에 적용하는 데 기초 자료로서 활용될 수 있을 것이다. | |
SAPA는 무엇인가? | 주지하다시피, SAPA는 스푸트니크 충격(Sputnik shock)3)에 따른 미국의 과학 및 수학 교육 개혁 운동의 일환으로 개발된 혁신적인 교육과정이다. SAPA의 개발은 미국과학재단(National ScienceFoundation, NSF)의 지원을 받아 이루어졌으며, 미국과학진흥협의회(American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS)의 과학교육위원회(Commission on Science Education)가 주도적인 역할을 하였다. | |
NGSS에서 과학 탐구에 기존의 '기능' 이나 '과정' 대신 '실천'이란 용어를 사용한 이유는? | 그런데 NGSS 개발의 청사진을 제공하였던 ‘A framework for K-12science education (National Research Council [NRC], 2012)’에서는 이제까지 과학 교육 문헌에서 자주 사용되었던 ‘기능(skill)’이나 ‘과정(process)’이라는 용어 대신 ‘실천(practice)’이란 용어를 사용한 까닭에 대하여, “과학의 탐구에 임하는 데에는 그러한 실천에 특이적인 기능뿐만 아니라 지식 또한 필요하기 때문이라는 점을 강조하기 위한”(p. 30) 것이라고 설명하고 있다. |
AAAS Commission on Science Education (1961). Science teaching in elementary and junior high schools. Science, 133, 2019-2024.
AAAS Commission on Science Education (1971). The AAAS project: Science-A Process Approach. In E. Victor & M. S. Lerner (Ed.), Readings in science education for the elementary school (2nd ed., pp. 451-462). New York: The Macmillan Company.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1967). Science-A Process Approach, Part A, Description of the program. New York: Xerox.
Ault, C. R. Jr. (2015). Challenging science standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ault, C. R. Jr., & Dodick J. (2010). Tracking the footprints puzzle: The problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94, 1092-1122.
Ausubel, D. P. (1964/1969). Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. In H. O. Andersen (Ed.), Readings in science education for the secondary school (pp. 97-113). London, UK: The Macmillan Company.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499-518.
Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 Education. Science Teacher, 78(9), 34-40.
Chang, H. (2014). Epistemic activities and systems of practice: Unit of analysis in philosophy of science after the practice turn. In L. Soler, S. Zwart, M. Lynch, & V. Israel-Jost (Eds), Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science (pp. 67-79). New York, NY: Routledge.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Erduran, S. (2015). Introduction to the focus on scientific practices. Science Education, 99(6), 1023-1025.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Fields, D. (1996). The impact of Gagne's theories on practices. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 794)
Finley, F. N. (1983). Science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 47-54.
Ford, M. (2008). 'Grasp of practice' as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147-177.
Ford, M. (2015). Educational implications of choosing "practice" to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048.
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32.
Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of "hands-on" and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167-186.
Gagne, R. M. (1965). Psychological issues in Science-A Process Approach. AAAS Commission on Science Education (Ed.), The psychological bases of Science-A Process Approach (pp. 1-8). Washington, D.C.: The Commission.
Gagne, R. M. (1966a). Elementary science: A new scheme of instruction. Science, 151(3706), 49-53.
Gagne, R. M. (1966b). Varieties of learning and the concept of discovery. In L. S. Shulman & E. R. Keislar (Eds.), Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 135-150). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Gagne, R. M. (1973). Learning and instructional sequence. In F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 3-33). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Gray, R. (2014). The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry. Science Education, 98(2), 327-341.
Ha, H., & Kim, H.-B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75.
Hodson, D. (1986). Rethinking the role and status of observation in science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(4), 381-396.
Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135.
Hodson, D. (1998). Science fiction: The continuing mispresentation of science in the school curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 6(2), 191-216.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591-607.
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 (pp. 999-1021). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kim, Y.-C. (2016). Qualitative research methodology I (3rd ed.). Paju: Academy Press.
Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science & Education, 1, 273-299.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquirybased teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Livermore, A. H. (1966). AAAS Commission on science education: Elementary science program. Journal of Chemical Education, 43, 270-272.
Millar, R. (1989). What is 'scientific method' and can it be taught? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Skills and processes in science education: A critical analysis (pp. 47-62). London, UK: Routledge.
Millar, R. (1991). A means to an end: The role of processes in science education. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science (pp. 43-52). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 16-31) London, UK: Routledge.
Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Norris, S. P. (1985). The philosophical basis of observation in science and science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(9), 817-833.
Oh, P. S. (2019). Features of modeling-based abductive reasoning as a disciplinary practice of inquiry in earth science: Cases of novice students solving a geological problem. Science & Education, 28, 731-757.
Oh, J., & Oh, P. S. (2017). An exploration of the possibility of implementing 'responsive teaching' (RT) in elementary science curriculum. Journal of Koran Elementary Science Education, 36(3), 227-245.
Osborne, J. (1998). Science education without a laboratory? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 156-175). London, UK: Routledge.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177-196.
Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understanding its practices philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sanderson, B. A., & Kratochvil, D. W. (1971). Science-A Process Approach, product development report no. 8. Washington, D.C.: Office of Program Planning and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 064 066)
Sears, P. B., & Kessen, W. (1964). Statement of purposes and objectives of science education in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 3-6.
Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing "science practice" in learning setting. Science Education, 99(6), 1033-1040.
The Ministry of Education (1992). High school curriculum (I). Seoul: The Ministry of Education.
The Ministry of Education (2014). Science 3-1. Seoul: Mirae-N.
The Ministry of Education (2015). Science curriculum. Sejong: The Ministry of Education.
The Ministry of Education (2018a). Science 3-1 teachers' guide. Seoul: Visang.
The Ministry of Education (2018b). Science 3-1. Seoul: Visang.
Wellington, J. J. (1981). ‘What's supposed to happen, sir?' Some problems with discovery learning. School Science Review, 63(222), 167-173.
Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a re-appraisal. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 3-15). London, UK: Routledge.
Wideen, M. F. (1975). Comparison of student outcomes for Science-A Process approach and traditional science teaching for third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classes: A product evaluation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(1), 31-39.
*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.