본 연구의 목적은 중학교 영재 학생들이 수행한 증거 기반 추론의 특징을 조사하는 것이었다. 연구를 위한 자료는 수도권에 위치한 한 대학교의 영재 교육원에서 중학교 영재 학생들이 비대면 방식으로 진행한 탐구 과제를 통해 수집되었다. 학생들에게 수성의 최대 이각을 관측한 자료를 제공하고 이 자료를 이용하여 수성의 공전 궤도를 작도하게 하였다. 또, 작도 전에 수성의 궤도에 대한 자신의 가설을 진술하게 하였으며 작도 결과를 증거로 삼아 수성 궤도의 모양을 추론하게 하였다. 학생들이 제출한 보고서의 내용을 분석하여 수성의 공전 궤도 모양에 관한 판단 유형을 5가지로 분류하고 가설 및 증거에 관한 추론 유형을 4가지로 분류한 후, 판단 유형에 따른 증거 기반 추론의 특징을 정리하였다. 분석 결과를 토대로, 증거 기반 추론에서는 증거에 대한 적절한 해석이 중요하고, 이론과 증거의 조화가 핵심적인 역할을 하며, 복수의 가설을 상정하는 것이 유리할 수 있음을 논의하였고, 지구과학 교육을 위한 시사점을 제안하였다.
본 연구의 목적은 중학교 영재 학생들이 수행한 증거 기반 추론의 특징을 조사하는 것이었다. 연구를 위한 자료는 수도권에 위치한 한 대학교의 영재 교육원에서 중학교 영재 학생들이 비대면 방식으로 진행한 탐구 과제를 통해 수집되었다. 학생들에게 수성의 최대 이각을 관측한 자료를 제공하고 이 자료를 이용하여 수성의 공전 궤도를 작도하게 하였다. 또, 작도 전에 수성의 궤도에 대한 자신의 가설을 진술하게 하였으며 작도 결과를 증거로 삼아 수성 궤도의 모양을 추론하게 하였다. 학생들이 제출한 보고서의 내용을 분석하여 수성의 공전 궤도 모양에 관한 판단 유형을 5가지로 분류하고 가설 및 증거에 관한 추론 유형을 4가지로 분류한 후, 판단 유형에 따른 증거 기반 추론의 특징을 정리하였다. 분석 결과를 토대로, 증거 기반 추론에서는 증거에 대한 적절한 해석이 중요하고, 이론과 증거의 조화가 핵심적인 역할을 하며, 복수의 가설을 상정하는 것이 유리할 수 있음을 논의하였고, 지구과학 교육을 위한 시사점을 제안하였다.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of evidence-based reasoning practiced by middle school gifted students. Data were collected through an online task in which middle school students in gifted education institutes of a university located in the metropolitan area, Korea, ...
The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of evidence-based reasoning practiced by middle school gifted students. Data were collected through an online task in which middle school students in gifted education institutes of a university located in the metropolitan area, Korea, performed inquiry about the shape of a planet's orbit. The students were given data of Mercury's greatest elongations and asked to draw the planet's orbit with the data. Each of the students was also asked to provide his or her hypothesis of Mercury's orbit before the drawing and to reason about the orbit again using his or her own drawing as evidence. The content analysis of the students' reports revealed 5 different types of judgement about the shape of Mercury's orbit, 4 types of reasoning about the hypothesis and evidence, and the characteristics of evidence-based reasoning within the judgement types. Based upon the analysis results, the importance of proper interpretations of evidence in evidence-based reasoning, the core role of the theory-evidence coordination, and the usefulness of working with multiple hypotheses were discussed. In addition, implications for earth science education were suggested.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of evidence-based reasoning practiced by middle school gifted students. Data were collected through an online task in which middle school students in gifted education institutes of a university located in the metropolitan area, Korea, performed inquiry about the shape of a planet's orbit. The students were given data of Mercury's greatest elongations and asked to draw the planet's orbit with the data. Each of the students was also asked to provide his or her hypothesis of Mercury's orbit before the drawing and to reason about the orbit again using his or her own drawing as evidence. The content analysis of the students' reports revealed 5 different types of judgement about the shape of Mercury's orbit, 4 types of reasoning about the hypothesis and evidence, and the characteristics of evidence-based reasoning within the judgement types. Based upon the analysis results, the importance of proper interpretations of evidence in evidence-based reasoning, the core role of the theory-evidence coordination, and the usefulness of working with multiple hypotheses were discussed. In addition, implications for earth science education were suggested.
Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Nagashima, S. O., and Wilson, M., 2010, The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15, 123-141.
Chinn, C. A. and Brewer, W. F., 1998, An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654.
Chinn, C. A. and Malhotra, B. A., 2002, Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 327-343.
Ha, M., 2016, Exploring cognitive biases limiting rational problem solving and debiasing methods using science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(6), 935-946.
Ibrahlm, B., Ding, L., Mollohan, K. N., and Stammen, A., 2016, Scientific reasoning: Theory evidence coordination in physics-based and non-physics-based tasks. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(2), 93-105.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., and Duschl, R. A., 2000, "Doing the lesson" or "Doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
Koslowski, B., 1996, Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA, 298 p.
Kuhn, D., 2004, What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In Goswami, U. (ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development, Blackwell Publishing Company, Malden, MA, 371-393.
Manz, E., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L., 2020, Rethinking the classroom science investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1148-1174.
NGSS Lead States, 2013, Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 532 p.
Oh, P. S., 2015, A theoretical review and trial application of the 'resources-based view' (RBV) as an alternative cognitive theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 971-984.
Oh, P. S., 2018, An exploratory study of the 'method of multiple working hypotheses' as a method of earth scientific inquiry. The Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 39(5), 501-515.
Oh, P. S., 2020, A critical review of the skill-based approach to scientific inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(2), 141-150.
Optiz, A., Heene, M., and Fischer, F., 2017, Measuring scientific reasoning: A review of test instruments. Educational Research and Evaluation, 23(3-4), 78-101.
Park, J., Chang, B., Yoon, H., and Pak, S. J., 1993, Middle school student's evidence evaluation about light and shadow. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 13(2), 135-145.
Park, J. and Kim, I., 1998, Analysis of students' responses to contradictory results obtained by simple observation or controlling variables. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 365-376.
Park, J. Kim, I., Kim, M., and Lee, M., 2001, Analysis of students' processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1219-1236.
Shin, M.-K., Shin, K.-H., and Oh, P. S., 2007, A study of college students' geometric conceptions posed in a earth science activity context. Journal of the Society for the International Gifted in Science, 1(2), 117-123.
Shin, S., Lee, J.-K., and Ha, M., 2018, Motivated reasoning as obstacle of scientific thinking: Focus on the cases of next-generation researchers in the field of science and technology. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(5), 635-647.
The Ministry of Education, 2015a, The general guideline of elementary and secondary school curriculum. The Ministry of Education, Sejong, Korea, 41 p.
The Ministry of Education, 2015b, Science curriculum. The Ministry of Education, Sejong, Korea, 274 p.
Zeineddin, A. and Abd-El-Khalick, F., 2010, Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1064-1093.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.