"°úÇй®È­±³À°"

2007-03-25 (Vol 4, No 3)

·Î±×ÀÎ | À¥Áø | ÇѸ¶´ç

¸ÕÁ£±Û  |  ´ÙÀ½±Û  |  Â÷·Ê

±¹Á¦Àû °úÇб³À°Çмú³í¹® ¿ä¾à°ú ¿Ü±¹ °úÇб³À° ¹× ±¹Á¦È­

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), March 2007

[³í¹® ¿ä¾à1]

Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the national science foundation's local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative
Àü¹®¼º °³¹ßÀº Ç¥ÁØÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀ» ½ÇÇöÇÒ ¼ö Àִ°¡? ±³»çÀÇ ÁÖµµ·Â ½ÅÀåÀÌ ±¹°¡°úÇÐÀç´ÜÀÇ Áö¿ª ½Ã½ºÅÛ º¯È­¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

Eric R. Banilower, Daniel J. Heck, Iris R. Weiss

Abstract
Professional development is seen as one of the major levers for aligning science instruction in the USA with the vision put forth by national standards documents. Although there is a growing consensus regarding what constitutes effective professional development, there is little empirical evidence to support this consensus. This study examines the impact of professional development that is content-based, situated in classroom practice, and sustained over time on teacher attitudes, perceptions of preparedness, and classroom practices. It utilizes longitudinal data from the National Science Foundation's Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement Initiative (LSC), collected from 42 projects over a span of 7 years. The professional development model used in the LSCs differed from previous initiatives in that it targeted all teachers in a jurisdiction and emphasized preparing teachers to implement project-designated instructional materials. Analyses of the data provide evidence that this model for professional development has an impact on teachers and their classroom practices. In addition, the analyses found that teachers' perception of principal support for Standards-based science instruction is an important predictor of these outcomes.

±³»ç Àü¹®¼º °³¹ßÀº ¹Ì±¹¿¡¼­ °úÇÐ ¼ö¾÷À» ±¹°¡Ç¥ÁØ ¸ñÇ¥¿¡ µµ´Þ½ÃÅ°´Â ÁÖ¿äÇÑ ¹æ¹ý °¡¿îµ¥ Çϳª·Î ¿©°ÜÁø´Ù. È¿°úÀûÀÎ Àü¹®¼º °³¹ßÀ» ±¸¼ºÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀΰ¡¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ÇÑ °¡Áö ÇÕÀÇÁ¡ÀÌ Áõ´ëÇÏ°í ÀÖÁö¸¸, ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ÇÕÀÇÁ¡À» ÁöÁöÇÏ´Â °æÇèÀûÀÎ Áõ°Å´Â °ÅÀÇ ¾ø´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸´Â ³»¿ë(content)¿¡ ±â¹ÝÀ» µÎ°í ÀÖ°í, ±³½Ç ¼ö¾÷¿¡ »óȲÀÌ ¸ÂÃß¾îÁ® ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, ±³»çÀÇ Åµµ¿Í Áغñ¼º°ú °ü·ÃµÈ Àü¹®¼º °³¹ßÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â ±³»çÀÇ ÁÖµµ ´É·Â ÁõÁøÀ» Åë¾È ±¹°¡°úÇÐÀç´ÜÀÇ Áö¿ª ½Ã½ºÅÛ º¯È­(Local Systemic Change, LSC)·ÎºÎÅÍ ³ª¿Â, 7³â¿¡ °ÉÄ£ 42°³ÀÇ ÇÁ·ÎÁ§Æ®¸¦ ÅëÇØ ¼öÁýµÈ Á¾´ÜÀûÀÎ µ¥ÀÌÅ͸¦ È°¿ëÇÑ´Ù. LSC¿¡¼­ »ç¿ëµÈ Àü¹®¼º °³¹ß ¸ðµ¨Àº °üÇÒ ±¸¿ª¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ¸ðµç ±³»çµéÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ°í ÇÁ·ÎÁ§Æ®·Î ÁöÁ¤µÈ ¼ö¾÷ ÀÚ·áµéÀ» ÅõÀÔÇϵµ·Ï ÁغñÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» °­Á¶ÇÑ´Ù´Â Á¡¿¡¼­ ÀÌÀüÀÇ ÁÖµµ ´É·Âµé(initiatives)°ú ´Þ¶ú´Ù. ÀÌ µ¥ÀÌÅ͸¦ ÅëÇÑ ºÐ¼® °á°ú´Â Àü¹®¼º °³¹ßÀ» À§ÇÑ ÀÌ ¸ðµ¨ÀÌ ±³»ç¿¡°Ô ±×¸®°í ±³»çµéÀÇ ±³½Ç ¼ö¾÷¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» Áشٴ Áõ°Å¸¦ Á¦°øÇÑ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ, ÀÌ ºÐ¼®À» ÅëÇؼ­, Ç¥ÁØ¿¡ ±âÃÊÇÑ °úÇÐ ¼ö¾÷À» À§ÇÑ ÁÖ¿ä Áö¿ø¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±³»çÀÇ ÀνÄÀÌ ¸ñÇ¥ ´Þ¼ºÀÇ Áß¿äÇÑ ¿¹¾ðÀÚÀÓÀ» ¹ß°ßÇÏ¿´´Ù.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[³í¹® ¿ä¾à 2]

Reforming practice or modifying reforms?: Elementary teachers' response to the tools of reform
¼ö¾÷À» °³ÇõÇÒ °ÍÀΰ¡ ¶Ç´Â °³ÇõÀ» ¼öÁ¤ÇÒ °ÍÀΰ¡?: °³Çõµµ±¸¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÃÊµî ±³»çµéÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀ

Leigh K. Smith, Sherry A. Southerland

Abstract
Understanding the interaction between internally constructed and externally imposed aspects of the teaching context may be the missing link between calls for school reform and teachers' interpretation and implementation of that reform. Although the context of the local school culture has a profound impact on teachers, there are other external forces that are specifically aimed at influencing teachers' pedagogical and curricular decisions. These externally imposed aspects of context include some of the existing tools of reform, such as national standards, mandated state core curricula, and related criterion-referenced testing. However, little is known about how these reform tools impact teachers' thinking about science and science teaching or how teachers respond to such tools. This study examined the interactions between individual teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning science in elementary school and the tools of reform that are imposed upon them. Comparative case studies were conducted in which two elementary teachers' science instruction, teaching context, and related beliefs were examined, described, and analyzed. In this study, the teachers' fundamental beliefs about science and what it means to teach and learn science influenced their interpretations of the sometimes contradictory messages of reform as they are represented in the standards, mandated curriculum, and end-of-level tests. Suggestions about what these findings mean for needed aspects of teacher professional development are offered.
±³¼ö »óȲ¿¡ ´ëÇØ ³»¸éÀûÀ¸·Î ±¸Á¶È­µÈ Ãø¸é°ú ¿ÜÀûÀ¸·Î °­¿äµÈ Ãø¸éÀÇ »óÈ£ÀÛ¿ëÀ» ÀÌÇØÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº Çб³°³ÇõÀ» À§ÇÑ ¿ä±¸¿Í Çб³°³Çõ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±³»çÀÇ Çؼ®°ú ÅõÀÔ »çÀÌÀÇ ¿ì¸®°¡ ³õÄ¡°í ÀÖ´Â ¿¬°áÀÏ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. Áö¿ªÇб³¹®È­ÀÇ »óȲÀÌ ±³»ç¿¡°Ô ±íÀº ¿µÇâÀ» ÁØ´ÙÇÒÁö¶óµµ, ±³»çÀÇ ±³¼ö¹ý°ú ±³À°°úÁ¤ °áÁ¤¿¡ º»ÁúÀûÀ¸·Î ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖ´Â ´Ù¸¥ ¿ÜÀûÀÎ ÈûµéÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¿ÜºÎÀûÀ¸·Î °­¿äµÈ »óȲÀÇ Ãø¸éÀº ±¹°¡Ç¥ÁØ, À§ÀÓµÈ ÁÖÀÇ Çٽɱ³À°°úÁ¤, °ü·ÃµÈ Ç¥ÁØÈ­µÈ ½ÃÇè°ú °°Àº ÇöÁ¸ÇÏ´Â °³ÇõÀÇ µµ±¸µéÀÌ ¾î´À Á¤µµ Æ÷ÇԵȴÙ. ±×·¯³ª ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ °³Çõµµ±¸µéÀÌ °úÇаú °úÇб³¼ö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±³»çµéÀÇ »ý°¢¿¡ ¾î¶»°Ô ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖ´ÂÁö ¶Ç´Â ±³»çµéÀÌ ±×·¯ÇÑ µµ±¸µé¿¡ ¾î¶»°Ô ¹ÝÀÀÇÏ´ÂÁö¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â °ÅÀÇ ¾Ë·ÁÁ® ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸´Â ÃʵîÇб³¿¡¼­ °úÇÐ ±³¼ö ÇнÀ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °³º°±³»çµéÀÇ ½Å³äµé°ú °³Çõµµ±¸µé »çÀÌÀÇ »óÈ£ÀÛ¿ëÀ» Á¶»çÇß´Ù. ºñ±³»ç·Ê¿¬±¸µé¿¡¼­´Â µÎ ¸íÀÇ Ãʵ»çµéÀÇ °úÇмö¾÷, ±³¼ö »óȲ, °ü·ÃµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Â ½Å³äµéÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ°í ±â¼úÇÏ°í ºÐ¼®ÇÏ´Â ÀÛ¾÷ÀÌ ¼öÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­, °úÇаú °úÇÐÀ» °¡¸£Ä¡°í ¹è¿ì´Â °ÍÀÌ ÀǹÌÇÏ´Â °Í¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±³»çÀÇ ±âº»ÀûÀÎ ½Å³äµéÀº Ç¥Áصé, À§ÀÓµÈ ±³À°°úÁ¤, ¸¶Áö¸· ´Ü°èÀÇ ¼öÁØÅ×½ºÆ®¿¡ ±â¼úµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Â °³ÇõÀÇ ¸Þ½ÃÁö¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ ¶§¶§·Î ¸ð¼øµÈ Çؼ®À» ³»¸®´Âµ¥ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÃÆ´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¹ß°ßÁ¡µéÀ» ÅëÇؼ­ ±³»çÀÇ Àü¹®¼º °³¹ß ¿¡¼­ ¿ä±¸µÇ´Â °ßÇصéÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇÏ¿´´Ù.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[³í¹® ¿ä¾à 3]

Measuring instructional congruence in elementary science classrooms: Pedagogical and methodological components of a theoretical framework
ÃÊµî °úÇÐ ±³½Ç¿¡¼­ ¼ö¾÷ÀÇ ÀûÇÕ¼º ÃøÁ¤Çϱâ : ÀÌ·ÐÀû °³³äƲÀÇ ±³¼ö¹ýÀûÀÌ°í ¹æ¹ý·ÐÀûÀÎ ¿ä¼Òµé

Aurolyn Luykx, Okhee Lee

Abstract
This article is situated within a theoretical framework, instructional congruence, articulating issues of student diversity with the demands of academic disciplines. In the context of a large-scale study targeting elementary school science, the article describes a research instrument that aims to combine the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches to classroom data. The project-developed classroom observation guideline is a series of detailed scales that produce numerical ratings based on qualitative observations of different aspects of classroom practice. The article's objectives are both pedagogical and methodological, reflecting the dual functionality of the instrument: (a) to concretize theoretical constructs articulating academic disciplines with student diversity in ways that are useful for rethinking classroom practice; and (b) to take advantage of the strengths of qualitative educational research, but within a quantitative analytical framework that may be applied across large numbers of classrooms.

ÀÌ ³í¹®Àº ÀÌ·ÐÀû °³³äƲÀÇ ¼ö¾÷ ÀûÇÕ¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °ÍÀ̸ç, Çб¸ÀûÀÎ ÈÆ·ÃÀ» ¿ä±¸ÇÏ´Â ÇлýµéÀÇ ´Ù¾ç¼ºÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ ºÐ¸íÈ÷ ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÃʵîÇб³ °úÇÐÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ´Â ´ë±Ô¸ðÀÇ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ ÀÌ ³í¹®Àº ±³½Ç µ¥ÀÌÅÍ¿¡ ÁúÀû ¡¤ ¾çÀûÀ¸·Î Á¢±ÙÇÏ´Â ´É·ÂÀ» °áºÎ½ÃÅ°´Âµ¥ ÃÊÁ¡À» µÐ Á¶»ç µµ±¸¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ ±â¼úÇÑ´Ù. ÇÁ·ÎÁ§Æ® °³¹ßÀ» À§ÇÑ ±³½ÇÀ» °üÂûÇÏ´Â ¾È³»Áöħ¼­´Â ±³½Ç¼ö¾÷ÀÇ ¼­·Î ´Ù¸¥ Ãø¸éÀÇ Á¤¼ºÀûÀÎ °üÂû¿¡ ±âÃÊÇؼ­ ¼öÄ¡ÀûÀÎ µî±ÞÀ» ¸Å±â´Â ¼¼ºÎÀûÀΠôµµÀÇ ¿¬¼Ó¹°ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº µµ±¸ÀÇ ÀÌÁßÀû ±â´ÉÀ» ¹Ý¿µÇÏ´Â ±³¼ö¹ýÀûÀÌ°í ¹æ¹ý·ÐÀûÀÎ °ÍÀÌ´Ù : (a) ±³½Ç ¼ö¾÷À» Àç°íÇϴµ¥ À¯¿ëÇÑ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ´Ù¾çÇÑ Çлýµé¿¡°Ô ¸Â´Â Çб¸ÀûÀÎ ÈƷõéÀ» ºÐ¸íÈ÷ ÇÏ´Â ÀÌ·ÐÀûÀÎ ±¸Á¶¹°À» ±¸Ã¼È­½ÃÅ°´Â °Í (b) ¾ÆÁÖ ¸¹Àº ÇÐ±Þ ¼ö¿¡ Àû¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Á¤·®ÀûÀÎ ºÐ¼®Æ² ¾È¿¡¼­ Á¤¼ºÀûÀÎ ±³À°¿¬±¸ÀÇ ´É·ÂÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ´Â °Í.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[³í¹® ¿ä¾à 4]

Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic thinking
°³³äµµ : ¿ªµ¿Àû »ç°í¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½ÇÇè

Natalia Derbentseva, Frank Safayeni, Alberto, J. Caῇas

Abstract
Three experiments were conducted to examine the effects of map structure, concept quantification, and focus question on dynamic thinking during a Concept Map (CMap) construction task. The first experiment compared cyclic and hierarchical structures. The second experiment examined the impact of the quantification of the header concept in the map. The third experiment explored the effect of the focus question on the map. For all three experiments, the content of the CMaps was assessed for the number of dynamic propositions and the number of quantified concepts. The results show that the cyclic structure, the quantification of the header concept, and the focus question How significantly increased dynamic thinking. The studies, the theoretical background, and the implications of the findings are discussed.

°³³äµµ¸¦ ±¸¼ºÇÏ´Â µ¿¾È ¿ªµ¿ÀûÀÎ »ç°í¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °³³äµµ ±¸Á¶, °³³ä ¼ö·®È­, ±×¸®°í ÃÊÁ¡Áú¹®ÀÇ È¿°úÀ» Á¶»çÇϱâ À§Çؼ­ ¼¼ °¡Áö ½ÇÇèÀÌ ¼öÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù. ù ¹ø° ½ÇÇèÀº ¼øȯÀûÀÌ°í À§°èÀûÀÎ ±¸Á¶µéÀ» ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÎ ¹ø° ½ÇÇèÀº °³³äµµ¿¡¼­ »óÀ§°³³äÀ» ¼ö·®È­ÇÏ´Â ¿µÇâ·ÂÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¼¼ ¹ø° ½ÇÇèÀº °³³äµµ¿¡¼­ ÃÊÁ¡Áú¹®ÀÇ È¿°ú¸¦ Ž±¸ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¼¼ °¡Áö ½ÇÇè ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­, °³³äµµÀÇ ³»¿ëÀº ¿ªµ¿ÀûÀÎ Á¦¾ÈµéÀÇ ¼ö¿Í ¼ö·®È­µÈ °³³äµéÀÇ ¼ö·Î Æò°¡µÇ¾ú´Ù. °á°ú´Â ¼øȯÀûÀÎ ±¸Á¶, »óÀ§ °³³äÀÇ ¼ö·®È­ ±×¸®°í ÃÊÁ¡Áú¹®ÀÌ ¿ªµ¿ÀûÀÎ »ç°í¸¦ ¾ó¸¶³ª À¯ÀǹÌÇÏ°Ô ÁõÁø½ÃÄ×´ÂÁö¸¦ º¸¿©ÁØ´Ù. ¿¬±¸µé, ÀÌ·ÐÀû ¹è°æ, ±×¸®°í °á°ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½Ã»çÁ¡µéÀÌ ³íÀǵǾú´Ù.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[³í¹® ¿ä¾à 5]

Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth
µµ½ÃÀÇ Àú¼ÒµæÃþ ÇлýµéÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î °úÇп¡ ´ëÇÑ Áö¼ÓÀûÀÎ Èï¹Ì °³¹ßÇϱâ

Sreyashi Jhumki Basu, Angela Calabrese Barton

Abstract
This study draws upon qualitative case study to investigate the connections between the funds of knowledge that urban, high-poverty students bring to science learning and the development of a sustained interest in science. We found that youth developed a sustained interest in science when: (1) their science experiences connected with how they envision their own futures; (2) learning environments supported the kinds of social relationships students valued; and (3) science activities supported students' sense of agency for enacting their views on the purpose of science.

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸´Â µµ½Ã¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ±ØºóÃþÀÇ ÇлýµéÀÌ °úÇÐ ÇнÀÀ» Çϵµ·Ï ÇÏ´Â Áö½ÄÀÇ ÃàÀû°ú °úÇп¡¼­ÀÇ Áö¼ÓÀûÀÎ Èï¹Ì¸¦ °³¹ßÇÏ´Â °Í »çÀÌÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ Á¶»çÇϱâ À§Çؼ­ Á¤¼ºÀûÀÎ »ç·Ê ¿¬±¸¸¦ ¼öÇàÇß´Ù. ¿ì¸®´Â ÇлýµéÀÌ °úÇп¡ ´ëÇÑ Áö¼ÓÀûÀÎ Èï¹Ì¸¦ ¾ðÁ¦ °³¹ßÇÏ´ÂÁö ¹ß°ßÇÏ¿´´Ù : (1) ÇлýµéÀÇ °úÇÐ °æÇèÀÌ ±×µéÀÌ ±×¸®´Â ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ¹Ì·¡¿Í ¾î¶»°Ôµç ¿¬°üµÇ¾úÀ» ¶§ ; (2) ÇнÀ ȯ°æÀÌ ÇлýµéÀÌ °¡Ä¡·Ó°Ô »ý°¢ÇÏ´Â ¿©·¯ °¡Áö »çȸÀû °ü°è¸¦ Áö¿øÇÒ ¶§ ; (3) °úÇÐÀÇ ¸ñÀû¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇлýµéÀÇ °üÁ¡À» È°¼ºÈ­½ÃÅ°±â À§Çؼ­ °úÇÐ È°µ¿µéÀÌ ÇлýµéÀÇ È°µ¿À» Áö¿øÇÏ¿´À» ¶§¿´´Ù.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[³í¹® ¿ä¾à 6]

What is the role of constructivist teachers within faculty communication networks?
±³»ç Áý´Ü ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅë ³×Æ®¿öÅ© ¾È¿¡¼­ ±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³»çÀÇ ¿ªÇÒÀº ¹«¾ùÀΰ¡?

Eugene Judson, Anton E. Lawson

Abstract
Using the biology faculty of one high school (n = 9) and the mathematics faculty of another (n = 16), this study tested the hypothesis that constructivist teachers play an active role within teacher communication networks (the constructivist-teacher hypothesis). This hypothesis contrasts with the view that constructivist teachers operate alone and largely severed from communications among colleagues. Two types of representations of communication patterns among faculty members (i.e., sociographs) were created and analyzed for each faculty. One type of sociograph plotted communications concerning content/pedagogical issues while the other type plotted social/informal communications. Trained raters assessed constructivist-teaching practices using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). Positive relationships were found between constructivist-teaching practices and the frequency and significance of communications within both faculties - more so for content/pedagogical issues than for social/informal communications. Importantly, peers sought out constructivist teachers more often than they did traditional teachers, presumably seeking advice regarding teaching practice. Results support the constructivist-teacher hypothesis and indicate that constructivist teachers are not isolated from their peers. Instead, they appear to play an active role, particularly when colleagues are discussing issues related to content and pedagogy.
ÇÑ °íµîÇб³¿¡ ÀÖ´Â 9¸íÀÇ »ý¹° ±³»ç´Ü°ú 16¸íÀÇ ¼öÇÐ ±³»ç´ÜÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ±³»ç ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅë ³×Æ®¿öÅ© ¾È¿¡¼­ ±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³»çµéÀÌ Àû±ØÀûÀÎ ¿ªÇÒÀ» ¼öÇàÇÑ´Ù´Â °¡¼³ (±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³»ç °¡¼³)À» ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ °ËÁõÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌ °¡¼³Àº ±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³»çµéÀÌ È¦·Î ±×¸®°í µ¿·áµé°úÀÇ ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅëÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾ÆÁÖ °Ý¸®µÈ ä·Î ÇൿÇÑ´Ù´Â °üÁ¡°ú ´ëÁ¶µÈ´Ù. °¢°¢ÀÇ ±³»ç´ÜÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ±³»ç´Ü ±¸¼º¿ø »çÀÌ¿¡¼­ ÀϾ´Â ´ëÇ¥ÀûÀÎ µÎ °¡ÁöÀÇ ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅë ÇüÅ (Áï, ¼Ò½Ã¿À±×·¡ÇÁ)°¡ âÁ¶µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç ºÐ¼®µÇ¾ú´Ù. ¼Ò½Ã¿À±×·¡ÇÁÀÇ ÇÑ °¡Áö ÇüÅ´ ³»¿ë/±³¼ö¹ý ¹®Á¦¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅëÀÌ ÀϾ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ̸ç, ´Ù¸¥ ÇüÅ´ »çȸÀûÀÌ°í ºñ°ø½ÄÀûÀÎ ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅëÀÌ ÀϾ´Ù´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. °³Á¤µÈ ƼĪ °üÂû ÇÁ·ÎÅäÄÝ (RTOP)À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© Àü¹®ÀûÀÎ Æò°¡´ÜÀÌ ±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³¼ö¹ý ½ÇÇàÀ» Æò°¡Çß´Ù. µÎ ±³»ç´Ü ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­ ±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³¼ö¹ý ½ÇÇà°ú ºó¹øÇÏ°í ÀǹÌÀÖ´Â ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅë »çÀÌ¿¡ ±àÁ¤ÀûÀÎ(Positive) ¿¬°ü°ü°è°¡ ÀÖÀ½ÀÌ ¹àÇôÁ³À¸¸ç, »çȸÀûÀÌ°í ºñ°ø½ÄÀûÀÎ ¹®Á¦º¸´Ù´Â ³»¿ë/±³¼ö¹ý¿¡ °üÇÑ ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅëÀ» ÇÒ ¶§ ¿¬°ü°ü°è°¡ ´õ ±í¾ú´Ù. Áß¿äÇÏ°Ôµµ µ¿·áµéÀº ±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³»çµéÀÌ ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ ±³»çµéº¸´Ù ´õ ÀÚÁÖ ±³¼ö¹ý ½ÇÇà¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© Á¶¾ðÀ» ±¸ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀ» ã¾Æ³»°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. ¿¬±¸ °á°ú´Â ±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³»ç °¡¼³À» ÁöÁöÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç ±¸¼ºÁÖÀÇ ±³»çµéÀÌ µ¿·áµé·ÎºÎÅÍ °í¸³µÇ¾î ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Ù´Â °Íµµ ³ªÅ¸³½´Ù. ±× ´ë½Å¿¡ ±×µéÀº Àû±ØÀûÀÎ ¿ªÇÒÀ» ÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, Ưº°È÷ µ¿·áµé°ú ³»¿ë°ú ±³¼ö¹ý¿¡ °üÇÏ¿© Åä·ÐÇÒ ¶§ ´õ Àû±ØÀûÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀ» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[³í¹® ¿ä¾à 7]

Responses to anomalous data obtained from repeatable experiments in the laboratory
½ÇÇè½Ç¿¡¼­ ¹Ýº¹ °¡´ÉÇÑ ½ÇÇèÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾òÀº º¯Ä¢ÀûÀÎ µ¥ÀÌÅÍ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹ÝÀÀµé

Jer-Yann Lin
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible responses to anomalous data obtained from experiments that are repeatable by carrying out additional or alternative experiments in the laboratory. Based on an analysis of responses from scientists to anomalous data taken from identification experiments on the Vinland Map, it was assumed that an additional response - uncertainty about interpretation of the data - should be considered in addition to the other eight responses reported by Chinn and Brewer [1998]. It was also assumed that a process of responses containing more than one response is possible for a given subject who is responding to a given piece of anomalous datum in the laboratory. Both assumptions were verified by examining responses of undergraduates to anomalous data obtained from repeatable laboratory experiments. The results of this study show that there are nine categories of responses: ignoring; rejection; uncertainty of validity; uncertainty of interpretation; exclusion; abeyance; reinterpretation; peripheral conceptual change; and conceptual change. Moreover, two categories of processing, anomalous data-final response (A-R process) and anomalous data-[mediators with/without intermediate responses]-final response (A-M-R process), are assessed in this study. It is suggested that science instructors could use the nine categories of responses to understand the learning characteristics of students, and also to use the A-M-R process to design suitable teaching strategies to arrive at meaningful learning.
ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ½ÇÇè½Ç¿¡¼­ Ãß°¡½ÇÇèÀ̳ª ´ë¾È½ÇÇèÀ» ¼öÇàÇÒ ¶§ ¹Ýº¹ °¡´ÉÇÑ ½ÇÇèµé·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾òÀº º¯Ä¢ÀûÀÎ µ¥ÀÌÅÍ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹ÝÀÀµéÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ºó·£µå Áöµµ(the Vinland Map) »ó¿¡ ÀÖ´Â µ¿ÀÏÇÑ ½ÇÇèÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾òÀº º¯Ä¢ÀûÀÎ µ¥ÀÌÅÍ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °úÇÐÀÚµéÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀºÐ¼®¿¡ ±âÃÊÇÏ¿©, Chinn°ú Brewer [1998]¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­ º¸°íµÈ 8°¡Áö ¹ÝÀÀ¿¡ ´õÇÏ¿© ¼÷°íµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÒ Ãß°¡ÀûÀÎ ¹ÝÀÀ (µ¥ÀÌÅÍ Çؼ®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºÒÈ®½Ç¼º) µéÀ» °¡Á¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿ª½Ã ½ÇÇè½Ç¿¡¼­ ¾òÀº º¯Ä¢ÀûÀÎ µ¥ÀÌÅÍ¿¡ ¹ÝÀÀÇÏ´Â ¿©·¯ °¡Áö ¹ÝÀÀµéÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³ª´Â ÁøÇà°úÁ¤ÀÌ Á¸ÀçÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» °¡Á¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌ µÎ °¡Áö °¡Á¤Àº ¹Ýº¹ °¡´ÉÇÑ °úÇÐ½Ç ½ÇÇèÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾òÀº º¯Ä¢ÀûÀÎ µ¥ÀÌÅÍ¿¡ ¹ÝÀÀÇÏ´Â ´ëÇлýµéÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀÀ» Á¶»çÇÔÀ¸·Î½á Áõ¸íµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú´Â 9°¡Áö ¹üÁÖÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀÀÌ ÀÖÀ½À» º¸¿© ÁØ´Ù: ¹«½Ã; °ÅºÎ; Ÿ´ç¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀǽÉ; Çؼ®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀǽÉ; ¹èÁ¦; ÁßÁö; ÀçÇؼ®; ÁÖº¯ °³³ä º¯È­; °³³äº¯È­. ´õ¿íÀÌ ÁøÇà°úÁ¤ÀÇ µÎ °¡Áö ¹üÁÖ Áï, º¯Ä¢Àû µ¥ÀÌÅÍ-ÃÖÁ¾¹ÝÀÀ (A-R process)°ú º¯Ä¢Àû µ¥ÀÌÅÍ-(Á¶Á¤ÀÚÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀÀ» Æ÷ÇÔÇϰųª Æ÷ÇÔÇÏÁö ¾Ê°Å³ª °£¿¡) ÁßÀçÀÚ-ÃÖÁ¾¹ÝÀÀ (A-M-R process) ÀÌ ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ Æò°¡µÇ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸´Â °úÇб³»çµéÀÌ ÇлýµéÀÇ ÇнÀ Ư¼ºÀ» ÀÌÇØÇϴµ¥ 9°¡Áö ¹üÁÖÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀµéÀ» »ç¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, ¶ÇÇÑ ÀǹÌÀÖ´Â ÇнÀ¿¡ µµ´ÞÇϱâ À§Çؼ­ ÀûÀýÇÑ ±³¼ö Àü·«À» ¼¼¿ì´Âµ¥ A-M-R°úÁ¤À» »ç¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ½À» Á¦¾ÈÇÑ´Ù.

÷ºÎ
JRST(March 2007)n[1].hwp

±è¿µ¹Î, ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³

°úÇй®È­±³À°¿¬±¸¼Ò