30 4, pp. 634 645 (2011) ( ) () The Analysis on the Pattern and Proposition Process of Science Inquiry Problems Proposed by Elementary General Students and Science-Gifted Ones Lee, Hyeong Cheol Jeon, Eun Yeong (Busan National University of Education) (Junghyun Elementary School) ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the analysis on the pattern and proposition process of science inquiry problems proposed by elementary school general students and science-gifted ones. The science inquiry problems were composed of one quantitative problem and one qualitative problem. To conduct this study, general students and science-gifted ones of grade 4 and 5 in elementary schools were selected. The results of this study were as follows. In both quantitative and qualitative problem, most of the students, including all the sciencegifted students and general ones, used N-IP pattern and S2 proposition process strategy to propose inquiry problems. In the relationship between proposed problem and proposition process strategy, when using S2 strategy, N-IP problems were chiefly proposed. And when using S2, S3 strategies, more patterns of inquiry problems were generated than using any other strategies. Drawing proposition processes of inquiry problem into map, science-gifted students used much more proposition process strategies than general ones. Key words : elementary students, science inquiry problem, the pattern and the proposition process I. 2008 9 2, 1, 1 5 (, http://www. sciencetimes.co.kr).. 1 1.48, 3.24 (Zuckerman, 1977)., Simonton (1999),.,., Runco & Dow(1999). Bronowski(1974)
< > :., (Runco & Nemiro, 1994). Austin (1978)..., (, 2008). Newton? (, 1992). 2007 (, 2009),,,,,,,,,,., (Kuhn, 1970).,,.,. (2005) (2008). (2005), 6 7. (2008),,.,.,., (Torrance, 1962; Brown & Walter, 1985; Kay, 1994; Brugman, 1995;), (Zimmerman, 1990)., (, 2002;, 2006;, 2007;, 2007).,...???
30 4, pp. 634 645 (2011) II B J 4, 5 1 B 4, 5 1. 1. (, 2009). 10 80 10,. (2008),,. 1 2.,., 1, 20,. 표 1., ( ) 4: 16, 16 34 5: 14, 15 29 4: 15, 5 20 5: 13, 7 20 101 4, 5 8 pilot test. 2 2. (2005) W-IP(, What Inquiry Problem) I-IP(, Instrument Inquiry Problem). pilot test,., Un-IP (, Unscientific Inquiry Problem). pilot test, 3. (2008) (S1), (S2), (S3), (S4), (S5) 5 (S6). III 1) 정량적문제에대해학생들이제안한탐구문 제유형의분석. 사례 1: 붕산대신소금이나설탕가루를사용하면결과가어떻게될까? -> N-IP 사례 2: 물의양을달리하여실험하면? -> R-IP 사례 3: 붕산은어떤액체에녹을까? -> I-IP 4. 4
< > : 표 2. N-IP N-IP N-IP R-IP R-IP R-IP WH-IP WH-IP WH-IP W-IP I-IP A-IP A-IP A-IP E-IP E-IP E-IP Un-IP (New-Result Inquiry Problems), )? (Relationship Inquiry Problems) )? (Why-how Inquiry Problems) )? (Instrument Inquiry Problem) )? (Application Inquiry Problems) )?( ) (Experimental Inquiry Problems) )? (Unscientific Inquiry Problem) )? 표 3. S1: S1: S1: S3: S7: S2: S2: S3: S4: S2: S3: S5: S4: S4:. S6: S5: S5: S6:, 6.22, 8.45, 5 2.48, 7.55 4, 5. Un-IP
30 4, pp. 634 645 (2011) 표 4. (%) N-IP R-IP WH-IP I-IP A-IP E-IP Un-IP 4 5 2.31(37.1) 0.28( 4.5) 0.31(5.0) 1.63(26.2) 0.03(0.5) 0.16(2.6) 1.5(24.1) 6.22 4.75(56.2) 05( 5.9) 0.45(5.3) 1.8(21.3) 0.3(3.6) 0(0.0) 0.65(7.7) 8.45 1.62(65.3) 0.34(13.7) 0.07(2.8) 0.07(2.8) 0(0.0) 0.07(2.8) 0.31(12.5) 2.48 4.7(62.3) 1.25(16.6) 0.4(5.3) 0.7(9.3) 0.15(2.0) 0.15(2.0) 0.2( 2.7) 7.55., 4 5. 5 2, 4 I-IP Un-IP. Z Scardiamalia & Bereiter(1992) (wonderment)., 4 N-IP, I- IP, Un-IP. 5 N- IP, R- IP, Un-IP, N-IP, R-IP, I-IP.,., (2005) (2008), N-IP, R-IP 5. 2) 탐구문제제안과정전략의분석. 사례 1: 붕산대신소금이나설탕가루를사용하면결과가어떻게될까?(N-IP) 이유 : 가루마다성질이다르므로 (S3) 결과가달리나올것같다 (S4). 사례 2: 물의양을달리하여실험하면?(R-IP) 이유 : 표를보면온도를변화시켜붕산의녹는양을보는것같은데 (S1) 온도는일정하게두고물의양을변화시켜붕산의녹는정도를알아보고싶다 (S2). 사례 3: 붕산은어떤액체에녹을까?(I-IP) 이유 : 용액의성질이달라지면붕산이녹지않을수도있을것같아서 (S4) 5. 4 6.34, 10.5, 5 2.72, 11.45. 1 4 1.02, 1.24, 5 1.10, 1.52 4 5,. 4 S2, S6, S1, S2, S6, S3. 5 S2, S1, S3, S2, S1, S4. 4 S2, S6, 5 S2, S1., S4 4 0.5%, 5 0%
< > : 표 5. (%) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 4 5 1.63(25.7) 2.09(33.0) 0.59(9.3) 0.03( 0.5) 0.16(2.5) 1.84(29.0) 6.34(1.02) * 1( 9.5) 4.65(44.3) 1.55(14.8) 1.15(11.0) 0(0.0) 2.15(20.5) 10.5(1.24) * 0.41(15.1) 1.69(62.1) 0.34(12.5) 0( 0.0) 0(0.0) 0.28(10.3) 2.72(1.10) * 2.7(23.6) 5.9(51.5) 1.15(10.0) 1.3(11.4) 0(0.0) 0.40( 3.5) 11.45(1.52) * * 1 S4 4 11.0%, 5 11.4%. (2005) (2008). S3, S2, S2, S1. 관계 3) 제안된탐구문제유형과제안과정전략의 6 7, 4, 5., S2 표 6. 4 / ( / ) N-IP R-IP WH-IP I-IP A-IP E-IP Un-IP S1 4/9 7/2 10/5 23/1 0/0 3/2 6/1 53/20 S2 69/82 1/1 0/0 1/3 0/1 0/0 1/1 72/88 S3 3/15 0/0 0/1 5/11 0/1 1/3 10/0 19/31 S4 0/16 1/3 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 1/20 S5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 S6 3/2 0/4 0/4 21/23 0/0 0/0 30/11 54/44 79/124 9/10 10/10 50/38 0/3 4/5 47/13 199/203 표 7. 5 / ( / ) N-IP R-IP WH-IP I-IP A-IP E-IP Un-IP S1 5/34 3/10 2/8 0/1 0/0 2/2 1/0 13/55 S2 42/92 7/21 0/0 0/3 0/0 2/3 0/0 51/119 S3 5/14 0/2 0/0 2/5 0/2 1/0 2/0 10/23 S4 0/15 0/11 0/0 0/3 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/29 S5 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 S6 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/3 0/1 0/0 7/4 8/8 53/155 10/44 2/8 2/15 0/3 5/5 10/4 82/234
30 4, pp. 634 645 (2011),, N-IP. S1. 4 5 S6, Un-IP.,. A-IP,. (2005) (2008). 1 2 4, 5 5.. 1) 정성적문제에대해학생들이제안한탐구문 제유형의분석. 사례 1: 물의양이쇠막대가보이는각도에영향을줄까? R-IP 사례 2: 일반태양광선밑에서실험하면어떻게될까? N-IP 사례 3: 물의종류도영향을미칠까? R-IP 8, 4 3.59, 7.75, 그림 1. 5 그림 2. 5
< > : 표 8. (%) N-IP R-IP WH-IP I-IP A-IP E-IP Un-IP 4 5 2.09(58.2) 0.38(10.6) 0.19(5.3) 0.59(16.4) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0.34(9.5) 3.59 4.2(54.2) 0.65( 8.4) 1.05(13.6) 1.25(16.1) 0.15(1.9) 0.05(0.7) 0.4(5.2) 7.75 2.24(61.2) 0.24( 6.6) 0.41(11.2) 0.34( 9.3) 0.03(0.8) 0.03(0.8) 0.34(9.3) 3.66 3.6(46.5) 1.85(23.9) 0.65( 8.4) 0.95(12.3) 0.05(0.7) 0.2(2.6) 0.45(5.8) 7.75 5 3.66, 7.75 4, 5.., 4, 5. (Miyake & Norman, 1979), 6 1 4, 5, 3 2., 4 N-IP, I-IP, R-IP, N-IP, I-IP, WH-IP. 5 N-IP, WH-IP, I-IP, N-IP, R-IP, I-IP. N-IP, I-IP, R-IP, Un-Ip. (2008) N-IP, WH-IP,. 2) 탐구문제제안과정전략의분석. 사례 1: 물의양이쇠막대가보이는각도에영향을줄까?(R-IP) -> 이유 : 사진에서는모두물의양이같다 (S1). 물의양이다르면혹시더크게보이거나더작게보일것같은데 (S4) 그것을알고싶어서 (S2) 사례 2: 일반태양광선밑에서실험하면어떻게될까? (N-IP) -> 이유 : 태양광선은가시광선, 전자파등여러가지빛이모두포함되어있다 (S4). 그것이굴절에어떤영향을미칠지궁금하다 (S2). 사례 3: 물의종류도영향을미칠까?(R-IP) 알고싶은내용 : (R-IP) -> 이유 : 액체의종류에따라밀도가다르다 (S3). 이것이쇠막대가꺾여보이는것에영향을미칠지실험해보고싶다 (S2). 9. 4 4.25, 9.35, 5 4.00, 12.55. 1 4 1.18, 1.21, 5 1.09, 1.62. 4 5, 4 5. 4 S2, S1, S6, S2, S3, S6
30 4, pp. 634 645 (2011) 표 9. (%) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 4 5 0.78(18.4) 2.28(53.7) 0.41( 9.7) 0.22( 5.2) 0.13(3.0) 0.44(10.4) 4.25(1.18) * 1.25(13.4) 4.40(47.1) 1.65(17.7) 0.45( 4.8) 0.15(1.6) 1.45(15.5) 9.35(1.21) * 0.76(19.0) 2.38(59.5) 0.38( 9.5) 0.1( 2.5) 0.1(2.5) 0.28( 7.0) 4.00(1.09) * 2.35(18.7) 5.75(45.8) 1.15( 9.2) 2.75(21.9) 0.05(0.4) 0.5( 4.0) 12.55(1.62) * * 1. 5 S2, S1, S3, S2, S4, S1. S2, S1, S6. 3) 탐구문제유형과제안과정전략의관계 10 11, 4, 5.. S2,, N-IP. S1, S3, N-IP. S2, S3. A-IP. (2008) S2 N-IP,. 3 4 5.. IV 4, 5, 표 10. 4 / ( / ) N-IP R-IP WH-IP I-IP A-IP E-IP Un-IP S1 12/9 6/3 3/11 0/0 0/0 5/1 0/1 26/25 S2 67/71 3/5 1/0 0/1 0/1 1/1 2/0 74/79 S3 5/21 1/2 1/4 0/4 0/0 5/0 2/2 14/33 S4 2/5 4/3 0/1 0/1 0/0 0/0 1/0 7/10 S5 3/0 0/0 1/2 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 4/3 S6 0/0 0/1 0/3 0/19 0/1 8/0 6/5 14/29 89/106 14/14 6/21 0/25 0/2 11/3 5/8 125/179
< > : 표 11. 5 / ( / ) N-IP R-IP WH-IP I-IP A-IP E-IP Un-IP S1 4/15 4/11 8/12 2/4 0/1 1/2 2/1 21/46 S2 64/71 0/30 0/0 3/11 0/0 0/2 1/0 68/114 S3 1/11 1/2 4/5 4/3 1/0 0/2 0/1 11/24 S4 0/29 0/24 2/0 1/3 0/1 0/0 0/0 3/57 S5 0/1 1/0 2/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 3/1 S6 0/0 0/0 1/0 0/3 0/0 0/0 7/7 8/10 69/127 6/67 16/17 10/24 1/2 1/6 3/9 106/252 그림 3. 5 그림 4. 5.,, N-IP, R-IP, WH-IP, I-IP, A-IP, E-IP, Un-IP 7, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 6.,,.
30 4, pp. 634 645 (2011), 4 N-IP, I-IP. 5 N-IP, R-IP. 4 S2, S6, S1, S2, S6, S3. 5 S2, S1,S3, S2, S1, S4. S2, S1, S3, N-IP. S2, S3.. 4, 5 1,,.. (2009). 3, 4, 5, 6. ( ). (2009).. ( ). (2007).. ( ).. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://www. sciencetimes.co.kr. (2005).., 50(4), 203-211. (2008)... (2004)... (2007). :.., (1992)..., (2006).., 25(1), 27-38. Austin, J. H. (1978) Chase, chance, and creativity. New York : Columbia University Press. Bronowski, J. (1974). The ascent of man, Boston: Little, Brown ( ). :. Brown, S. I. & Walter, M. I.(1985). The art of problem posing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London. Kay, S. (1994). From theory to practice: Promoting problem-finding behavior in children. Roeper Review, 16, 195-197. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago : University of Chicago Press. Miyake, N. & Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 357-364. Runco, M. A. & Dow, G. (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity, edited by Runco, M. A. and S. R. Pritzker: Academic Press, San Diego. Runco, M. A. & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16, 235-241. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 177-198. Simonton & Dean, K. (1999). Geius Creative, and Leardership: Iuniverse Inc. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. Nobel Laureates in the Unite States.
< > : 부록 : 질문지