메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국생물교육학회 생물교육 생물교육 제41권 제1호
발행연도
2013.1
수록면
119 - 134 (16page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The purpose of this study is to analyze the writing activities in six species of high school science textbooks and to provide basic data to explore the direction of science writing class. Analytical standards on writings systems are in aspects such as writing type, form and the supplementary materials. Analytical standards on science education goals are in aspects such as scientific literacy and critical thinking. In terms of writings systems, there are 320 science writings in textbooks. They are significantly different from publisher and section. As a result of writing type; there are 256(80%) explanatory writings, 46(14%) critical writings, and 18(6%) creative writings. Therefore, the results show a bias towards explanatory writing. As a result of writing form; there are 138(43%) completed forms, 111(35%) recognition-checking forms, and 71(22%) research-practice forms. Completed form and recognition-checking form are both considerable parts of the total. So, scientific writing education is still in a system that focuses around recognition and memorization. In terms of science education goals, the result of scientific literacy emphasized in science writing is as followed. 158(49%) is of the scientific knowledge, 116(36%) is of STS, and 46(14%) is of the processes of science. Thus the results are concentrated in the dimension of the scientific knowledge. However, it does show a significant difference depending on the section. Different dimensions of scientific literacy were able to highlight depending on writing topic. As a result of critical thinking, emphasized in scientific writing; 254(79%) are of analysis, 86(27%) are of inference, 54(17%) are of evaluation, and 8(2.5%) are of uncritical cases. Once again the results have a bias. Scientific writing education has the potential to promote critical thinking because the various critical thinking skills high-highlight depending on topic, writing type, form, supplementary materials, and the scientific literacy.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (34)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0