연구동향 분석
박사

중학생과 과학교사의 색 인식에 대한 개념세계 및 모형구성 = Middle School Students’ and Science Teachers’ Conceptual World and Modeling of Color Perception

이동욱 2015년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 중학생과 과학교사의 색 인식에 대한 개념세계 및 모형구성 = Middle School Students’ and Science Teachers’ Conceptual World and Modeling of Color Perception' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • conceptual elements
  • conceptual world
  • model coherence
  • model correspondence
  • modeling
  • theory conformity
  • 개념세계
  • 모형 대응
  • 모형 정합
  • 모형구성
  • 이론 합치
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
243 0

0.0%

' 중학생과 과학교사의 색 인식에 대한 개념세계 및 모형구성 = Middle School Students’ and Science Teachers’ Conceptual World and Modeling of Color Perception' 의 참고문헌

  • 한국과 미국 초등미술 교과서의 색채교육내용 비교 분석.석사학위 논문
    홍덕경 이화여자대학교 교육대학원 [2004]
  • 중학생의 힘과 운동 관련 과학적 모형구성 수준의상세화
    배대성 유준희 한국물리학회지: 새물리, 62(8), 809-825 [2012]
  • 중등학생들의 빛의 파동성 및 색 인지 개념 분석: 과학 영재연구 교육 프로그램을 통해. 석사학위 논문
    김대환 서울대학교 대학원 [2011]
  • 인지 갈등을 통한 중학생의 빛의 색에 대한 개념 변화.석사학위 논문
    전명숙 한국교원대학교 교육대학원 [2004]
  • 올바른 색개념 형성을 위한 교수-학습 자료 개발. 석사학위논문
    김희연 한국교원대학교 교육대학원 [2005]
  • 예비 물리 교사의 관 내 정상파 모형 발달에서 간섭무늬영상에대한 시각적 지각과 해석의 역할. 박사학위 논문
    박정우 서울대학교 대학원 [2014]
  • 시각 및 빛의 성질에 대한 중학생의 개념
    김재우 오원근 새물리,45(3), 163-170 [2002]
  • 수업 방식에 따른 물체의 색 표현에 대한 중학생들의 개념 변화연구. 석사학위 논문
    신민철 인하대학교 교육대학원 [2003]
  • 색혼합에 대한 대학생들의 개념 구조. 석사학위 논문
    구현정 한국교원대학교 교육대학원 [2003]
  • 색채 인지 체계에 관한 연구: 언어적 표상 특성을 중심으로.박사학위 논문
    홍정인 이화여자대학교 교육대학원 [2012]
  • 색에 대한 교사의 개념 분석. 석사학위 논문
    우성은 한국교원대학교교육대학원 [2004]
  • 빛의 합성 단원에 대한 실험 분석과 개선방안. 석사학위 논문
    박순혜 한국교원대학교 교육대학원 [2004]
  • 빛과 색의 합성 원리 및 물체의 색에 대한 중학생들의 개념조사. 석사학위 논문
    김지수 고려대학교 교육대학원 [2007]
  • 미술과 교육과정. 교육부 고시 제 1997-15호
    교육부 별책 13 [1997]
  • 물체의 색깔과 빛의 색깔에 대한 중학생들의 오개념 연구:7학년 '빛'단원 중심으로. 석사학위 논문
    김홍영 고려대학교 교육대학원 [2007]
  • 교육인적자원부 미술과 교육과정. 교육인적자원부 고시 제 2007 -79호
    별책 13 [2007]
  • 교육인적자원부 미술 3
    서울: 대한교과서 [2002]
  • 교육인적자원부 과학과 교육과정. 교육인적자원부 고시 제 2007 -79호
    별책 9 [2007]
  • 교육과학기술부 미술과 교육과정. 교육과학기술부 고시 제 2007 -361호
    별책 13 [2011]
  • 교육과학기술부 과학과 교육과정. 교육과학기술부 고시 제 2011 -361호
    별책 9 [2011]
  • 광선추적과 스펙트럼에 대한 교사와중학생의 개념 유형 분석
    남경운 손정우 이성묵 이재봉 한국과학교육학회지, 24(6), 1189-1205 [2004]
  • 과학과 교육과정(교육부 고시 제 1997-15호)
    교육부 별책 9 [1997]
  • 『세계미술용어사전』
    월간미술 서울: 월간미술 [1999]
  • ‘먹이 그물과 먹이 피라미드’모형 구성에서 나타난초등학생의 추론 유형
    김희백 한문현 초등과학교육, 31(1), 71-83 [2012]
  • diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versusfragmentation in the development of the concept of force. CognitiveScience, 28(6), 843-900.
  • diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual188change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155-1191.
  • diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s-eye view of the“pieces”vs.“coherence”controversy (from the “pieces”side of the fence). In S.Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptualchange (pp.35-60). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition andInstruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
  • diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. Constructivism in theComputer Age, 49-70.
  • Wiesel, T. N., & Hubel, D. H. (1966). Spatial and chromatic interactions inthe lateral geniculate body of the rhesus monkey. Journal ofNeurophysiology, 29, 1115-1156.
  • Watts, M. and Pope, M. (1992). Modulacion y fragmentacion en laconstruccion de conceptos. Investigacion en la Escuela, 18, 9?22.
  • Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2013). Conceptual change from theframework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23(7),1427-1445.
  • Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development toscience education: A psychological point of view. International Journalof Science Education, 20(10), 1213-1230.
  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992): Mental models of the earth: Astudy of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24,535-585.
  • Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naive physics. In L. M. M. Limon(Ed.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice198(pp.61-76). Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptualchange. Learning and instruction, 4(1), 45-69.
  • Viennot, L., & de Hosson, C. (2012). Beyond a dichotomic approach, thecase of colour phenomena. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 34(9), 1315-1336.
  • Viennot, L. (2006). Teaching rituals and students' intellectual satisfaction.Physics Education, 41(5), 400-408.
  • Viennot, L. (1985). Analysing students’reasoning in science: A pragmaticview of theoretical problems. The European Journal of ScienceEducation, 7(2), 151-162.
  • Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics.European Journal of Science Education, 1, 205-225
  • Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human development,52(2), 83-94.
  • Tseitlin, M., & Galili, I. (2005). Physics teaching in the search for its self.Science & Education, 14(3-5), 235-261.
  • Thompson, E. (1995). Colour vision: A study in cognitive science andphilosophy of science. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton University Press.
  • Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,12(3), 435-467.
  • Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual Resources for Learning Science: Issues oftransience and grain?size in cognition and cognitive structure.International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1027-1053.
  • Sutton, C. (1996). The scientific model as a form of speech. In G. Welford,J. Osborne and P. Scott (Eds.) Research in Science Education inEurope (pp. 125-133). London: The Falmer Press.
  • Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics:the case of ‘more of A more of B’. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 18(6), 653-667.
  • Snyder, J. L. (2000). An investigation of the knowledge structures ofexperts, intermediates and novices in physics. International Journal ofScience Education, 22(9), 979-992.
  • Sherin, B. (2006). Common sense clarified: The role of intuitiveknowledge in physics problem solving. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 43(6), 535-555.
  • Shapiro, A. E. (1980). The evolving structure of Newton's theory of whitelight and color. Isis, 211-235.
  • Sepper, D. L. (2003). Goethe contra Newton: Polemics and the project fora new science of color. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D.,& Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientificmodeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful forlearners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
  • Saxena, A. (1991). The understanding of the properties of light bystudents in India. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3),283-289.
  • Sabra, A. I. (1981). Theories of light, from Descartes to Newton.Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
  • Ross, P. W. (2001). The location problem for color subjectivism.Consciousness and Cognition, 10(1), 42-58.
  • Rehder, B. (2003). Categorization as causal reasoning. Cognitive Science,27, 709?748.
  • Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics: with the physics suite (p. 105).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Pozo, J. I., Sanz, A.. & Gomez-Crespo, M. A. (1995). Cambio conceptual:del conocimiento personal al conocimiento cientıfico. AspectosDidacticos de Fisica y Quimica (Fısica). Instituto de Ciencias de laEducacion, Universidad de Zaragoza.
  • Pozo, J. I., Gomez-Crespo, M. A., Limon, M. and Sanz, A.(1991). Procesos cognitivos en la comprension de la ciencia: las ideasde los adolescentes sobre la Quimica.
  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory ofconceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
  • Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond coldconceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroomcontextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review ofEducational Research, 63(2), 167-199.
  • Olivieri, G., Torosantucci, G., & Vicentini, M. (1988). Coloured shadows.International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 561-569.
  • Oliva, J. M. (2003). The structural coherence of students' conceptions inmechanics and conceptual change. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 25(5), 539-561.
  • Oliva, J. M. (1999). Structural patterns in students' conceptions inmechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 903-920.
  • O'Brien, D. (2006). An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. PolityPress.
  • O zdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual changetheories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology195Education, 3(4), 351-361.
  • Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: philosophicalperspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 530-540.
  • Norman, D. A. (1983) Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentnerand A. L. Stevens (Eds), Mental Models (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  • Niedderer, H., & Schecker, H. (1992). Towards an explicit description ofcognitive system for research in physics learning. Institute of PhysicsEducation, University of Bremen.
  • Newton, I. (1671/2). New Theory about Light and Colors. PhilosophicalTransactions(80), 3075- 3087.
  • Nersessian, N.J. (1995). ‘Should physicists preach what they practice?Constructive modeling in doing and learning physics’, Science &Education, 4(3), 203?226.
  • Nersessian, N. J. (2001). Concept formation and commensurability. InIncommensurability and related matters (pp. 275-301). SpringerNetherlands.
  • Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamicsof conceptual change in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models inscience (pp. 3?44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Nersessian, N. J. (1991). Why do thought experiments work.In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 13, pp. 430-438).
  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 ScienceEducation: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic ofscientific explanation (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace &World.
  • Murphy, G. L. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
  • Morgan, M. S., & Morrison, M. (Eds.). (1999). Models as mediators:Perspectives on natural and social science (Vol. 52). CambridgeUniversity Press.
  • Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students' knowledge and relevantinstruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg and H. Niedderer (Eds.). Researchin physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies. Paperpresented at the International workshop of Research in PhysicsLearning (pp.110-128). Kiel, German: IPN
  • Mestre, J. P. (2001). Implications of research on learning for the educationof prospective science and physics teachers. Physics Education, 36(1),44.
  • McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4),122-130.
  • Martinez-Borreguero, G., Perez-Rodriguez, A . L., Suero-Lopez, M. I., &Pardo-Fernandez, P. J. (2013). Detection of misconceptions aboutcolour and an experimentally tested proposal to combatthem. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1299-1324.
  • Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
  • Lopes, J. B., & Costa, N. (2007). The evaluation of modellingcompetences: difficulties and potentials for the learning of the sciences.International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 811-851.
  • Licht, P., & Thijs, G. D. (1990). Method to trace coherence andpersistence of preconceptions. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 12(4), 403-416.
  • Lehrer. K. (1990). Theory of Knowledge. Westview Press.
  • Lawson, A. E., Clark, B., Cramer?Meldrum, E., Falconer, K. A., Sequist, J.M., & Kwon, Y. J. (2000). Development of scientific reasoning incollege biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis?testing skillsexist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(1), 81-101.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the humanconceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195-208.
  • La Rosa, C., Mayer, M., Patrizi, P., & Vicentini?Missoni, M. (1984).Commonsense knowledge in optics: Preliminary results of aninvestigation into the properties of light. European journal of scienceeducation, 6(4), 387-397.
  • Kuhn, T. (1972). Scientific paradigms. Sociology of Science, 80-104.
  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Ed. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kuehni, R. G. (2003). Color space and its divisions: color order fromantiquity to the present. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Krauskopf, J. (1998). Colour vision. In K. Nassau (Ed.), Color for science,art and technology (pp. 97?122). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  • Koponen, I. T., & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent knowledge structures ofphysics represented as concept networks in teachereducation. Science & Education, 19(3), 259-282.
  • Koponen, I. T. (2007). Models and modelling in physics education: A critical re-analysis of philosophical underpinnings and suggestions for revisions. Science & Education, 16(7/8), 751–773.
  • Koponen, I. T. & Nousiainen, M. (2013). Pre-service physics teachers'understanding of the relational structure of physics concepts:Organising subject contents for purposes of teaching. InternationalJournal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 325-357.
  • Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). Exploring the changing meanings offorce: From coherence to fragmentation. Cognitive ScienceQuarterly, 2(1), 5-61.
  • Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching ofphysics. Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and191classroom practice, 51-74.
  • Hilbert, D. R. (1987). Color and color perception: A study inanthropocentric realism. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732-748.
  • Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction.American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440-454.
  • Hesse, M. B. (1967). Models and analogies in science. In P. Edwards (Ed.),The encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 354-359). New York, NY: FreePress.
  • Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1994). Young children's naive theory of biology.Cognition, 50(1), 171-188.
  • Harre, R. (1972). The philosophy of science: An introductory survey.London: Oxford university press.
  • Hardin, L. (1988). Color for philosophers: Unweaving the rainbow.Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
  • Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science &Education, 16(7-8), 653-697.
  • Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling Theory in Science Education. KluwerAcademic Publishers.
  • Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 1019-1041.
  • Haack, S. (1993). Evidence and inquiry: Towards reconstruction in190epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical, and mathematicalmodels in the teaching and learning of physics. Science Education,86(1), 106-121.
  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-11.
  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (1997). The kinds of mentalrepresentations??models, propositions and images??used by collegephysics students regarding the concept of field. International Journalof Science Education, 19(6), 711-724.
  • Gopnik, A. (1996). The Scientist as child. Philosophy of Science, 63(4),485-514.
  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models inscience education and in design and technology education.In Developing models in science education (pp.3-17). SpringerNetherlands.
  • Giere, R. N. (Eds.), (1992). Cognitive models of science: Minnesotastudies in the philosophy of science. Minneapolis : University ofMinnesota Press.
  • Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science. A cognitive approach. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
  • Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. Hilldale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Gelman, R. (1991). Epigenetic foundations of knowledge structures: Initialand transcendent constructions. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.). The189epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (pp. 293?322).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners' knowledge in optics: interpretation,structure and analysis. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 22(1), 57-88.
  • Feynman, R. P., Leighton R.B., Sands, M. (1964). The Feynman Lectureson Physics (Vol. 1). Addison Wesley Longman.
  • Feher, E., & Meyer, K. R. (1992). Children's conceptions of color. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 505-520.
  • Estevez, O. (1979). On the fundamental data-base of normal anddichromatic colour vision (unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Amsterdam.
  • Eckstut, J., & Eckstut, A. (2013). The secret language of color: Science,nature, history, culture, beauty of red, orange, yellow, green, blue &violet. New York: NY: Black Dog & Leventhal.
  • Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas inscience. England: Open University Press.
  • Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and Paradigms: A Review ofLiterature Related to Concept Development in Adolescent ScienceStudents. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 61-84.
  • Clough, E. E., & Driver, R. (1986). A study of consistency in the use ofstudents' conceptual frameworks across different taskcontexts. Science Education, 70(4), 473-496.
  • Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptionsare misconceptions: Finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for groundinginstruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 11(5), 554-565.
  • Clement, J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching forconceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook ofresearch on conceptual change (pp. 417-452). New York, NY: Taylor& Francis.
  • Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students'understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process ofconceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467-563.
  • Churchland, P. (2007). On the reality and diversity of objective colors:187How color?qualia space is a map of reflectance?profilespace. Philosophy of science, 74(2), 119-149.
  • Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization andrepresentation of physics problems by experts and novices. CognitiveScience, 5(2), 121-152.
  • Cheng, M. F., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources inself?developed explanatory models: The importance of integratingconscious and intuitive knowledge. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 32(17), 2367-2392.
  • Chauvet, F. (1996). Teaching colour: designing and evaluation of asequence. European Journal of Teacher Education, 19(2), 121-136.
  • Chapman, L. H. (1998). Adventures in Art 2. Worcester, MA: DavisPublications Inc.
  • Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge andconceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S.A. Gelman (Eds.), Mappingthe mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp.169-200).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.
  • Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. K. Scholnick, K.Nelson, & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget’s legacy(pp. 293-326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
  • Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions viaanalogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory modelconstruction. Instructional science, 18(4), 237-261.
  • Brown, D. E. (2010). Students’ conceptions - coherent or fragmented?And what difference does it make. Paper presented at the AnnualInternational Conference of the National Association for Research inScience Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Brown, D. E. (1993). Refocusing core intuitions: A concretizing role foranalogy in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30(10), 1273-1290.
  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Berns, R. S. (2000). Billmeyer and Saltzman's principles of colortechnology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Baillargeon, R. (2002). The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy: Asummary in eight lessons. Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitivedevelopment, 1, 46-83.
  • Baillargeon, R. (1995). A model of physical reasoning in infancy. Advancesin Infancy Research, 9, 305-371.
  • Andersson, B., & Karrqvist, C. (1983). How Swedish pupils, aged 12?15years, understand light and its properties. European journal of scienceeducation, 5(4), 387-402.
  • Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A commoncore to pupils’ preconceptions in science. European Journal ofScience Education, 8(2), 155-171.
  • 7학년 '빛' 단원에서의 광선추적과 빛의 합성에 대한 교사들의개념 이해도 조사. 석사학위 논문
    김진희 서울대학교 대학원 [2004]