Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of an Analytical Framework for Dialogic Argumentation in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: Based on Discourse Clusters and Schemes

과학관련 사회쟁점(SSI) 맥락에서의 소집단 논증활동 분석틀 개발: 담화클러스터와 담화요소의 분석

  • Received : 2015.05.26
  • Accepted : 2015.06.20
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Argumentation is a social and collaborative dialogic process. A large number of researchers have focused on analyzing the structure of students' argumentation occurring in the scientific inquiry context, using the Toulmin's model of argument. Since SSI dialogic argumentation often presents distinctive features (e.g. interdisciplinary, controversial, value-laden, etc.), Toulmin's model would not fit into the context. Therefore, we attempted to develop an analytical framework for SSI dialogic argumentation by addressing the concepts of 'discourse clusters' and 'discourse schemes.' Discourse clusters indicated a series of utterances created for a similar dialogical purpose in the SSI contexts. Discourse schemes denoted meaningful discourse units that well represented the features of SSI reasoning. In this study, we presented six types of discourse clusters and 19 discourse schemes. We applied the framework to the data of students' group discourse on SSIs (e.g. euthanasia, nuclear energy, etc.) in order to verify its validity and applicability. The results indicate that the framework well explained the overall flow, dynamics, and features of students' discourse on SSI.

논증활동은 사람들 사이의 사회적 협력적 대화과정으로 볼 수 있다. 논증활동에 대한 선행연구를 살펴보면 Toulmin(1958)이 제시한 논증구조를 이용하여 논증활동의 구조적 측면을 분석하는 데 중점을 두고 있으며, SSI 맥락보다는 과학적 탐구 맥락에서 주로 연구가 수행되어 왔다. SSI 맥락에서의 논증활동은 간학문적, 논쟁적, 가치내재적 특성을 띠고 있기 때문에, 기존의 분석틀로는 SSI 논증활동을 분석하는데 한계가 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 문헌연구과 SSI 담화 사례분석을 기반으로 SSI 맥락에서의 소집단 논증활동을 위한 분석틀을 개발하고, 그 틀을 기반으로 실제 SSI 맥락에서 진행되는 소집단 논증활동에 적용해봄으로써 그 적용가능성을 탐색해 보고자 하였다. 본 연구자는 SSI 맥락에서의 소집단 논증활동을 분석하기 위해 '담화클러스터'와 '담화요소'의 개념을 도입하였다. 담화클러스터는 유사한 목적을 지닌 발화의 묶음으로, SSI 맥락에서 '문제의 논점 확인', '개별 입장의 교환', '다양한 관점 및 자료의 탐색', '상반된 관점 간 논쟁', '설득력 있는 안에 대한 선택', '절충안 또는 대안 마련'의 여섯 가지로 구분될 수 있다. 담화요소는 SSI 소집단 논증활동에서 바람직하게 평가될 수 있는 내용 및 구조적 요소로서, '다양한 관점의 고려', '증거에 기반한 추론', '지속적인 탐구와 회의적 사고', '도덕 윤리적 민감성'의 네 가지 범주로 나눠지며, 총 19가지의 요소를 포함한다. 원자력에너지와 안락사 쟁점에 대한 소집단 논증활동 사례를 분석한 결과, 이 분석틀을 이용하여 학생들의 상호작용으로 이루어지는 논증활동의 전체적인 흐름과 학생 발화의 역동성을 종합적으로 판단할 수 있었으며, 학생들의 담화가 SSI 추론의 특징을 얼마나 반영하는지 설명할 수 있었다. 본 연구에서 개발된 분석틀은 SSI 프로그램을 통한 논증활동 기술이나 의사결정과정의 향상을 알아보는 데 이용될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and 'goodness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003677889
  2. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
  3. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
  4. Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students' decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of the Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887-900.
  5. Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2014). Grade 5 students' online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 267-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9384-8
  6. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  7. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J.. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
  8. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  9. Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). The Netherlands: Springer.
  10. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  11. Evagorou, M. (2011). Discussing a socioscientific issue in a primary school classroom: The case of using a technology-supported environment in formal and nonformal settings. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research (pp. 133-159). The Netherlands: Springer.
  12. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651595
  13. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909
  14. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research (pp. 3-27). The Netherlands: Springer.
  15. Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
  16. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of preservice science teachers' moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
  17. Lee, H., Choi, Y., & Ko, Y. (2015). Effects of collective intelligence-based ssi instruction on promoting middle school students' key competencies as citizens. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0431
  18. Lee, H., Choi, Y., & Ko, Y. (2014). Designing collective intelligence-based instructional models for teaching socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0523
  19. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
  20. Maeng, S., Park, Y., & Kim, C. (2013). Methodological review of the research on argumentative discourse focused on analyzing collaborative construction and epistemic enactments of argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 840-862. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.4.840
  21. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013488
  22. Nussbuam, E. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
  23. Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
  24. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Owens, M. C. (2012). The two faces of scientific argumentation: Applications to global climate change. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation (pp. 17-37). The Netherlands: Springer.
  25. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  26. Park, J., & Kim, H. (2012). Theoretical considerations on analytical framework design for the interactions between participants in group argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 604-624. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.604
  27. Rest, J. R., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  28. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724042000733091
  29. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
  30. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
  31. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
  32. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
  33. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  34. Simon, S., & Amos, R. (2011). Decision making and use of evidence in a socio-scientific problem on air quality. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research (pp. 167-192). The Netherlands: Springer.
  35. Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science & Education, 12(4), 341-363. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024450509847
  36. Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
  37. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
  38. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. A., Krabbe, E. C. W., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  39. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  40. Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(5), 745-777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.016
  41. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands: Springer.
  42. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  43. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025
  44. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Cited by

  1. A Suggestion of the new construction of science education stressed social responsibility and the education strategies to integrate Education for Sustainable Development into science education vol.22, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.24159/joec.2016.22.6.279
  2. 중등 과학교육에서 소집단을 활용한 교수학습 연구 분석 및 '소집단 연구' 방법론 고찰 vol.45, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.3.437
  3. 과학관련 사회쟁점(SSI) 수업의 소집단 토론과 전체 학급 토론에서 나타나는 특징 vol.38, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.135
  4. Exploring the Ontological Status of the Race Concept as Perceived by Korean Medical Students vol.14, pp.10, 2015, https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/92288
  5. 의사결정 유형 및 성격특성에 따른 예비생물교사들의 SSI(Socio-Scientific Issues) 토론 담화 차이 분석 vol.38, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.5.739
  6. Analysis of Argumentation Structure in Students' Writing on Socio-scientific issues (SSI): Focusing on the Unit of Climate Change in High School Earth Science I vol.41, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5467/jkess.2020.41.4.405
  7. 나노기술 관련 사회·윤리적 쟁점 맥락에서 개인-집단중심성향에 따른 대학생들의 논증담화 분석 vol.64, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2020.64.5.291
  8. 지구과학 예비교사가 설계한 수업내용의 논증구조에 나타난 반박 분석 vol.13, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2020.13.3.238
  9. 초등 예비교사의 대체에너지에 대한 이해도와 대안개념 분석 vol.40, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2021.40.1.36
  10. 예비 지구과학 교사의 교수학습지도안에 나타난 논증 수준 분석 vol.14, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2021.14.2.123