한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제36권5호
  • /
  • Pages.757-768
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

SSI 토론 수업에서 SNS 활용이 성격특성별 의사결정능력에 미치는 효과

Effectiveness of Decision-Making Skills in SSI Class Based on Debate by Utilizing SNS in Terms of Students' Personality Traits

  • 투고 : 2016.09.26
  • 심사 : 2016.10.26
  • 발행 : 2016.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 육색사고모자라는 창의적 기법을 적용한 SSI 토론 프로그램을 개발하여 SNS 토론과 기존 면대면 토론 후 논증유형의 차이와 학생의 성격특성별 의사결정능력에 미치는 효과를 알아보았다. 맞춤아기, 배아줄기세포연구, 낙태의 합법성을 주제로 한 3가지 SSI 토론 수업을 SNS를 활용한 토론 집단과 면대면 토론 집단으로 각각 2 학급씩 나누어 학생별 성격특성 검사지를 통해 학생의 성격유형을 외향성, 수용성, 성실성으로 구분하였다. 그리고 두 집단 모두 창의적 사고 기법인 육색사고모자 기법을 이용한 창의적 토론방법을 사전 교육한 후 수업을 진행하였다. 토론 활동이 끝난 후 SNS를 활용한 토론을 한 학생들의 토론 내용은 텍스트로 저장하였고 면대면 토론을 한 학생들의 토론과정에 작성한 활동지와 수업 활동을 촬영한 동영상과 녹음파일을 전사 후 분석한 내용을 바탕으로 학생들이 주제에 대한 최종의견을 주장할 때 사용한 논증 유형과 성격특성별 의사결정능력결과의 차이를 비교하였다. SNS 토론과 면대면 토론에서 사용한 논증유형을 분석한 결과 가장 많이 사용한 논증유형은 인과 유형이었고, SNS 토론의 경우 인과 유형 다음으로 많이 사용한 논증유형은 징표, 유추, 권위, 동기 순이었다. 그에 비해 면대면 토론 결과 인과 유형이 전체 논증 유형의 76% 이상이었고, 나머지 논증 유형은 거의 사용하지 않았거나 주제에 따라 유추, 권위, 동기의 논증 유형을 1~2회 정도 사용하였음을 알 수 있었다. 그리고 면대면 토론을 한 학생보다 SNS 토론을 한 학생들이 인과 이외에도 일반화, 분류화와 병렬적 사례 등의 다양한 논증유형을 사용하였다. 학생의 성격특성별 의사결정능력의 세 가지 요인인 쟁점의 복잡성, 관점의 다양성, 탐구의 객관성 결과를 분석해보면 의사결정능력의 '쟁점의 복잡성'요인에서는 수용성의 학생그룹에서만 SNS 토론집단과 면대면 토론집단 간에 유의미한 차이가 나타났고, '관점의 다양성'요인에서는 외향성, 수용성, 성실성 모두 SNS 토론집단과 면대면 토론집단 간에 유의미한 차이가 있었다. 마지막으로 '탐구의 객관성'요인에서는 외향성, 수용성, 성실성 모두 SNS 토론집단과 면대면 토론집단 간에 유의미한 차이가 없었다. 연구 결과 육색사고모를 이용한 SSI 주제의 토론수업이 기존의 면대면 토론보다 SNS 토론이 학생들이 다양한 논증유형을 사용해 주장하는데 효과적인 방법이고 의사결정능력 검사의 '관점의 다양성'의 요인에서 성격특성에 관계없이 SNS 토론이 더 효과적이라는 것을 알 수 있었다. 따라서 SSI 주제에 대해 육색사고모자를 활용한 SNS 토론이 주제에 대한 다양한 관점을 고려해 보고 의사결정을 하는데 효과적인 방법의 하나로 될 수 있음을 알 수 있었다.

This study developed an SSI (Socio-Scientific Issue) discussion program that applies a creative technique called six thinking hats, and then investigated the differences in argumentation patterns and effects on the decision-making abilities of each character feature of students between SNS debate and existing face to face debate. There were three SSI themes - Designer Babies, embryonic stem cell study, and legitimacy of abortion. Students were divided into two groups, the debate group using SNS and face to face debate group. The character patterns of students were divided to 'extraversion,' 'agreeableness,' and 'conscientiousness' through test sheets for character features for each student. Both groups were educated for creative discussion methods using six thinking hats and then, the class progressed. As a result of analyzing argumentation patterns used in SNS debate and face to face debate, the most used argumentation pattern was the "cause pattern." But comparing to face to face debate, other patterns (mark, inference, authority, motive) were also used in SNS debate. The study analyzed three factors of decision-making ability for each character feature of students such as complexity, perspectives, and inquiry. As a result, for 'complexity' factor, there was a significant difference between SNS debate group and face to face debate group only in the student group of Agreeableness. For 'perspectives' factor, there were significant differences between SNS debate group and face to face debate group in all three characters. Finally, for inquiry, there were no significant differences between SNS debate group and face to face debate group in all three characters. Accordingly it would be necessary to apply SNS debate using the six thinking hats in SSI education to enhance perspectives.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bae, J., & Cha, H. (2014). Analysis of the types of claims and argumentations in science debate classes of fifth graders. KNUE Journal of Research in Science Education, 20(1), 63-83.
  2. Bang, S. (2012). A Study on strategies of self-directed learning to promote smart learning. Journal of Lifelong Learning Society, 8(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.26857/JLLS.2012.04.8.1.93
  3. Banks, J. A., & Clegg, A. A. (1973). Teaching strategies for the social studies: Inquiry, valuing, and decision-making. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co..
  4. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
  5. Bell, R. L. & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding 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
  6. Brockriede, W. & Ehninger, D.(1960). "Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46.
  7. Chen, S., & Caropreso, E. J. (2004). Influence of personality on online discussion. Journal of Online Interactive Learning, 3(2), 1-17.
  8. Cho, S. (2014) The Effects of Personality Traits and Science-related Attitudes on Scientific Academic Achievement. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 22(3), 311-334.
  9. Chung, Y., Mun, K., & Kim, S. (2010). Exploration of socioscientific issues(SSI) in the science textbook. Exploration of socioscientific issues(SSI) in the science textbook, Journal of Lerner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 10(3), 435-456.
  10. De Bono, E. (2012). Six Thinking Hats. TM.
  11. De Raad, B., Hendrikes, A. A. J. & Hofstee, W. K. B.(1992). Toward a refined structure of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 6(4), 301-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410060405
  12. De Raad, B. & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199612)10:5<303::AID-PER262>3.0.CO;2-2
  13. 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
  14. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582
  15. Hong, S., (2014). The Argumentation structure of SNS debate and its character-focusing on mobile debate on the NAVER BAND. The Korean Journal of Art and Media, 13(2), 157-173.
  16. Jang, E., & Chang, H., (2013a). The differences between Web-based debate and Social Network Service(SNS)-based debate on social presence, learning flow, satisfaction and self-evaluation. Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.29.1.1
  17. Jang, E., & Chang, H. (2013b). Exploration of debate strategies on SNS tools, creativity techniques and group size for Social Network Service(SNS)-based debate. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 19(4), 693-721.
  18. Jeong, E., & Kim, Y. (2001). The Views of secondary biology teachers and students on bioethics education. Biology Education, 29(2) 144-167.
  19. John, O. P., & Strivastava, S. (1999). The Big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd edition). NY: Guilford.
  20. Kang, M., Um, S., & Lee, J. (2010). The Effects of learner's traits and interactions on Web-based collaborative learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 53-79.
  21. Kim, E., & Kim, J., (2011). A Development of Android based debate learning system for divergent thinking cultivation. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 14(1), 137-146.
  22. Kim, H., & Lee, S., (1996). Secondary students' attitudes toward science-technology related issues in korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 16(4), 461-469.
  23. Ko, Y., & Shin, W., (2011). An Analysis of discussion using online discussion forum and smartphone. The Korea Educational Review, 17(3), 129-150.
  24. Koo, Y., & Seo, J.,(2014) Effects of collaborative reflections using SNS on college student' learning motivation, problem solving competency and academic achievement in Creative Problem Solving activities. The Korean Association for Educational Methodology Studies, 26(4), 659-685. https://doi.org/10.17927/tkjems.2014.26.4.659
  25. Kurfman, D. G. (1977). Developing Decision-Making Skills. 47th Yearbook, 1977.
  26. McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of Communication-Bound Anxiety.
  27. Ministry of Education and Science Technology(2008). Middle School Curriculum Reference Book(III). MEST.
  28. Moon, K. (2003) Development and application of web-based discussion model for value inquiry in biology education. Master's Thesis. The Graduate School of Seoul National University.
  29. National Research Council [NRC] (2010). Conceptual framework for new science education standards. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html
  30. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  31. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issue: A Critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  32. 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
  33. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  34. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Philosophy of science (Vol. 14). Genesis Publishing Pvt Ltd.
  35. Um, S. (2010). Verification of the predictability of learner's traits and interactions on Web-based collaborative learning outcomes. Master's Thesis. The Graduate school of Ewha Womans University
  36. Yun, M. (2006). (The) Analysis of decision-making based on the nature of science: Focus on socioscientific issues. Master's Thesis. Graduate School of Pusan National University.
  37. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21077
  38. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral resoning and the status of socio-scientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp.7-38). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  39. Zeider, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgement through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
  40. 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

피인용 문헌

  1. 과학관련 사회쟁점을 활용한 대학생 인성교육의 효과 -개인-집단중심성향에 따른 비교- vol.37, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.3.395
  2. 과학관련 사회쟁점(SSI) 토론 수업에서 스마트 기기의 활용 방식과 수업의 특징 vol.37, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.5.787
  3. 윤리적 궁지 해결 수업이 고등학생의 의사결정 능력에 미치는 영향 vol.45, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.4.477
  4. 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