한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제37권5호
  • /
  • Pages.787-797
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학관련 사회쟁점(SSI) 토론 수업에서 스마트 기기의 활용 방식과 수업의 특징

Features of Using Smart Devices in Socioscientific Issues Debate Classes

  • 투고 : 2017.07.02
  • 심사 : 2017.09.11
  • 발행 : 2017.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구에서는 고등학생의 과학관련 사회쟁점(SSI) 수업에서 스마트 기기를 활용함으로써 나타나는 특징을 분석하였다. 경기도에 소재한 고등학교에 재학 중인 27명의 학생들을 대상으로 스마트 기기를 활용한 SSI 토론 수업을 진행하였다. 스마트 기기를 활용한 SSI 수업을 자료 탐색, 자료 공유, 자료 요약 및 정리, 교실 토론, 온라인 토론의 총 5단계로 구분하여 단계별 특징을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 자료 탐색 단계에서 학생들은 각자의 지식과 관심을 반영하여 자기주도적으로 심층적인 자료를 수집하였으며, 자신이 이해하기 쉬운 형태의 자료를 선택하여 학습하였다. 자료 공유 단계에서는 온라인보다 오프라인에서의 공유가 활발하게 일어났으며, 공유 과정을 통해 수집한 근거의 구체성과 타당성 및 출처의 명확성이 향상되었다. 자료 요약 및 정리 단계에서 학생들은 스마트 기기보다는 종이에 자료를 정리하였으나, 대부분의 학생들은 토론 과정에서 정리한 자료를 제대로 활용하지 못하였다. 교실 토론 단계에서는 구체적 근거에 기반한 주장과 반박이 활발하게 이루어졌으며, 이는 토론에 대한 학생들의 흥미를 높여 적극적인 토론 참여로 이어졌다. 온라인 토론 단계에서는 학생들이 양측의 논거를 재정리하고 검토할 뿐 아니라, 교실 토론에서 소극적이었던 학생들의 토론 참여가 높아지는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구 결과를 바탕으로 스마트 기기를 활용한 SSI 수업을 효과적으로 진행하기 위한 방안에 대해 논의하였다.

In this study, we investigated the features of using smart devices in socioscientific issues (SSI) debate classes. Twenty-seven high school students in Gyeonggi-do participated in this study. The processes of the SSI debate classes with smart devices were classified into five stages: data searching, data sharing, summary and organization of data, debate in the classroom, and online debate. Then some features at each stage were identified. It was found that they collected self-directed and in-depth data while reflecting their knowledge and experience, and selected data which were easy to understand at the stage of data searching. The specificity and validity of the evidences gathered and the clarity of the sources were improved at the stage of data sharing, although they shared more data offline than online. They organized their data by using paper rather than smart devices at the stage of summary and organization of data. Most of them failed to use the summary in debate. They argued and refuted based on concrete grounds at the stage of debate in the classroom, which raised students' interest in debate and led students to participate actively. At the stage of online debate, they were able to rearrange and review the arguments of both sides, and the participation of the students who were passive in classroom debate was enhanced. Based on these results, we suggest some effective teaching methods for SSI debate classes using smart devices.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Albe, V. (2008). Students' positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8), 805-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6
  2. Bae, J., Kim, J., Kim, E., & So, K. H. (2015). The effect of elementary free inquiry lessons utilizing flipped learning with smart devices on the elementary students' digital literacy, 21st century skills and scientific attitude. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 34(4), 476-485. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2015.34.4.476
  3. Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students' decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887-900.
  4. Choi, K. H., & Cho, H. H. (2002). Effects of teaching/learning ethical aspects of science on the middle school students' recognition about the nature of science. Journal of the Korean Association for Biology Education, 30(2), 105-113.
  5. Chun, S. Y., Jeon, M. A., & Bang, I. J. (2014). Analysis of the effects on using digital textbook in the classroom for smart education. The Journal of Elementary Education, 27(3), 137-161.
  6. Cross, R. T., & Price, R. (1996). Science teachers' social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319-333. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199603)33:3<319::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-W
  7. Greenhow, C., Gibbins, T., & Menzer, M. M. (2015). Re-thinking scientific literacy out-of-school: Arguing science issues in a niche facebook application. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 593-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.031
  8. Hirschberg, S. (1996). Essential strategies of argument. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  9. Hong, S. Y. (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(20), 157-173.
  10. Hwang, Y. R., & Kang, S. C. (2013). Smart devices and smart content effectiveness research for SMART education. The Korean Association of Computer Education, 17(2), 243-248. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2013.17.3.243
  11. Jang, E. J., & Chang, H. J. (2013). Exploration of debate strategies on SNS tools, creativity techniques and group size for Social Network Service(SNS)-based debate. Journal of Educational Information and Media, 19(4), 693-721.
  12. Jang, S., Cha, H., Park, H., & Park, C. (2016). Effectiveness of decision-making skills in SSI class based on debate by utilizing SNS in terms of students' personality traits. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(5), 757-768. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.5.0757
  13. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). The pro-con cooperative group strategy: Structuring academic controversy within the social studies classroom. In R. Stahl (Ed.), Cooperative learning in social studies: A handbook for teachers, 306-331, New York: Addison-Westley Publishing Company.
  14. Joo, J. W., & Lee, Y. H. (2012). A study of possibilities on the photographic education method by smart-phone, especially in social network services. The Society of Korean Photography, 26, 47-60.
  15. Kang, I., Lim, B., & Park, J. Y. (2012). Exploring the theoretical framework and teaching & learning strategies of Smart Learning: Using cases of university classrooms. The Korean Association for Educational Methodology Studies, 24(2), 283-303. https://doi.org/10.17927/tkjems.2012.24.2.283
  16. Kang, T. W. (2002). Fomats, procedures and argumentation strategies of television debate programs in Korea. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 16(1), 7-42.
  17. Kim, H. B., & Yeon, K. W. (2015). A study on the learning effects in app-based and web-based online debate instruction. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 21(4), 645-665.
  18. Kim, H. B., Kim, S. H., & Park, J. M. (2011). Study on the strategies to facilitate debate in smart-learning environment. The Korean Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 79-114.
  19. Kim, H. J., & Leem, J. (2014). Developing an instructional model for collaborative problem solving based on smart learning: A design-based research. Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 651-677. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.30.4.651
  20. Kim, M., & Bae, Y. (2012). Development of a smart education model for field application of smart education. Journal of Korean Socieity for Internet Information, 3(5), 77-92.
  21. Klop, T., Severiens, S. E., Knippels, M. -C. P. J., van Mil, M. H. W. & Ten Dam, G. T. M. (2010). Effects of a science education module on attitudes towards modern biotechnology of secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1127-1150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902943665
  22. Ko, Y., & Shin, W. (2011). An analysis of discussion using online discussion forum and smartphone. The Korea Educational Review, 17(3), 129-150.
  23. Kwon, H., Kim, M., Kim, S., & Noh, T. (2017). The patterns of analogy change and the characteristics of discussions in collaborative activity of self-generated analogy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education. 37(3), 407-416. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.3.407
  24. Lee, E. -M. (2009). An analysis of the pattern of data utilization and a study of teaching methods according to the debate process of elementary school students -Focusing on the small group debate process of 6th grade students-. (Master dissertation). Gyeongin National University of Education, Incheon.
  25. Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. H. (2006). Korean science teachers' perceptions of the introduction of socio-scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(2), 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556691
  26. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Lee, M. K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students' attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315-1327.
  30. Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons. London, UK: The Wellcome Trust.
  31. Lim, B., Leem, J., & Sung, E. (2013). What is the concept of smart eduction and the typology of smart education contents? Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 459-489. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.29.3.459
  32. Lin, Y. T., Chang, C. H., Hou, H. T., & Wu, K. C. (2015). Exploring the effects of employing Google Docs in collaborative concept mapping on achievement, concept representation, and attitudes. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1005423
  33. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2011). A strategy of promoting smart education, Seoul, Korea.
  34. Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Tytler, R. (2013). Digital technology to support students’ socioscientific reasoning about environmental issues. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.821748
  35. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x
  36. Oh, Y. J. (2010). Why are students silent in classroom discussion on controversial public issues? Social Studies Education, 49(2), 121-136.
  37. 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
  38. Park, J. H. (2004). The debate culture of Korea and debate instruction. Korean Language Education Research, 19, 289-318.
  39. Park, S. K. (2013). An analysis of middle school students' perceptions and learning satisfaction in SMART learning-based science instruction. Journal of The Korean Earth Science Society, 34(7), 727-737. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2013.34.7.727
  40. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190203
  41. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  42. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
  43. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
  44. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  45. Walsh, E., & Cho, I. (2012). Using evernote as an electronic lab notebook in a translational science laboratory. Journal of Laboratory Automation, 20(10), 1-6.
  46. Yang, C., Jo, M., & Noh, T. (2015). Investigation of teaching practices using smart technologies and science teachers' opinion on their application in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(5), 829-840. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.5.0829
  47. Yang, C., Kim, S., Jo, M., & Noh, T. (2016). The characteristics of group and classroom discussions in the scientific modeling of the particulate model of matter. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 361-369. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0361
  48. Yun, J., Ahn, I., & Noh, T. (2015). The effects of individualized learning adapted to students' conceptions using smart devices in science instruction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 325-331. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0325
  49. Yun, J., Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2016). The effects of small group learning using smart devices in science classes. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 519-526. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0519
  50. Yun, J., Kang, S., Ahn, I., & Noh, T. (2017). Analyses of verbal interaction among students in small group science learning using smart devices. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 61(3), 104-111. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2017.61.3.104
  51. Zeidler, D. L., & Kahn, S. (2014). It's debatable!: Using socioscientific issues to develop scientific literacy. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  52. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281