Journal of Science Education (과학교육연구지)

Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University (경북대학교 과학교육연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effects of SSI Argumentation Program on the Preservice Biology Teachers' Decision-Making Types and Communication Ability

과학기술과 관련된 사회적 쟁점에 대한 논증 프로그램이 예비 생물교사들의 의사결정 유형과 의사소통 능력에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2017.10.17
  • Accepted : 2018.02.06
  • Published : 2018.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the effects of SSI argumentation program on the preservice biology teachers' decision-making types and communication ability. The SSI argumentation program was developed based on 'Social Decision-Making & Problem-Solving strategy' and Toulmin's argumentation pattern. The preservice teachers had opportunities of SSI argumentation through small group discussions. They were asked to identify the issues regarding SSI, think of solutions, and make a decision along with claims, warrants, data, and rebuttals. The preservice biology teachers experienced four SSI topics of abortion, euthanasia, gene manipulation, artificial intelligence. The results indicated that the preservice biology teachers significantly improved the communication ability after the intervention, but they did not change their types of decision-making. In addition, after the intervention, the Pearson correlation results indicated that 'the logical type' of decision-making significantly relates to the communication ability(p<.01). The preservice biology teachers mentioned that they improved their ability of considering warrants, data, background information, context, and rebuttals. Further, the preserivce biology teachers mentioned that they became take an interest in socioscientific issues and improved their ability of accepting criticism from others as well as caring about others when they argue each other. This study implicated that the SSI argumentation program has effects on improving personality education in school science.

본 연구에서는 과학기술과 관련된 사회적 쟁점에 대한 논증 프로그램을 통해 예비 생물교사들의 의사결정 유형과 의사소통 능력의 변화를 살펴보았다. 또한 의사결정 유형과 의사소통 능력의 상관관계를 조사하고, 예비생물 교사들은 SSI 논증 프로그램 후 의사소통 및 의사결정에 관해 어떠한 경험을 하였는지 살펴보았다. SSI 논증 프로그램은 사회적 의사결정과 문제해결전략을 활용하여 개발되었으며, 낙태, 안락사, 유전자 조작 및 인공지능을 주제로 총 12차시에 걸쳐 진행되었다. 예비교사들은 SSI 문제를 파악하고, 해결책을 생각하며, 최선의 방안을 결정하도록 하였으며, 이 과정에서 소집단 토론을 통해 사회과학적 문제에 대한 논증 활동의 기회를 가졌다. 연구 결과, 예비 교사들의 의사소통 능력은 통계적으로 유의미한 향상을 나타냈으나, 의사결정 유형에는 변화가 없었다. 또한 Pearson 상관 분석 결과, 의사결정 유형 중 '합리적 유형'은 의사소통 능력과 유의미한 상관관계를 나타냈다. 예비교사들은 사회과학적 쟁점에 대한 논증 프로그램을 통해 근거, 자료, 맥락, 반론 등을 고려하여 자신의 주장을 말하는 능력이 향상되었다고 언급하였다. 또한 사회과학적 문제에 관심을 가지게 되고 다른 사람의 비판을 수용할 수 있게 되었을 뿐만 아니라 자신도 다른 사람을 배려하면서 자신의 의견을 말할 수 있게 되었다고 하여 과학교육에서 SSI 논증 활동을 통한 인성 교육의 가능성을 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278
  2. Chang, H. S., & Lee, H. J. (2010). College students' decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 30(7), 887-900. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2010.30.7.887
  3. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20385
  4. 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
  5. Elias, M. J., & Tobias, S. E. (1990). Problem solving/decision making for social and academic success. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
  6. Geddis, A. N. (1991). Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750203
  7. Harren, V. A. (1979). A model of career decision making for college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90065-4
  8. Jang, J., Mun, J., Ryu, H., Choi, K., Krajcik, J., & Kim, S. (2012). Korean middle school students' perceptions as Global Citizens of Socioscientific Issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1124-1138. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1124
  9. Ju, I., & Lee, H. (2013). Patterns of middle school students' value-judgement and decision-making on biotechnology-related socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.079
  10. Kim, J., Ko, Y., & Lee, H. (2016). Effects of sociosientific issues instruction on elementary school students’ character and values as a global citizens. The Journal of Elementary Education, 29(3), 1-25.
  11. Ko, Y., & Lee, H. (2017). Comparision of the effects of socioscientific issues instruction on promoting college students’ character and values: Based on idiocentrism and allocentrism. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(3), 395-405. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.3.395
  12. Koh, H. (1992). A study on the effect of the career counseling on Korean college students' decision making styles and on career decision making status (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Sookmyung Woman's University, Seoul, Korea.
  13. Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico‐predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052117
  14. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  15. Lee, H. (2008). Decision-making patterns of pre-service science teachers on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 12(2), 377-395. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2008.12.2.377
  16. Lee, S., Chang, Y., Lee, H., & Park, K. (2003). A study on the development of life-skills: Communication, problem solving, and self-directed learning. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute [KEDI].
  17. Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656093
  18. Lim, M., & Jung, S. (2013). An analysis of changes in gifted, middle school students’ decision-making on socioscientific issues in biotechnology. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(4), 1501-1522. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2013.17.4.1501
  19. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  20. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future: A report with ten recommendations. London, England: King's College London, School of Education.
  21. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). 2015 Revised Science Curriculum. Sejong: Author.
  22. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  27. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  28. 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

Cited by

  1. The Effect of Writing Activities on the Creative Problem Solving Ability of Biological Gifted and Talented Middle School Students vol.46, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2018.46.4.455