Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Effects of SSI Argumentation Program based on SEL for Preservice Biology Teachers

예비 생물교사를 위한 사회정서학습에 기반한 SSI 논증 프로그램 적용 효과 탐색

  • Received : 2018.03.06
  • Accepted : 2018.04.27
  • Published : 2018.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the effect of the SSI argumentation program based on social and emotional learning(SEL). The program consisted of 3 stages: (1) express their own feelings about SSI, identify the issues of SSI, and define a goal; (2) think of many possible solutions and envision results through argumentation; (3) select the best solution and make a decision based on warrants, data, and rebuttals. In each stage, the social-emotional strategies of self-awareness, self-management, social-awareness, relationship-management, and responsible decision making were used. Seventeen preservice biology teachers participated in this study during one semester dealing with four socioscientific issues. The results indicated that the preservice teachers, as time went on, became accustomed to expressing identifiable rebuttals, dispute talk, and asking questions. At the first SSI argumentation, argumentation mainly consisted of cumulative talk with no rebuttals, representing level 2 argumentation. Level 3 argumentation represented rebuttals that were implicit and weak, with cumulative talk. In level 2 and 3 argumentation, the preservice teachers represented understanding of others and compassion for self and others. Level 4 argumentation had rebuttals that were explicit, asking critical questions of the opposite sides. In addition, level 5 argumentation represented more than two controversial points with several instances of dispute talk. In levels 4 and 5, the preservice teachers became actively engaged in communication, inquiry self with others, managing vulnerability and negotiation.

본 연구는 예비 생물교사를 대상으로 사회정서학습에 기반한 SSI 논증 프로그램의 적용 효과를 살펴보았다. 사회정서학습에 기반한 SSI 논증 프로그램을 통해 예비교사들은 SSI에 대한 감정이나 느낌, 생각을 자유롭게 나누고, SSI 관련 과학 개념, 사실, 원리 등을 조사하도록 하여 문제를 확인할 기회를 가졌다. 이 과정에서 예비교사들이 자기의 감정을 확인하고 타인의 의견을 듣고 공감할 수 있도록 하여 자기인식과 사회인식의 기회를 경험할 수 있도록 하였다. 이를 바탕으로 각자 자신의 주장, 이유와 근거를 활용하여 논증 토론 과정에 참여하도록 하여 의사소통, 타협 및 갈등을 경험함으로써 자기관리 및 관계관리의 기회를 경험하였다. 마지막으로 논증 토론 과정 및 결과를 바탕으로 자신의 문제 해결 방안 및 주장에 대한 이유와 근거를 재정립하고, 최선의 해결방안을 선택하도록 하여 책임 있는 의사결정을 할 수 있도록 하였다. 예비교사들은 낙태, 안락사, 유전자 조작 및 인공지능의 4가지 SSI를 경험하였다. 각 주제 당 3차시, 총 12차시에 걸쳐 수업이 이루어졌으며, 3-5명이 조를 이루어 논증 토론 활동에 참여하였다. 논증 구조 분석 결과에 따르면, Level 2에서는 상대방의 주장에 대한 비판이나 반박의 요소는 결여되어 있고 주로 누적담화의 형태로 상대방의 의견이나 주장에 대한 정보 보충이 이루어졌다. Level 3에서는 반박이 나타나기는 하지만 반박의 요소가 자신의 주장에 대한 이유나 근거를 제시하는 형태로 내재해 있었다. 즉, Level 2와 Level 3에서는 상대방에 대한 공감과 이해의 사회정서적 요소가 주로 나타났다. Level 4에서는 상대방의 의견이나 주장에 대한 질문, 비유 등을 통해 직접적인 반박이 나타났으며, 타협점을 제시하는 모습을 나타내 갈등관리와 협상이 이루어졌음을 알 수 있었다. Level 5에서는 논쟁 담화의 형태로 명확한 반박으로 구성된 확장된 논증이 나타냈으며, 상호 간의 질문과 답변으로 이루어진 논증 토론의 형태로 서로 간에 영향을 주는 공동체를 형성하게 되었음을 의미한다. 본 연구는 SSI 논증 토론에 자기인식, 사회인식, 자기관리, 관계관리, 책임 있는 의사결정 요소가 내재할 수 있도록 하였으며, 예비교사들은 자신과 타인의 감정을 인식하고, 주장하기와 반박하기를 통해 갈등, 타협의 과정을 경험하면서 자신의 요구와 사회의 요구를 반영한 의사결정 과정에 점차 적극적으로 참여할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 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
  2. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
  3. Bottcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 479-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9271-0
  4. Bricker, L., & 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, 473-498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278
  5. Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton‐Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277
  6. Chang, H., & Lee, H. (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.
  7. 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
  8. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2012). 2013 CASEL guide: Effective social and emotional learning programs-Preschool and elementary school edition. Chicago: Author.
  9. Elias, M. J., & Tobias, S. E. (1990). Problem Solving/Decision Making for Social and Academic Success. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
  10. Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S.,Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  11. 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
  12. Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). 'Should we kill the grey squirrels?' A study exploring students' justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619211
  13. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
  14. Gueldner, B., & Merrell, K. (2011). Evaluation of a social-emotional learning program in conjunction with the exploratory application of performance feedback incorporating motivational interviewing techniques. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2010.522876
  15. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
  16. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  17. Kim, J., Ko, Y., Lee, H. (2016). Effects of socioscientific issues instruction on elementary school students’ character and values as a global citizens. The Journal of Elementary Education, 29(3), 1-25.
  18. Kim, Y., Lee., E., & Chung, Y. (2017). Analysis of high school student’s value judgement and patterns of change in decision-making on socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 21(5), 498-511.
  19. Ko, Y., & Lee, H. (2017). Comparison 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
  20. Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (Science & Technology Education Library 35, pp. 114-133). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
  21. Merrell, K. W., & Gimpel, G. (2014). Social skills of children and adolescents: Conceptualization, assessment, treatment. Psychology Press.
  22. MOEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology)(2015). 2015 Revised Science Curriculum. Seoul, Republic of Korea: Ministry of education, Science and Technology.
  23. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  24. Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., & Oldfield, M. (2012). Environmental argumentation as sociocultural activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 869-897. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21020
  25. Park. H. (2017). Exploring the possibility of applying social and emotional learning to science subjects: Analysis of social emotional learning contents in science textbooks. Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.297
  26. Philibert, C. T. (2016). Every SEL in middle school: Integrating social- emotional learning and mindfulness into your classroom. New York and London:Routledge.
  27. 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
  28. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  32. Shin, H. S., & Kim, H. J. (2011). The Gifted Students' View on Argumentation and the Aspects of the Argumentation in Problem-Solving Type Experiment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(4), 567-586.
  33. 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
  34. Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). Building School Success through Social and Emotional Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
  35. 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