Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Analysing the Differences in the Patterns of their Decision-Making and Personalities of Discourses for Socio-Scientific Issues as Argumented by Pre-Service Biology Teachers

의사결정 유형 및 성격특성에 따른 예비생물교사들의 SSI(Socio-Scientific Issues) 토론 담화 차이 분석

  • Received : 2018.10.05
  • Accepted : 2018.10.25
  • Published : 2018.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the differences of argumentation discourses for Socio-Scientific Issues in the types of decision-making and personality traits of pre-service biology teachers. For this study, SSI discussion topics were selected according to four types of decision making: logical reasoning, suggestion of complement, emotional base, and internal conflict. Three groups were constructed based on personality traits such as extroversion, acceptability, and integrity. Each three group used the workbook specially developed and freely used the smart device for discussion. A recorder and a camcorder were used to record each group, their behavior was recorded and the written materials during the discussion were collected for the results. Using Walton's analysis framework, the collected data analyzed in terms of the source of utterance, the process of dialogue shift, and the critical movements that can judge the reasoning of utterance. As a result of the study, it was confirmed that the decision-making type of SSI topics and learners' personalities were influential in the decision-making process of SSI small group discussions. This research shows that there is a need to develop instructional materials considering decision-making types and learners' personality types of students as well as pre-service teachers for SSI discussion.

이 연구는 예비생물교사의 의사결정 유형 및 성격특성별 SSI 토론 담화에 어떤 차이가 있는지 알아 보고자 하였다. 본 연구를 위하여 선행연구 고찰을 통해 논리적 근거, 보완책 제시, 감정 기반, 내적 갈등의 네 가지 의사결정 유형에 따른 SSI 토론 주제를 선정하였다. 외향성, 수용성, 성실성 등의 성격 특성에 따라 세 개의 소집단을 구성하였다. 각각의 소집단은 개발된 활동지를 사용하여 SSI 주제를 파악한 후, 자유롭게 스마트 기기를 활용하여 토론을 하였다. 녹음기 및 캠코더를 설치하여 녹음 및 녹화를 한 결과와 토론활동 시 작성했던 글쓰기 자료를 수집했다. Walton의 분석틀을 활용하여, 수집된 자료는 발화의 출처와 추론 방법을 판단할 수 있는 발화 요소와 담화 종류의 이동과정, 그리고 비판적 움직임 등을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, SSI 소집단 토론의 의사결정 과정에 SSI 주제의 의사결정 유형과 성격 특성이 모두 영향을 미친 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 이 연구 사례는 SSI 토론을 위해 예비교사들 뿐만 아니라 학생들을 대상으로 의사결정 유형별 뿐만 아니라, 학습자의 성격유형별로 차별화된 토론 학습 지도 방법을 연구할 필요가 있음을 알려주고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bae, J., & Cha, H.(2014). Analysis of the types of claims and argumentations in science debate classes of fifth graders., KNUE Journal of Science Education. 20(1), 63-83.
  2. Barrick, M. R., Silasi Mansat, & Worthy, D. A. (2015). Who chokes under pressure? The big five personality trait and decision-making under pressure. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.009
  3. Byrne, K. A., & 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
  4. Cho, H. & Choi, K.(1998). The Necessities and current states of educating ethical characteristics of science, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 18(4), 559-570.
  5. Choi, B.(2006). A Study on teaching and learning methodologies using debate education. The Journal of Korean Arts Education Research, 11, 117-171.
  6. Choi, J., Lee, S. & Kim, H.(2014). Social interaction according to students' approaches to learning science and their levels of scientific knowledge during small-group argumentation, Biology Education, 42(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2014.42.4.371
  7. Chung, Y., Moon, K., & Kim, S.(2010). Exploration of socioscientific issues(SSI) in the science textbook, The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 10(3), 435-456.
  8. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
  9. De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 303-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199612)10:5<303::AID-PER262>3.0.CO;2-2
  10. Duschl, R. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. Argumentation in Science Education, 159-75.
  11. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730380106
  12. Dwyer, A. J., Becker, G. J., & Hawkins. C. (2010). Decision makers perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level. Australian Health Review, 34(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH09738
  13. 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, 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  14. 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
  15. Ha, E.(2008). Case analysis on the features and persistence factors of middle school students' science discourse during after-school group activities. Doctoral Dissertation of Graduate School in Seoul National University
  16. Halversonm, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2009). Lenses for framing decisions: undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1249-1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802178123
  17. Han, J., Han, S. & Noh, T.(2002).The Effect of grouping by students' agreeableness in cooperative learning, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(4), 717-724.
  18. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2003). Use of the Internet and their relationships with individual differences in personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00016-X
  19. Im, C. (2002). A model and meaning of academic debate. Journal of Research in Elementary Korean Language Education in Kwangju, 5, 45-72.
  20. Jang, H. & Lee, H.(2008). Discourse analysis of pre-service science teachers and students in science museums and its implication for teacher education, Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 211-220.
  21. 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
  22. Jang, Y. (2015). The Effect of the science process skills and academic achievement in science class Habeuluta small group discussion of the topic. Thesis for Master Degree of Graduate School in Pusan National University of Education.
  23. John, O. P., & Strivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford.
  24. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Cooperative learning and feedback in technology-based instruction. New Jersey: Educational Technology.
  25. Kang, M., Um, S. & Lee, J.(2010). The effects of learner's traits and interactions Web-based collaborative learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 53-79.
  26. Kim, D.(2010). The effect of science inquiry learning by discussion and writing on high school students' science learning motivation, social interactions and attitude toward science writing, Biology Education, 38(1), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2010.38.1.111
  27. Kim, S.(2008). The implication for a criminal procedure of the dialectical argumentation theory of Douglas Walton. Journal of Criminal Law, 20(4), 281-310. https://doi.org/10.21795/kcla.2008.20.4.281
  28. Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Bladesm, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A Case study of analyzing preservice teachers' argumentation on SSI. Science Education, 44(6), 903-926.
  29. Kim, M., & Anthony, R. (2015). Challenges and remedies for identifying and classifying argumentation schemes. Argumentation, 29, 81-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9335-1
  30. Ko, Y., Choi, Y. & Lee, H.(2015). Development of an analytical framework for dialogic argumentation in the context of socioscientific issues: based on discourse clusters and schemes. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education. 35(3), 509-521. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0509
  31. Kwon, J. & Kim, H.(2016). Exploring small group argumentation shown in designing an experiment: Focusing on students' epistemic goals and epistemic considerations for activities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
  32. Lee, E., Lee, E. & Chung Y.(2016). Effects of socioscientific issues (SSI) programs on enhancing high school students moral judgement and SSI reasoning skills. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(8), 219-237.
  33. 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
  34. Lee, H. (2016). Conceptualization of an SSI-PICK framework for teaching socioscientific Issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 539-550. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0539
  35. Lee, H. & Jang, H.(2011). Enlargement of pre-service science teachers' understanding of SSI teaching through a teacher education program. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 15(4), 911-930.
  36. Maeng, S., Shin, M., Cha, H, Ham, S. & Kim, C.(2010). Understanding of the linguistic features of earth science treatises: Register analysis approach. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 31(7), 785-797. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2010.31.7.785
  37. Ministry of Education (2015). Science Curriculum.
  38. Mo. H., Park, M. & Ha, D.(2013). Big 5 mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between big five personality factors and subjective well-being. Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 27(3), 761-781.
  39. Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students' argumentation: A Critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Science Education, 43, 371-393.
  40. Nussbaum, E. M. (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
  41. 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
  42. Park, J.(2016). Disscussions about three aspects of scientific literacy: Focus on integrative understanding, settlement in curriculum, and civic education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 413-422. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.3.0413
  43. Park, K. & Jun, S.(2007). Personality traits, approaches to Learning, and academic achievement in graduate-entry medical school. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 14(6), 149-172.
  44. Park, Y., Kim, Y. & Chung, W.(2002). The Effects of decision-making activities about bio-ethical issues on students' rational decision-making ability in high school biology. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(1), 54-63.
  45. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  46. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Brianna Scott (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientfic inquiry? Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
  47. 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
  48. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Um, S(2010). Verification of predictability of learner's traits and interaction of web-based collaborative learning outcomes. Master's Degree Thesis of Graduate School in Ehwa Woman's University.
  50. Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4421-z
  51. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  52. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Walton, D. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Wee, S. & Lim, S.(2013). Awareness and eductional needs concerning SSI of Korean pre-service elementary teachers related to nuclear power plant accident. Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 294-309. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2013.37.2.294
  55. Wee, S., Yoon, J. & Lim, S.(2014). An Analysis on argumentation structure development of preservice teachers through argumentative writing on earth science related SSI, Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 7(1), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2014.7.1.011
  56. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
  57. 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
  58. Zhang, Li-fang. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Difference, 34(8), 1431-1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00125-3