DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analyzing College Students' Dialogic Argumentation in the Context of Nanotechnology Issues Based on Idiocentrism and Allocentrism

나노기술 관련 사회·윤리적 쟁점 맥락에서 개인-집단중심성향에 따른 대학생들의 논증담화 분석

  • Ko, Yeonjoo (Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Lee, Hyunju (Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University)
  • 고연주 (이화여자대학교 과학교육과) ;
  • 이현주 (이화여자대학교 과학교육과)
  • Received : 2020.04.13
  • Accepted : 2020.06.24
  • Published : 2020.09.28

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the patterns of college students' dialogic argumentation in the context of nanotechnology issues, and to compare these patterns based on their idiocentrism and allocentrism. Nanotechnology represents the characteristics of socioscientific issues in that it is widely used in various fields, but at the same time, it includes the likelihood of negative effects. 33 college students who enrolled in science-related course participated in this study. Participants were divided into idiocentric groups and allocentric groups based on the INDCOL scores, and they participated in group discussions on nanotechnology. All discussions were audiotaped and analyzed using the framework of discourse clusters and schemes. Results showed that participating students engaged in dialogic argumentation with the process of exchanging of individual perspectives, exploration of different perspectives, and coordination and negotiation; specifically, they spent most of their time in exploring different values and perspectives regarding nanotechnology. Results also indicated the differences in discourse clusters and discourse schemes between idiocentric and allocentric groups. Allocentric groups more often negotiated to settle on a group decision than idiocentric groups did, and discourse schemes in their negotiation process were slightly different from the ones in idiocentric groups.

이 연구는 나노기술과 관련된 사회윤리적 쟁점 맥락에서 이루어진 대학생의 논증담화의 특성을 개인-집단중심성향에 따라 분석하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 나노기술은 다양한 분야에서 활용되고 있으나 그에 못지않게 위험성을 내포하고 있어 과학기술과 관련된 사회쟁점의 특징을 보여주는 주제이다. 이 연구에서는 A대학의 교양수업을 수강한 대학생 33명을 대상으로 개인중심성향과 집단중심성향에 따라 구분하고, 나노기술과 관련된 사회윤리적 쟁점 맥락에서 진행한 논증담화를 담화클러스터와 담화요소에 따라 분석하였다. 연구결과, 전반적으로 대학생들은 나노기술과 관련한 논증을 진행할 때 본인의 입장을 교환하고 자료를 탐색함으로써 의견을 조율하는 방식으로 참여하였으며, 그 중에서도 나노기술의 혜택과 잠재적인 위험성을 탐색하는 데 많은 시간과 노력을 투자하였다. 이때 개인중심성향집단과 집단중심성향집단은 담화클러스터와 담화요소의 연결고리에 있어 차이가 있었다. 집단중심성향집단은 개인중심성향집단에 비해 구성원 간의 의견을 조정하고 합의하는 담화클러스터가 길게 등장하였으며, 의견조정 및 합의 클러스터 내부에 등장하는 담화요소와 그 연결고리의 모습 또한 다소 차이가 있는 것으로 드러났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim, D. Journal of Science & Technology Studies 2004, 4, 33.
  2. Kim, W.; Chung, J.; Lee, D.; Kim, E.; Kim, H.; Kwon, Y.; Lee, B. Korean Journal of General Education 2018, 13, 57.
  3. Bang, D.; Choi, S.; Hyun, N. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction 2015, 15, 595.
  4. Song, I. Journal of General Education 2015, 9, 265.
  5. Zeidler, D. L.; Sadler, T. D.; Simmons, M. L.; Howes, E. V. Science Education 2005, 89, 357. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  6. Song, H.; Cho, H. Crisisonomy 2013, 9, 1.
  7. Kim, H.; Hong, H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2010, 54, 633. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2010.54.5.633
  8. Lee, J.; Kim, Y.; Bae, E.; Lee, S.; Kwak, B.; Choi, K.; Yi, J. Journal of Environmental Toxicology 2008 23, 247.
  9. Bae, S.; Kim, J.; Jung, Y.; Kim, J.; Chun, S.; Kim, N.; Song, H.; Lee, D.; Kang, S. KSMTE Annual Spring Conference Proceedings 2017, 198.
  10. Choi, B.; Kim, K.; So, D.; Bak, H. Prospectives of Industrial Chemistry 2008, 11, 62.
  11. Kim, H.; Hong, H.; Hong, J. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2011, 55, 104. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2011.55.1.104
  12. Kim, W.; Song, H.; Kim, C. Crisisonomy 2015, 12, 69.
  13. Barab, S. A.; Sadler, T. D.; Heiselt, C.; Hickey, D. T.; Zuiker, S. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2007, 16, 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9033-3
  14. Sadler, T. D.; Barab, S. A.; Scott, B. Research in Science Education 2007, 37, 371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
  15. Zeidler, D. L.; Nichols, B. H. Journal of Elementary Science Education 2009, 21, 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
  16. Kolsto, S. D. Science Education 2001, 85, 291. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  17. Sadler, T. D.; Zeidler, D. L. Science Education 2004, 88, 4. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
  18. Triandis, H. C. Individualism and Collectivism; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1995.
  19. Wagner, J. A., III. Academy of Management Journal 1995, 38, 152. https://doi.org/10.2307/256731
  20. Cho, G. Korean Journal of Psychology 1996, 15, 104.
  21. Kim, Y.; Park, S.; Cha, H. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies 2004, 48, 271.
  22. Kim, H. Korean Review of Organizational Studies 2011, 8, 61. https://doi.org/10.21484/kros.2011.8.3.61
  23. Cho, Y.; Cho. Y. Korea Business Review 2004, 33, 423.
  24. Ting-Toomey, S. Communicating Across Cultures; Guilford Press: New York, NY, 1999.
  25. Holt, J. L.; DeVore, C. J. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 2005, 29, 165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.002
  26. Ko, Y.; Choi, Y.; Lee, H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2015, 35, 509. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0509
  27. Ko, Y. Comparison of college students' dialogic argumentation in the context of socioscientific issues: Based on idiocentrism and allocentrism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ewha Womans University, 2017.
  28. Clark, D. B.; Sampson, V. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2008, 45, 293. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  29. Choi, A.; Hand, B.; Norton-Meier, L. Research in Science Education 2004, 44, 267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9384-8
  30. Lincoln, Y. S.; Guba, E. G. Naturalistic Inquiry; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, 1985.
  31. Song, H.; Kim, W.; Cho, H.; Schuetz H. Nano and Wonderful Microscopic World; Korean Studies Information, Paju, 2007.
  32. Connell, S.; Fien, J.; Lee, J.; Sykes, H.; Yencken, D Environmental Education Research 1999, 5, 96. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050106
  33. Dreyfus, A.; Roth, Z. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1991, 28, 81. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280108
  34. Kim, M.; Anthony, R.; Blades, D. Research in Science Education 2014, 44, 903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
  35. Erduran, S.; Simon, S.; Osborne, J. Science Education 2004, 88, 915. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
  36. Osborne, J.; Erduran, S.; Simon, S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2004, 41, 994. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035