Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2010.30.8.933

Educational Implications about Online Debates on a Socio-Scientific Issue from a Postmodernist Perspective: Focus on the Mad Cow Disease  

Jho, Hun-Koog (Seoul National University)
Song, Jin-Woong (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.30, no.8, 2010 , pp. 933-952 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to characterize debate on a socio-scientific issue in the Internet and to provide implications from a postmodernist perspective. This study concentrates on disentanglement of the complex relationship among society, economy, politics and science in an issue and characterization of the given text centering on its originality, the relationship between writer and reader, and the purpose of utterance. Sixty-six most read articles on a web message board were chosen and analyzed as a typical case of a socio-scientific issue in the internet. In them, five scientific disputes were identified: the cause of mad cow disease (MCD), specified risk material and the incubation period, the cause of new variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (vCJD), vulnerability of vCJD and the relation of Alzheimer and vCJD in American patients. Each argument is intertwined with social, economic and political problems such as its impact on the domestic beef market, feeding environment of imported cattle and the retaliation against denial of importation. With regard to originality, it is found that the originality of an author is weakened but communal through repetitive quotation of 'Peom', cutting and pasting, and engagement of readers with their comments. Furthermore, in order to close the gap between writer and reader, identity and personal narrative of the writers are often introduced into their writing. In terms of purpose of utterance, these are intended to deliver one's feelings or facilitate human behavior rather than inform through verification of a principle.
Keywords
internet; online debate; socio-scientific issue; text analysis; postmodernism; mad cow disease; Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 World Health Organization. (2009a). The website of world health organization. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en/
2 World Health Organization. (2009b). World health organization regional office for Europe. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/who/progs/fos/Otherissues/20020402_2
3 Young, R. E. (1989). A critical theory of education: Habermas and our children's future. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
4 Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5 Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Sauvagnargues, A. (2005). Deleuze et l'art (이정하 역). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
7 Skinner, E. (2007). Building knowledge and community through online discussion. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(3), 381-391.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
9 Song, J. (1999). The process of the quickening and development of sciencetechnology- society education in the United Kingdom (I). The Journal of Korea Association Research for Science Education, 19(3), 409-427.
10 Song, J. (2000). The process of the quickening and development of sciencetechnology- society education in the United Kingdom (II). The Journal of Korea Association Research for Science Education, 20(1), 52-76.
11 Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12 Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
13 Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socioscientific issues. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
16 Roth, W.-M., & Desautels, J. (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action: charting the landscape. In W.-M. Roth & J. De sautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 1-16). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
17 Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263-291.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
19 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.
22 Lee, A.-H. (2004). Discourse of the postmodern understanding of the curriculum in special school. The Secondary Education Research, 52(2), 485-499.
23 Levinson, R. (2008). Promoting the role of the personal narrative in teaching. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 855-871.   DOI
24 Lewenstein, B. V. (2001). Who produces science information for the public? In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education: how we Learn science outside of school (pp. 21-43). New York: Teachers College Press.
25 Love, K., & Simpson, A. (2005). Online discussion in schools: towards a pedagogical framework. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 446-463.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
27 Norris, C., & Benjamin, A. (1988). What is deconstruction? New York: St. Martins Press.
28 Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: culture, power and liberation (D. Macedo, Trans.). South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
29 Foucault, M. (1994-1997). Histoire de la sexualite? (R. Hurley, Trans.). Paris:Gallimard.
30 Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296.
31 Habermas, J. (1998). On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32 Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
33 Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 861-871.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Kim, D.-J. (2006). Student's theory on classroom-level curriculum implementation: an analysis from the perspective of postmodernism. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(1), 1-40.
35 Derrida, J. (1967). L'ecriture et la diffe rence (남수인 역). Paris: ditions du Seuil.
36 Kolsto, S. D. (2001). 'To trust or not to trust,...'- pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.   DOI   ScienceOn
37 Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
38 Denzin, N. K. (2005). Emancipatory discourses and the ethics and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 933-958). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
39 Dosse, F. (1997). History of structuralism (D. Glassman, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
40 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
41 Falk, J. H. (2001). Free-choice science learning: framing the discussion. In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education: how we learn science outside of school (pp. 3-20). New York: Teachers College Press.
42 Blahey, A., Campbell, A., Fensham, P. J., & Erickson, G. L. (2002). Science for All. In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching : perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 205-216). London, UK: Routledge.
43 Finley, S. (2005). Arts-based inquiry: performing revolutionary pedagogy. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 681-694). Thousand Oaks, CA 91320: Sage Publications, Inc.
44 Barthes, R. (1972). Le Degre zero de l'e criture (김웅권 역). Paris: Seuil.
45 Barthes, R. (1973). Le plaisir du texte (김희영 역). Paris: ditions du Seuil.
46 Brady, I. (2005). Poetics for a planet: discourse on some problems of being-in-place. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 979-1026). Thousand Oaks, CA 91320: Sage Publications, Inc.
47 Chase, S. E. (2005). Narrative inquiry: multiple Lenses, approaches, voices. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 651-680). Thousand Oaks, CA 91320: Sage Publications, Inc.
48 조국현. (2007). 인터넷"댓글"의 텍스트유형학적 연구. 텍스트언어학, 23, 203-230.
49 DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
50 Deleuze, G. (1968). Difference et repetition (김상환 역). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
51 조수선. (2007). 온라인 신문 댓글의 내용분석: 댓글의 유형과 댓글 게시자의 성향. 커뮤니케이션학회연구, 15(2), 65-84.
52 조용환. (1999). 질적 연구: 방법과 사례. 서울: 교육과학사.
53 허정아. (1997). 후기 구조주의적 관점에서 본 영화 이미지의 자기 반조성. 예술문화연구, 8(1), 193-227.
54 황지연. (2004). 사이버공동체의 정체성과 집합행동. 정보와 사회, 6, 105-139.
55 Albe, V. (2008a). Students'positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17, 805-827.   DOI
56 Albe, V. (2008b). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students'argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research In Science Education, 38, 67-90.   DOI   ScienceOn
57 Allen, G. (2003). Roland Barthes. New York: Routledge.
58 서은아. (2007). 글쓰기로써 말하기 또는 네티즌의 펌글, 댓글, 베플, 악플, 아이디 그리고 이모티콘의 언어학적 분석. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
59 Appignanesi, R., & Garratt, C. (1995). Postmodernism for beginners. Cambridge: Icon Books.
60 Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words : the William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. New York: Oxford University Press.
61 엄우용, & 최은희. (2001). 웹 기반 온라인 토론에서 성격특성과 익명성이 문제해결력에 미치는 영향. 교육정보방송연구, 7(4), 55-89.
62 이경렬. (2008). 댓글의 이용동기와 충족도가 온라인 커뮤니티 충성도에 미치는 영향과 과정에 대한 구조적 차원의 연구: 상호작용과 커뮤니티 몰입의 매개변인 을 중심으로. 커뮤니케이션학 연구, 16(2), 77-99.
63 이애현. (2004). 특수학교 교육과정의 포스트모더니즘적 이해에 대한 담론. 중등교육연구, 52(2), 485-499.
64 이정우. (1999). 시뮬라크르의 시대: 들뢰즈와 사건의 철학. 서울: 거름.
65 김욱동. (2004). 포스트모더니즘의 이론: 문학/예술/문화. 서울: 민음사.
66 이준웅, 김은미, & 김현석. (2007). 누가 인터넷에서 영향력을 행사하는가? - 온라인 의견지도자의 속성. 한국언론학보, 51(3), 358-384.
67 곽영순. (2009). 질적 연구: 철학과 예술 그리고 교육. 파주: 교육과학사.
68 김상환. (1996). 해체론 시대의 철학. 서울: 문학과 지성사.