Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.259

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

Kim, Sun Young (Chosun University)
Kim, Su Hyeon (Chosun University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.38, no.2, 2018 , pp. 259-271 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Argumentation; SSI; social & emotional learning; preservice teachers; biology; personality education;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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.
2 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.   DOI
3 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.
4 Elias, M. J., & Tobias, S. E. (1990). Problem Solving/Decision Making for Social and Academic Success. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
5 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.
6 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.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.   DOI
9 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.
10 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.   DOI
11 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.
12 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.   DOI
13 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.
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
17 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.
18 Merrell, K. W., & Gimpel, G. (2014). Social skills of children and adolescents: Conceptualization, assessment, treatment. Psychology Press.
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.   DOI
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 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.   DOI
22 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.   DOI
23 Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.   DOI
24 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.   DOI
25 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.   DOI
26 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.   DOI
27 MOEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology)(2015). 2015 Revised Science Curriculum. Seoul, Republic of Korea: Ministry of education, Science and Technology.
28 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.   DOI
29 Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., & Oldfield, M. (2012). Environmental argumentation as sociocultural activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 869-897.   DOI
30 Philibert, C. T. (2016). Every SEL in middle school: Integrating social- emotional learning and mindfulness into your classroom. New York and London:Routledge.
31 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
32 Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio‐scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.   DOI
33 Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.   DOI
34 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
35 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.   DOI