Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.5.739

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  

Choi, Go-Eun (Korea National University of Education)
Cha, Heeyoung (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.38, no.5, 2018 , pp. 739-751 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
socioscientific issues(SSI); pre-service biology teacher; patterns of decision making; personalities; analysis of discourses argumented;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
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.   DOI
3 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.
4 John, O. P., & Strivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford.
5 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Cooperative learning and feedback in technology-based instruction. New Jersey: Educational Technology.
6 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.
7 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.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 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.
10 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.   DOI
11 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.
12 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.   DOI
13 Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Brianna Scott (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientfic inquiry? Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
14 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
15 Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16 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.
17 Byrne, K. A., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.   DOI
18 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.
19 Kim, M., & Anthony, R. (2015). Challenges and remedies for identifying and classifying argumentation schemes. Argumentation, 29, 81-113.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 Choi, B.(2006). A Study on teaching and learning methodologies using debate education. The Journal of Korean Arts Education Research, 11, 117-171.
22 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.   DOI
23 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.
24 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13.   DOI
25 De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 303-336.   DOI
26 Duschl, R. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. Argumentation in Science Education, 159-75.
27 Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.   DOI
28 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.   DOI
29 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.   DOI
30 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.
31 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.
32 Lee, H.(2008). Decision-making patterns of pre-service science teachers on socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 12(2), 377-395.   DOI
33 Walton, D. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34 Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371.   DOI
35 Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36 Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37 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.   DOI
38 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.   DOI
39 Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.   DOI
40 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.   DOI
41 Zhang, Li-fang. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Difference, 34(8), 1431-1446.   DOI
42 Ministry of Education (2015). Science Curriculum.
43 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.   DOI
44 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.
45 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.   DOI
46 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.
47 Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students' argumentation: A Critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Science Education, 43, 371-393.
48 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
49 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.   DOI
50 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.   DOI
51 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.   DOI
52 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.
53 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.   DOI
54 Im, C. (2002). A model and meaning of academic debate. Journal of Research in Elementary Korean Language Education in Kwangju, 5, 45-72.
55 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.
56 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.   DOI
57 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.   DOI
58 Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.   DOI