• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.509-521
• /
• 2015

Argumentation is a social and collaborative dialogic process. A large number of researchers have focused on analyzing the structure of students' argumentation occurring in the scientific inquiry context, using the Toulmin's model of argument. Since SSI dialogic argumentation often presents distinctive features (e.g. interdisciplinary, controversial, value-laden, etc.), Toulmin's model would not fit into the context. Therefore, we attempted to develop an analytical framework for SSI dialogic argumentation by addressing the concepts of 'discourse clusters' and 'discourse schemes.' Discourse clusters indicated a series of utterances created for a similar dialogical purpose in the SSI contexts. Discourse schemes denoted meaningful discourse units that well represented the features of SSI reasoning. In this study, we presented six types of discourse clusters and 19 discourse schemes. We applied the framework to the data of students' group discourse on SSIs (e.g. euthanasia, nuclear energy, etc.) in order to verify its validity and applicability. The results indicate that the framework well explained the overall flow, dynamics, and features of students' discourse on SSI.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.5
• /
• pp.739-751
• /
• 2018

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.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.135-145
• /
• 2018

In this study, we investigated the argumentations of group and classroom discussions in socioscientific issues (SSI) discussion classes. Twenty-seven high school students participated in the SSI discussion classes on nuclear power generation. We observed and recorded the classes and also conducted semi-structured interviews. For the analyses, we revised a previous framework that was developed to analyze dialogic argumentations in the context of SSI. The analyses of the results indicated that there were more discourse schemes in the classroom discussions than the group discussions which are related to awareness and openness to multiple perspectives, evidence based reasoning, and on-going inquiry and skepticism. And there were few discourse schemes related to moral and ethical sensitivity in the group and classroom discussions. Various grounds, data, and information were presented in the classroom discussions. Students concentrated on carrying their claims and were not able to sympathize with and accept other opinions. Therefore, there were few discourse schemes to reach consensus. In addition, they perceived classroom discussions as competitive and actively rebutted other claims or grounds. The levels of argumentation were also high in the classroom discussions. The group discussions were held in relaxed atmosphere, and they asked the opponents more for clarification or additional information and evidences. However, classroom discussions were held in serious atmosphere, and they actively queried the validity of the claims or grounds. Based on the results, some suggestions to implement SSI discussion classes were discussed.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.259-271
• /
• 2018

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.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.203-217
• /
• 2018

The research objective of this study is to analyze the aspects of small group decision-making process based on reading news reports in the context of the socio-scientific issues (SSI) activity related to climate change. Twenty-two high school students from Gyeonggi Province, South Korea, were asked to read two news reports on the UN climate change conferences and take a stance on joining the Paris Agreement both as an individual and as a small group. The news reports were analyzed in terms of genre, discourse, and style adapting the critical discourse analysis (CDA) and the decision-making processes of the small groups were examined on recognizing a problem and evaluating alternatives and decisions. The results from analyzing the news reports denoted that the Paris agreement is not only related to finding ideal solutions to climate change, but rather, connected to political or economic interests and power relationship. In the stage of recognizing a problem, meanwhile, different frames which students recognize the Paris agreement and discourses in the foreground of the news reports were the critical causes in terms of identifying the problem. In the stage of evaluating alternatives and decisions, the equity and fairness were the criteria for the small group discussions. This study implies the necessity of the scientific literacy instruction to develop the ability to critical reading in the context of the SSI.