최소 단어 이상 선택하여야 합니다.
최대 10 단어까지만 선택 가능합니다.
다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.38 no.5, 2018년, pp.739 - 751
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: log...
핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
---|---|---|
토론이란 무엇을 의미하는가? | 토론이란 학습자들 간 상호작용의 부분적인 형태인데, 학습자들은 주어진 주제에 대해 서로 의문을 제기하고 답을 얻기 위해 상대방 관점을 이해하고 평가, 판단함으로써 공동의 의사를 결정해 나가는 과정을 의미한다(Choi, 2006). 따라서 토론은 단순한 과학적 개념을 습득하는 문제로 정해진 답에 대해 묻고 답하기 보다는, 정답이 없거나 여러 가지 답이 가능한 주제들에 대해 학습자들 간의 적극적인 상호작용을 하는 과정이다(Im, 2002). | |
과학적 소양의 함양에 적합한 교수학습 방법임에도 불구하고 과학 교사들이 SSI 수업을 원활하게 진행하지 못한 이유는 무엇인가? | 한편, 과학적 소양의 함양에 적합한 교수학습 방법임에도 불구하고 과학 교사들은 SSI를 수업에 원활하게 활용하지 못하고 있다(Jang & Lee, 2008; Lee & Jang, 2011; Wee & Lim, 2013; Lee, 2016). 그 이유는 SSI가 과학 교사용 지도서나 교과서에는 단순한 과학 문제의 답을 찾는 과정처럼 인식되어 온 경향이 있고, SSI 토론 활동시에 지식 습득을 목표로 정해진 결론에 도달하는 과정으로 수업을 진행하는 경향 때문이었다(Kim et al., 2014). | |
2015 개정 과학과 교육과정의 목표는 무엇인가? | 2015 개정 과학과 교육과정(Ministry of Education, 2015)은 “과학의 핵심 개념에 대한 이해와 탐구능력 함양을 통하여 개인과 사회의 문제를 과학적이고 창의적으로 해결하기 위한 과학적 소양을 기른다.”는 목표를 설정하여 과학적 소양 함양의 중요성을 강조했다. |
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.
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.
Byrne, K. A., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
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.
Choi, B.(2006). A Study on teaching and learning methodologies using debate education. The Journal of Korean Arts Education Research, 11, 117-171.
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.
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.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13.
De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 303-336.
Duschl, R. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. Argumentation in Science Education, 159-75.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Im, C. (2002). A model and meaning of academic debate. Journal of Research in Elementary Korean Language Education in Kwangju, 5, 45-72.
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.
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.
John, O. P., & Strivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Cooperative learning and feedback in technology-based instruction. New Jersey: Educational Technology.
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.
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.
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.
Kim, M., & Anthony, R. (2015). Challenges and remedies for identifying and classifying argumentation schemes. Argumentation, 29, 81-113.
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.
Lee, H.(2008). Decision-making patterns of pre-service science teachers on socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 12(2), 377-395.
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.
Ministry of Education (2015). Science Curriculum.
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.
Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students' argumentation: A Critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Science Education, 43, 371-393.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Brianna Scott (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientfic inquiry? Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
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.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371.
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
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.
Zhang, Li-fang. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Difference, 34(8), 1431-1446.
*원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다.
Free Access. 출판사/학술단체 등이 허락한 무료 공개 사이트를 통해 자유로운 이용이 가능한 논문
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.