[논문]의사결정 유형 및 성격특성에 따른 예비생물교사들의 SSI(Socio-Scientific Issues) 토론 담화 차이 분석

최고은; 차희영

doi:10.14697/jkase.2018.38.5.739

의사결정 유형 및 성격특성에 따른 예비생물교사들의 SSI(Socio-Scientific Issues) 토론 담화 차이 분석
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 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.38 no.5, 2018년, pp.739 - 751

초록
AI-Helper

이 연구는 예비생물교사의 의사결정 유형 및 성격특성별 SSI 토론 담화에 어떤 차이가 있는지 알아 보고자 하였다. 본 연구를 위하여 선행연구 고찰을 통해 논리적 근거, 보완책 제시, 감정 기반, 내적 갈등의 네 가지 의사결정 유형에 따른 SSI 토론 주제를 선정하였다. 외향성, 수용성, 성실성 등의 성격 특성에 따라 세 개의 소집단을 구성하였다. 각각의 소집단은 개발된 활동지를 사용하여 SSI 주제를 파악한 후, 자유롭게 스마트 기기를 활용하여 토론을 하였다. 녹음기 및 캠코더를 설치하여 녹음 및 녹화를 한 결과와 토론활동 시 작성했던 글쓰기 자료를 수집했다. Walton의 분석틀을 활용하여, 수집된 자료는 발화의 출처와 추론 방법을 판단할 수 있는 발화 요소와 담화 종류의 이동과정, 그리고 비판적 움직임 등을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, SSI 소집단 토론의 의사결정 과정에 SSI 주제의 의사결정 유형과 성격 특성이 모두 영향을 미친 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 이 연구 사례는 SSI 토론을 위해 예비교사들 뿐만 아니라 학생들을 대상으로 의사결정 유형별 뿐만 아니라, 학습자의 성격유형별로 차별화된 토론 학습 지도 방법을 연구할 필요가 있음을 알려주고 있다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

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.

주제어

표/그림 (10)

표 Table 1. References come out of SSI topics and subject matters for the types of decision making
표 Table 2. Three small groups as research subjects
표 Table 3. Analysis framework for the source of utterance for reasoning based factors
표 Table 4. Analysis framework for the source of utterance for reference based factors
그림 Figure 1. Example of analyzing the process of dialogue shift(P: Persuation, I: Inquiry, N: Negotiation, S: Seeking information, D: Deliberation, E: Eristic)
표 Table 5. Analysis framework for the process of dialogue shift
표 Table 6. Results of Chi-square non-parametric test to analyze the difference of the source of utterance according to the types of decision making (unit: the number of utterance)
표 Table 7. Results of Chi-square non-parametric test to analyze the difference of the source of utterance according to personalities (unit: the number of utterance)
표 Table 8. Analysis results of dialogue shift process(P: Persuation, I: Inquiry, N: Negotiation, S: Seeking information, D: Deliberation, E: Eristic)
표 Table 9. Results of Chi-square non-parametric test to analyze the critical movement according to decision making types and personalities (unit: frequency)

질의응답

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.

참고문헌 (58)

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.

상세보기
Byrne, K. A., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 303-336.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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, 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.

원문보기 상세보기
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, 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.
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

원문보기 상세보기
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.

원문보기 상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

원문보기 상세보기
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.
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.

원문보기 상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

원문보기 상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
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.
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.
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.

원문보기 상세보기
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.

상세보기
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.

상세보기
Zhang, Li-fang. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Difference, 34(8), 1431-1446.

상세보기

저자의 다른 논문 :

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format