The Aspects of Small Group Decision-making Process based on Reading News Reports: Focused on Climate Change related Socio-scientific Issues Activity

신문기사 읽기를 활용한 소집단 의사결정 과정 양상 -기후변화 관련 사회적 논쟁 활동을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2018.03.20
  • Accepted : 2018.04.18
  • Published : 2018.04.30


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.


  1. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2015). The Australian curriculum. Retrieved from
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475.
  3. Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. MA: Blackwell.
  4. Cho, Y. (2015). Field research and action research. Anthropology of Education, 18(4), 1-49.
  5. Christensen, C. K. (2011). Young adults' accounts of scientific knowledge when responding to a television news report of contested science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(2), 115-145.
  6. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. CA: Sage.
  8. Department for Education (DfE). (2015). National curriculum in England: science programmes of study. Retrieved March from
  9. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. NJ: Prentice Hall.
  10. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
  11. EU "Must be binding on carbon reduction", Korea, US, and developing countries showed disapproval. (2015, Dec. 2). Jung-ang Ilbo.
  12. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. MA: Polity Press.
  13. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: E. Arnold.
  14. Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory, and social research: the discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Socio Linguistics, 4(2), 163-195.
  15. Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research In R. Wodak & M. Meyer(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, (pp. 63-94). London: Sage.
  16. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. NY: Routledge.
  17. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In van Dijk, TA (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
  18. Fang, Y. J. (2001). Reporting the same events? A critical analysis of chinese print news media texts. Discourse & Society, 12(5), 585-613.
  19. Fjortoft, M. R. (2013). The critical element of critical discourse analysis. SYNAPS - A Journal of Professional Communication 28, 67-75.
  20. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. NY: Routledge.
  21. Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570.
  22. Gruber, H. (1993). Evaluation devices in newspaper reports. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(5), 469-486.
  23. Gwak, Y. (2009). Qualitative research: philosophy, art, and education. Paju: Kyoyukkwahaksa.
  24. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
  25. Hanrahan, M. U. (2005). Engaging with difference in science classrooms: Using CDA to identify interpersonal aspects of inclusive pedagogy. Critical Studies in Education, 46(2), 107-127.
  26. Hanrahan, M. U. (2006). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 90(1), 8-43.
  27. Hansen, A. (2009). Science, communication and media. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the age, (pp. 105-127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  29. Hong, J. L., & Chang, N. K. (2004). Analysis of Korean high school students’ decision-making processes in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research In Science Education, 34, 97-111.
  30. Hwang, G. (2011). Justice: Fair competition and neutralization of luck. In G. S. Hwang (Ed.), Fairness and justice: Seeking for sustainable growth in Korean society, (pp. 11-46). Seoul: Cho-sun Ilbosa.
  31. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva: IPCC
  32. Joo, Y. (2013). News media's political orientation and their framing of climate change in South Korea. Journal of Communication Science, 13(3), 591-626.
  33. Kim, H., Kim, H., & Cho, S. (2011). Mapping news frames of major dailies' climate change reports in South Korea. Social Science Studies, 19(2), 76-106.
  34. Kim, K. (2010). Global warming controversy-Science, nation state, and civil society in globalizing world-. Cogito, 69, 311-340.
  35. Klosterman, M., Sadler, T., & Brown, J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51-74.
  36. Kolsto, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
  37. Kolsto, S. D. (2001b). 'To trust or not to trust,...'-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientificissue. International journal of science education, 23(9), 877-901.
  38. Kolsto, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E.,Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655.
  39. Korean Association for Social Linguistics (KASL). (2012). Social linguistics dictionary. Seoul: Sotong.
  40. Kress, G. (1988). Language as social practice. In G. Kress (Ed.), Communication and culture: An introduction, (pp. 78-129).Sydney, Australia: UNSW press.
  41. Largest ever-10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. (2011, Nov. 11). Han-kook Ilbo.
  42. Lee, J. A., & Kim, C. J. (2017). Teaching and learning science in authoritative classrooms: Teachers' power and students' approval in Korean elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 1-27.
  43. Lee, S. (2008). Climate change in international relations. Peace Studies, 16(2), 30-66.
  44. Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2014). Pattern of college students' informal reasoning and reactions to anomalous evidence on the controversial nuclear power generation issue. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 14(6), 148-168.
  45. Lee, W. (2009). 'News analysis', a new genre in korean newspapers: Linguistic and discoursal realizations and its hybrid nature. Discourse and Cognition 16(3), 129-170.
  46. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice, (pp. 33-47). Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.
  47. Lin, S. -S. (2014). Science and non-science undergraduate students’ critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1021-1046.
  48. Maeng, S., & Kim, C. (2009). Student-centeredness of the modality of science teaching based on discourse language code. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(1), 116-136.
  49. McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science‐based news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 727-752.
  50. McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2011). From aspiration to action: a learning intentions model to promote critical engagement with science in the print-based media. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 691-710.
  51. McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2012). Encouraging and equipping students to engage critically with science in the news: What can we learn from the literature?, Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 1-49.
  52. Ministry of Environment. (2016). Guideline of the paris agreement. Retrieved from
  53. Murcia, K. (2009). Science in the news: An evaluation of students' scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 55(3), 40-45.
  54. National Assembly Research Service (NARS). (2016). Major contents of the Paris agreement and plan of national assembly. Seoul: Gyeong Seongmunhwasa.
  55. Next Generation Science Standards Lead State (NGSS). (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. D.C.: National Academies Press.
  56. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students’ interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 123-145.
  57. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  58. Oreskes, N. (2014). The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we're not wrong?. In: J. DiMento, P. Doughman (Eds.), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren, (pp. 105-148). Cambridge: MIT press.
  59. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper?. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317-327.
  60. RAND. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. CA: Rand Corporation.
  61. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision‐making about socio‐scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
  62. Ratcliffie, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientic issues. Philadelphia: Open university.
  63. Rennie, L., & Stocklmyer, P.J. (2003). The communication of science and technology: Past, present and future agendas. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 759-773.
  64. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In edited by S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, (pp. 729-780). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  65. Rogers, R. (2011). Critical approaches to discourse analysis in educational research. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. (pp. 1-20). NY: Routledge.
  66. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific Issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
  67. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
  68. Shin, B. (2011). The international politics of climate change and U.S.-China relation. Korean journal of international relations, 51(1), 127-158.
  69. Shin, J. (2014). Philosophy of welfare state. Seoul: Ingangwa bokji.
  70. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. CA: Sage.
  71. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  72. UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris agreement. I: proposal by the president (Draft Decision). Retrieved from
  73. Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Structures of news in the press. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media. (pp. 69-93). Berlin: W. de Gruyter
  74. Van Dijk, T. A. (1986). News as discourse. NY: Longman
  75. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.
  76. Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical discours analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. (pp. 352-365). Oxford: Blackwell
  77. Van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83-118.
  78. Vestergaard, T. (2000). That's not news: Persuasive and expository genres. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Analyzing professional genres. (pp. 97-120). Amsterdam: Benjamin.
  79. Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research in Language and Social Interaction, 32, 185-193.
  80. Wodak, R. (2001a). What CDA is about - a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, (pp. 1-13). London: Sage.
  81. Wodak, R. (2001b). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, (pp. 63-94). London: Sage
  82. Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio‐scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371-400.
  83. Xiao, S., & Sandoval, W. (2017). Associations between attitudes towards science and children's evaluation of information about socioscientific issues. Contributions from History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science and Mathematics, 26(3), 247-269.
  84. Yoon, P. J. (2011). Is the free market economy really fair and just?. In G. S. Hwang (Ed.), Fairness and justice: Seeking for sustainable growth in Korean society, (pp. 89-146). Seoul: Cho-sun Ilbosa.
  85. Young, R. E. (1992). Critical theory and classroom talk. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
  86. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
  87. Zeidler, D. L. Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.