한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제41권6호
  • /
  • Pages.501-517
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학 관련 사회적 문제 (SSI) 교육 맥락에서 초등학생의 위치짓기 양상 -실천 지향 기후변화 동아리 활동을 중심으로-

Exploring Elementary Students' Positioning in a Context of Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) Education: Focus on an Action-oriented Climate Change Club Activity

  • 투고 : 2021.09.14
  • 심사 : 2021.12.07
  • 발행 : 2021.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

과학·기술의 발전이 시대의 변화를 주도하는 현시대에, 본 연구는 학생들이 과학과 관련된 사회적 논쟁(SSI)에 대해 민주적이며 비판적으로 참여할 수 있는 소양을 지녀야 하며, 주체적이고 참여적인 시민으로서 위치되어야 할 것이라는 입장을 지지한다. 그에 따라 초등학생을 대상으로 사회적인 실천을 강조하는 동아리 활동을 진행하였으며, 학생들이 기후변화에 대해 어떠한 행위를 수행할 수 있는 사람으로 위치짓는지/되는지, 또한 상충되는 위치짓기 양상은 무엇인지 탐색하였다. 이 연구에서 위치는 기후변화에 대해 어떠한 행위를 수행할 수 있는 사람인지에 대한 권리와 의무의 집합으로 정의한다. 서울 소재 A초등학교 6학년 학생 11명을 대상으로 2019년 3-7월까지 46차 시에 걸쳐 활동이 수행되었으며, 비디오 및 오디오 자료, 인터뷰 자료 등이 지속적비교방법에 의해 분석되었다. 크게 세 스텝의 수업 과정에서 학생들은 다음과 같이 서로 다른 위치짓기를 나타냈다. 스텝 1의 지구온난화 모델링 활동에서 학생들은 '적극적인 학습자'로 위치되었으나 동시에 '견습생'으로서 제한적으로 위치되는 모순을 나타내기도 했다. 스텝 2의 학생주도연구 활동에서는 '연구를 설계하고 수행하는 과학자'이자 SSI 관련 지식의 논쟁적인 본성에 대해서는 결정을 '기피하는 자'로 위치되는 한계도 드러냈다. 스텝 3의 사회적인 실천과정에서는 '변화를 만들기 어려운 초등학생'이라는 위치에서 '변화를 만들어내는 참여적인 시민'으로 새롭게 위치짓는 모습을 보였다. 본 연구는 과학 교육을 통해 학생들이 참여적이고 민주적인 시민으로 성장할 수 있는 가능성을 보여주었다는 점에 의의가 있다. 아울러 학생들이 드러냈던 위치짓기의 상충점과 한계를 해결하기 위한 교육학적인 방법을 논의했다.

In the present age, when the development of science and technology is leading the changes, this study supports the view that students should possess the literacy to participate democratically and critically in socio-scientific issues, and should be positioned as agentic and participatory citizens. Accordingly, we implemented a club activity that emphasize climate social action for elementary students, and explored how students were positioned in relation to climate change. In this study, position is defined as a complex cluster of rights and duties that students have in relation to climate change. The club activity was implemented throughout 46 sessions from March to July, 2019 for 11 sixth graders of 'H elementary School' in Seoul, and transcripts of video and interviews were analyzed by means of a constant comparison method. In the course of the activity consisting of three steps, the students exhibited different positioning and they are as follows: In the global warming modeling activity for Step 1, students were positioned as 'active learners', but at the same time, they showed a contradiction in being positioned as 'apprentice'. In the student-led research activities inherent to Step 2, they were positioned as 'scientists who design and conduct research' and 'bystanders' due to the controversial nature of SSI knowledge. As students participate in the social actions involved in Step 3, the position changed from 'elementary school students facing difficulty in making a change' to 'participatory citizens creating changes.' This study is significant because it shows students' potential to promote participatory and democratic citizenship through action-oriented SSI activities. In addition, pedagogical approaches were discussed dealing with the contradictions and limitations of positioning.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2019S1A5A2A03048062).

참고문헌

  1. Ahn, J. (2004). Characteristics and grammaticalization of modal verb '- l su iss-', Korean Language & Literature, 53, 207-232.
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27(1), 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560077
  3. Alsop, S., & Bencze, L. (2014). Activism! Toward a more radical science and technology education. In L. Bencze, J. Lawrence, & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist Science and Technology Education, (pp. 1-19). Springer.
  4. Arnold, J. (2012). Science students' classroom discourse: Tasha's umwelt. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 233-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9195-0
  5. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
  6. Basu, S. J., Calabrese-Barton, A., Clairmont, N., & Locke, D. (2009). Developing a framework for critical science agency through case study in a conceptual physics context. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 345-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9135-8
  7. Bencze, L. (2017). STEPWISE: A framework prioritizing altruistic actions to address scioscientific issues. In L. Bencze (Ed.), Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments, (pp. 19-45). Springer.
  8. Bencze, L., Reiss, M. J., Sharma, A., & Weinstein, M. (2018). STEM Education as "Trojan Horse": Deconstructed and reinvented for all. In L. Bryan & K. Tobin (Eds.), 13 Questions: Reframing Education's Conversation: Science, (pp. 69-87). Peter Lang.
  9. Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students' research-informed socio-scientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9260-3
  10. Berge, M., Danielsson, A., & Lidar, M. (2020). Storylines in the physics teaching content of an upper secondary school classroom. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(1), 63-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1593128
  11. Birmingham, D., & Calabrese-Barton, A. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking educated action on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 286-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21127
  12. Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7).
  13. Bosser, U., & Lindahl, M. (2019). Students' positioning in the classroom: A study of teacher-student interactions in a socioscientific issue context. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 371-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9627-1
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
  15. Calabrese-Barton, A. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899-917. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1038
  16. Calabrese-Barton, A. & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin'! Agency, identity, and science learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530044
  17. Calabrese-Barton, A. & Tan, E. (2020). Beyond equity as inclusion: A framework of "Rightful Presence" for guiding justice-oriented studies in teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 49(6), 433-440. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x20927363
  18. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
  19. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
  20. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
  21. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
  22. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. Hodder Arnold.
  23. Harre, R. (2005). Positioning and the discursive construction of categories. Psychopathology, 38(4), 185-188. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086088
  24. Harre, R. (2015). The person as the nexus of patterns of discursive practices. Culture & Psychology, 21(4), 492-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X15615808
  25. Harre, R. & Moghaddam, F. (2003). The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts. Greenwood Publishing Group.
  26. Harre, R., Moghaddam, F. M., Cairnie, T. P., Rothbart, D., & Sabat, S. R. (2009). Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308101417
  27. Harre, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Malden.
  28. Havinghurst, R. (1972). Development tasks and education. David McKay.
  29. Herman, B. C., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. (2020). Students' emotive reasoning through place-based environmental socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 50(5), 2081-2109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9764-1
  30. Hodson, D. (2010). Science education as a call to action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(3), 197-206.
  31. Hodson, D. (2014). Becoming part of the solution: Learning about activism, learning through activism, learning from activism. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education, (pp. 67-98). Springer.
  32. Hong, E.-M., & Choe, J.-Y. (2007). Biomass and bioenergy: Potential estimation and current status and outlook. KCID Journal, 14(2), 255-260.
  33. Hwang, C. H., & Lee, Y. L. (2013). A study of methodology on critical ethnography: Explore the area and an understanding of the procedures. Journal of Education & Culture, 19(3), 31-68.
  34. Hwang, C-h, Lee, Y-h. (2013). A study of methodology on critical ethnography: Explore the area and an understanding of the procedures. Inha Educational Research Institute, 19(3), 31-68.
  35. Hyun, J. H., & Hong, S. O. (2012). Scientific governance through public participation: Historical epistemology of divergent positions in the participatory turn of STS. Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 12(2), 33-79.
  36. 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. IPCC.
  37. IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5℃, An IPCC special reprot on the impacts of global warming of 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty: Summary for Policymakers. World Meteorological Organization.
  38. Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D.L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking: Positioning a tangled construct within science education and beyond. Science & Education, 28, 605-638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00044-2
  39. Kempton, W. & Holland, D. C. (2003). Identity and sustained environmental practice. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. pp 317-341, MIT Press.
  40. Kim, M. (2018). Understanding children's science identity through classroom interactions. International Journal of Science Education, 40(1), 24-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1395925
  41. Kim, J. -U., Gwak, J. -Y., Kwon, J. -Y., Ha, Y. -H., Lee, J. -A., Kim, C. -J., & Choe, S. -U. (2018). The Aspects of Small Group Decision-making Process based on Reading News Reports: Focused on Climate Change related Socio-scientific Issues Activity. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 38(2), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.2.203
  42. Kim, J. -U., & Kim, C. -J. (2021). Understanding and Applicability of Identity-in-practice Theory. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 41(3), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2021.41.3.267
  43. Kolsto, S. D. (2001a). '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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016102
  44. Kolsto, S. D. (2001b). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  45. Kolsto, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students' examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20133
  46. Krstovic, M. (2017). Learning about youth engagement in research-informed and negotiated actions on socio-scientific issues. In J. Bencze (Ed.), Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments. (pp. 93-114). Springer.
  47. Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy and legislative action. Retrived from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35/
  48. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, S., Kim, S., Krajcik, S., Herman, B., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
  49. Lee, H, Choi, Y., Nam, C.-H., Ok, S.-Y., Shim, S. S., Hwang, Y., & Kim, G. (2020). Development of the ENACT model for cultivating social responsibility of college students in STEM fields. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 23(6), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.18108/JEER.2020.23.6.3
  50. Lee, J. -A, & Kim, C. -J. (2019). Teaching and learning science in authoritative classrooms: Teachers' power and students' approval in Korean elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 49(5), 1367-1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9659-6
  51. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language learning and values. Ablex Publishing.
  52. Levinson, R. (2018). Introducing socio-scientific inquiry-based learning (SSIBL). School Science Review, 100(371), 31-35.
  53. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. sage.
  54. Ministry of Education. (2015). Elementary.secondary school curriculum. MoE, No. 2015-80, [1].
  55. Martin, J. (2020). Researching teacher agency in elementary school science using positioning theory and grammar of agency, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(1), 94-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2019.1666628
  56. Maeng, S., & Kim, C. J. (2011). Variations in science teaching modalities and students' pedagogic subject positioning through the discourse register and language code. Science Education, 95(3), 431-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20429
  57. Murcia, K. (2009). Science in the news: An evaluation of students' scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 55(3), 40-45.
  58. Mun, J., Kim, E., & Kim, S. (2017). College students' evaluation of scientific information: Focusing on the trustworthiness of information. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 17, 143-165. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2017.17.22.143
  59. National Research Council(2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The National Academies Press.
  60. Park, E. J. (2015). Hyeondae gugeo insik yangtae busaui yuui gwangye yeongu. [Master thesis. Korea University].
  61. Pierce, C. (2017). Actor network theory and STEPWISE: A case study on learning about food justice with plants. In L. Bencze (Ed.), Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments, (pp. 449-466). Springer.
  62. Phillips-MacNeil, C., Krstovic, M., & Bencze, L. (2017). Students' Socioscientific Actions: Using and Gaining 'Street Smarts'. In L. Bencze (Ed.), Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments, (pp. 295-314). Springer.
  63. Roth, W. M. & Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/1/302
  64. Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science education, 88(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10113
  65. Rymes, B. (2015). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  67. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4
  68. Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A. & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socio-scientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
  69. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
  70. Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In T. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom, (pp. 45-77). Springer.
  71. Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622-1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481
  72. Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  73. Seo, S. (2021). Environmental identity of students participated in a social action-oriented climate change SSI club. [Master thesis. Seoul National University].
  74. Simonneaux, L. (2013). Questions socialement vives and socioscientific issues: New trends of research to meet the training needs of post-modern society. In C. Bruguiere, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clement (Eds.), 9th ESERA Conference Selected Contributions. Topics and trends in current science education, (pp. 37-54). Springer.
  75. Sjostrom, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung. n Y. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.). Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in STEM Eucation, (pp. 65-88). Springer. L. Bencze (Ed.), Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments, (pp. 449-466). Springer.
  76. STEPI. (2008). The fourth industrial revolution: Things that haven't been said yet. E-SAE.
  77. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage publications.
  78. Tseng, A. S. (2018). Students and evaluation of web-based misinformation about vaccination: Critical reading or passive acceptance of claims?. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(3), 250-265.
  79. Williams, J. (2011). STEM Education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26-35.
  80. 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(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  81. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025
  82. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008