실천적인 철학상담을 위한 연구 (Study for practical philosophical counseling)
-
- 철학연구
- /
- 제130권
- /
- pp.305-335
- /
- 2014
-
상담은 상담자와 내담자의 관계 속에서 대화로 진행되는 일이다. 따라서 철학상담의 연구가 실천적이 되기 위해서는 이러한 현장을 고려하여 관련된 제반 개념을 명료하게 규정한 뒤 구체적인 방법론으로 나아가야 한다. 철학상담은 행위적 개념이기 때문에 주체 시기 장소 대상 방법 목적의 여섯 가지 관련된 개념을 가진다. 철학상담을 하는 주체는 내담자와 전문적인 지식과 기술을 갖춘 상담자이며, 시기와 장소는 이들이 상담을 위해 마련된 곳에서 대면할 때이다. 대상은 내담자의 당면한 문제이고, 방법은 철학적으로 조력하는 것이며, 목적은 내담자의 문제를 해소시키는데 있다. 여기서 내담자의 당면한 문제는 '인간의 발달단계에 따른 발달과업의 문제와 그 과정에서 나타나는 인지적 왜곡에 따른 부적응행동의 문제'이다. 발달과업과 이에 따른 부적응행동은 아동기 청소년기 청년기 성인기 중년기 노년기의 전 생애에 걸친 유형으로 나타난다. 그리고 철학적 조력의 방법은 두 가지 기법과 관련된다. 첫째, 인간은 누구나 이성적 사고능력을 갖추고 자기 주도적인 행위를 할 수 있다는 가정 하에, 이성적 능력은 정서적으로 안정되었을 때에만 발휘될 수 있기 때문에 '촉진적인 환경을 조성하는 것'과 관련된 유형이다. 둘째, 인간은 정신적 사건이 바뀌면 행동도 변화될 수 있다는 가정 하에, '논박을 통하여' 잘못된 사고나 비합리적인 신념을 내담자가 스스로 수정하여 바람직한 인지구조를 형성할 수 있도록 돕는 것과 관련된 유형이다. 그런데 상담에서 내담자의 문제는 인지적 요소와 심리상담에서 주로 다루는 정의적 요소가 복합된 원인으로 나타나는 경우가 많다. 그럴 경우 철학상담에서 문제의 해결은 심리학적 방법과 더불어 병행적이거나 순차적으로 적용되어야한다. 그렇다면 철학상담과 관련된 개념은 일반적인 측면에서 규정한 것이지 전반적인 면을 말한 것이 아니다. 따라서 이를 종합하여 철학상담의 개념을 정의하면 '내담자의 당면한 문제를 상담자와 내담자가 대면하여 주로 철학적 방법으로 상담자가 조력하는 가운데 함께 해소해 나가는 과정'이라 할 수 있다. 이상과 같이 철학상담의 제반 개념을 규정할 수 있다면 이후의 연구는 구체적인 방법론으로 나아가야 한다.
The first and the second "Discussion Contest of Scientific Investigation" was evaluated in this study. This contest was a part of 'Korean Youth Science Festival' held in 1993 and 1994. The evaluation was based on the data collected from the middle school students of final teams, their teachers, a large number of middle school students and college students who were audience of the final competition. Questionnaires, interviews, reports of final teams, and video tape of final competition were used to collect data. The study focussed on three research questions. The first was about the preparation and the research process of students of final teams. The second was about the format and the proceeding of the Contest. The third was whether participating the Contest was useful experience for the students and the teachers of the final teams. The first area, the preparation and the research process of students, were investigated in three aspects. One was the level of cooperation, participation, support and the role of teachers. The second was the information search and experiment, and the third was the report writing. The students of the final teams from both years, had positive opinion about the cooperation, students' active involvement, and support from family and school. Students considered their teachers to be a guide or a counsellor, showing their level of active participation. On the other hand, the interview of 1993 participants showed that there were times that teachers took strong leading role. Therefore one can conclude that students took active roles most of the time while the room for improvement still exists. To search the information they need during the period of the preparation, student visited various places such as libraries, bookstores, universities, and research institutes. Their search was not limited to reading the books, although the books were primary source of information. Students also learned how to organize the information they found and considered leaning of organizing skill useful and fun. Variety of experiments was an important part of preparation and students had positive opinion about it. Understanding related theory was considered most difficult and important, while designing and building proper equipments was considered difficult but not important. This reflects the students' school experience where the equipments were all set in advance and students were asked to confirm the theories presented in the previous class hours. About the reports recording the research process, students recognize the importance and the necessity of the report but had difficulty in writing it. Their reports showed tendency to list everything they did without clear connection to the problem to be solved. Most of the reports did not record the references and some of them confused report writing with story telling. Therefore most of them need training in writing the reports. It is also desirable to describe the process of student learning when theory or mathematics that are beyond the level of middle school curriculum were used because it is part of their investigation. The second area of evaluation was about the format and the proceeding of the Contest, the problems given to students, and the process of student discussion. The format of the Contests, which consisted of four parts, presentation, refutation, debate and review, received good evaluation from students because it made students think more and gave more difficult time but was meaningful and helped to remember longer time according to students. On the other hand, students said the time given to each part of the contest was too short. The problems given to students were short and open ended to stimulate students' imagination and to offer various possible routes to the solution. This type of problem was very unfamiliar and gave a lot of difficulty to students. Student had positive opinion about the research process they experienced but did not recognize the fact that such a process was possible because of the oneness of the task. The level of the problems was rated as too difficult by teachers and college students but as appropriate by the middle school students in audience and participating students. This suggests that it is possible for student to convert the problems to be challengeable and intellectually satisfactory appropriate for their level of understanding even when the problems were difficult for middle school students. During the process of student discussion, a few problems were observed. Some problems were related to the technics of the discussion, such as inappropriate behavior for the role he/she was taking, mismatching answers to the questions. Some problems were related to thinking. For example, students thinking was off balanced toward deductive reasoning, and reasoning based on experimental data was weak. The last area of evaluation was the effect of the Contest. It was measured through the change of the attitude toward science and science classes, and willingness to attend the next Contest. According to the result of the questionnaire, no meaningful change in attitude was observed. However, through the interview several students were observed to have significant positive change in attitude while no student with negative change was observed. Most of the students participated in Contest said they would participate again or recommend their friend to participate. Most of the teachers agreed that the Contest should continue and they would recommend their colleagues or students to participate. As described above, the "Discussion Contest of Scientific Investigation", which was developed and tried as a new science contest, had positive response from participating students and teachers, and the audience. Two among the list of results especially demonstrated that the goal of the Contest, "active and cooperative science learning experience", was reached. One is the fact that students recognized the experience of cooperation, discussion, information search, variety of experiments to be fun and valuable. The other is the fact that the students recognized the format of the contest consisting of presentation, refutation, discussion and review, required more thinking and was challenging, but was more meaningful. Despite a few problems such as, unfamiliarity with the technics of discussion, weakness in inductive and/or experiment based reasoning, and difficulty in report writing, The Contest demonstrated the possibility of new science learning environment and science contest by offering the chance to challenge open tasks by utilizing student science knowledge and ability to inquire and to discuss rationally and critically with other students.