Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Perceptions of Science Teachers on Socioscientific Issues as an Instructional Tool for Creativity and Character Education

과학과 관련된 사회.윤리적 문제(SSI)의 도입을 통한 창의.인성 교육 가능성에 대한 과학교사들의 인식

  • Received : 2011.09.26
  • Accepted : 2012.01.19
  • Published : 2012.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explored to what extent Korean science teachers perceived socioscientific issues (SSI) as an effective instructional tool for creativity and character (CreActer) education; which was recently announced as a main goal for the Korean National Science Curriculum 2009. The guiding research questions were as follows. (1)How do science teachers conceptualize the relationship between creativity and character in the context of science classes? (2) What do science teachers think about the possibility of CreActer education through SSI in science classrooms? Thirty science teachers participated in individual interviews (each lasted 20-90 minutes). In the results, the teachers' perceptions on CreActer education and SSI for CreActer education were categorized into four profiles. Eleven teachers in Profile A thought that creativity was positively correlated with character education because their understanding of creativity and character embraced a very broad range of elements. They mentioned that addressing SSI in the science classes would be satisfactory to cover those elements of CreActer education. Six teachers in Profile B mentioned similar elements of creativity and character of Profile A, but reported that, in their experience, creativity was often inversely correlated with character. However, they responded that addressing SSI would be a good way to integrate creativity and character in the science classes. Ten teachers in Profile C believed there was no relationship between creativity and character, but took a positive stance on CreActer education through SSI. Unlike Profile A and Profile B, they tended to regard character as only an interpersonal virtue. And three teachers in Profile D had a narrow perspective on CreActer education. Not only did they think creativity had no relationship with character, but also disagreed that CreActer education would be activated by addressing SSI in science classrooms. The results imply that SSI could be used as an effective instructional tool for CreActer education, but this can be possible when science teachers expand their view on CreActer education.

본 연구에서는 현재 우리나라에서 강조하고 있는 창의 인성 교육의 한 방안으로 과학과 관련된 사회적 윤리적 문제(SSI)의 도입을 제안하고자 하였다. 이에, 서울 및 경기지역에 위치한 30명의 중고등학교 과학교사들과 개별 면담을 진행하여, 그들의 창의 인성 교육에 대한 인식과 SSI를 통한 창의 인성 교육의 실현 가능성에 대한 의견을 살펴보았다. 연구 결과, 연구 참여 교사들이 생각하는 창의성과 인성의 관계, 그리고 SSI를 통한 창의 인성교육의 실현 가능성에 대한 인식은 크게 4가지 유형(A-D 유형)으로 나뉘었다. A 유형의 교사들은 창의성과 인성의 여러 요소들을 폭넓게 이해하고 있었으며, 두 개념이 서로 정적 상관관계가 있다고 응답하였다. 이들은 SSI를 통한 창의 인성교육의 실현 가능성에 대해서도 매우 긍정적이었다. B 유형의 교사들도 창의성과 인성의 요소들을 폭넓게 이해하고 있었으나, 두 개념이 서로 부적 상관관계에 있다고 보았다. 그러나 SSI의 도입이 창의성과 인성을 동시에 함양할 수 있는 방안이 될 수 있겠다는 긍정적인 반응을 보였다. C 유형의 교사들은 창의성과 인성은 서로 상관이 없다고 응답하였다. 또한 창의성의 경우 여러 하위 요소들을 모두 언급하였지만 인성의 경우는 인간관계덕목에 한정하여 이해하고 있었다. 이들은 SSI의 도입에 대해 긍정적 입장을 취했으나, 그 효과에 있어서도 인성판단력 등 인성 요소 함양은 고려하지 않는 경향을 보였다. D 유형의 교사들도 창의성과 인성이 서로 상관이 없다고 응답하였으며, 창의성과 인성을 모두 좁은 의미로 이해하고 있어 SSI를 통한 창의성 및 인성의 신장에 대해서도 회의적인 태도를 보였다. 결과적으로 본 연구는 대부분의 연구 참여자들이 SSI를 활용한 창의 인성 교육의 가능성에 대해 긍정적인 의견을 보였으며, 이는 그들의 인식하고 있는 창의 인성 개념과 관련됨을 밝혔다. 따라서 SSI 도입을 통한 창의 인성 교육을 효과적으로 실현하기 위해서는 교사들이 창의성과 인성에 대한 개념을 현재 그리고 미래 과학기술 사회에서 요구되는 더 넓은 창의 인성으로 재개념화 할 필요가 있겠다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육과학기술부(2010). 창의 인성 교육을 위한 평가방법 개선. 교육과학기술부.
  2. 문용린(2009). 배려와 나눔을 실천하는 창의인재 육성을 위한 창의.인성교육 활성화 방안 연구. 과학창의재단 연구보고서.
  3. 조강모(2010). 인성 교육과 도덕과 교육의 관계 설정. 초등도덕교육, 33, 5-32.
  4. 최준환, 박춘성, 연경남, 민영경, 이은아, 정원선, 서지연, 차대길, 허준영, 임청묵(2009). 인성교육 문제점 및 창의 인성 교육의 이론적 고찰. 창의력교육연구, 9(2), 89-112.
  5. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students' argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
  6. Bryan, L. A. & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge or science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821-839. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10043
  7. Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students'decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues(SSI). Journal of Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887-900.
  8. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st Century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670-697. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424
  9. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students' argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
  10. Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T. & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87(6), 767-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10081
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909
  12. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971-993. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199611)33:9<971::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-S
  13. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10025
  14. King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200103)85:2<89::AID-SCE10>3.0.CO;2-H
  15. Lee, H., & Chang, H. (2010). Exploration of experienced science teachers' personal practical knowledge of teaching socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of Korean Association in Science Education, 30(3), 353-365.
  16. Lee, M., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students'attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315-1327.
  17. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (in press). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of preservice science teachers' moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education.
  18. Melville, W., Yaxley, B., & Wallace, J. (2007). Virtues, teacher professional expertise, and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 95-109.
  19. Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral-ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105-128). New York: Springer.
  20. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290408
  21. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17471.x
  22. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
  23. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socioscientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724042000733091
  24. Tal, R. T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students'performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615-644,
  25. Tal, R. T., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Reasoning, problem-solving and reflections: Participating in WISE project in Israel. Science Education International, 14, 3-19.
  26. Tobin, K., & LaMaster, S. U. (1995). Relationships between metaphors, beliefs, and actions in a context of science curriculum change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 225-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320304
  27. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
  28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  29. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering student's knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Cited by

  1. Examining Elementary School Students' Awareness about Socio-scientific Issues and Solutions about Environmental Topics by Using Their Drawings vol.35, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2016.35.1.111
  2. 과학과 관련된 사회.윤리적 문제(SSI)의 맥락에 따른 중학생들의 인성적 태도와 가치관 분석 vol.32, pp.7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1124
  3. Science Teachers' Recognition of Creativity-Personality Education as Applied to Science Teaching vol.16, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2012.16.4.887
  4. Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for Promoting Character and Values for Global Citizens vol.35, pp.12, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
  5. 생명공학과 관련된 사회적 쟁점에 대한 중학생들의 가치판단 및 의사결정 과정에서 드러난 가치 적용 방식 유형 vol.33, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.079
  6. An analysis of changes in gifted, middle school students' decision-making on socioscientific issues in biotechnology vol.17, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2013.17.4.1501
  7. A Literature Review of Studies on Socio-scientific Issues with a Focus on Decision Making vol.18, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2014.18.1.191
  8. Effect of Socio-Scientific Issues(SSI) Classes on the Decision-Making and the Character and Value vol.19, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2015.19.4.983
  9. A Suggestion of the new construction of science education stressed social responsibility and the education strategies to integrate Education for Sustainable Development into science education vol.22, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.24159/joec.2016.22.6.279
  10. 생명윤리 문제에 대한 의사결정 유형 검사 도구 개발 vol.45, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.1.125
  11. A Survey of Indonesian Science Teachers’ Experience and Perceptions toward Socio-Scientific Issues-Based Science Education vol.10, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020039
  12. 협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델(CoProC)을 적용한 고등학교 화학 수업에서의 인성역량 평가 방법에 대한 비교 분석 vol.65, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.2.151