ENHANCING STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM THROUGH SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Yoonsook Chung ; Jungsook Yoo ; Sung-Won Kim…
• 关键词：communication skill ; scientific literacy ; socioscientific issues
• 刊名：International Journal of Science & Math Education
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：February 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：14
• 期：1
• 页码：1-27
• 全文大小：326 KB
• 参考文献：Acar, O., Turkmen, L. & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206.CrossRef
  American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2007). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS.
  Andersen, P. A. & Guerrero, L. K. (1997). Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts. New York: Academic.
  Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J. & Redmond, M. V. (2002). Interpersonal communication: Relating to others. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  Bencze, L. & Cater, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.CrossRef
  Bolton, R. (1979). People skills: How to assert yourself, listen to other, and resolve conflict. New York: A Touchstone Book.
  Burleson, B. R. (2010). The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff & D. R. Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 145–163). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRef
  Cho, K. & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRef
  Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
  Curriculum Council [Australia]. (1998). The curriculum framework for kindergarten to year 12 education in Western Australia. Western Australia: Curriculum Council.
  Curriculum Development Council (1998). Science syllabus for secondary schools 1-3. Hong Kong: The Curriculum Development Council.
  Curse, A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
  Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.CrossRef
  Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. New York: Elsevier Science.
  Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRef
  Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (Vol. 35). The Netherlands: Springer.
  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.
  Furberg, A. & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). Students’ meaning-making of socio-scientific issues in computer mediated settings: Exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1775–1799.CrossRef
  Green, T. F. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
  Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A. & Afifi, W. A. (2007). Close encounters: Communication in relationships. Thousand Oaks: CA: SAGE.
  Hodson, D. (2010). Science education as a call to action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 10(3), 197–206.CrossRef
  Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362–381.CrossRef
  Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645–664.CrossRef
  Korean Educational Development Institute [KEDI]. (2003). A study on the development of life-skills: Communication, problem solving, and self-directed learning. Seoul: KEDI.
  Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J. & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350.CrossRef
  Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A. & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.CrossRef
  Kyza, E. & Edelson, D. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students’ coordination of theory and evidence. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 545–560.CrossRef
  Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953.
  Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S., Krajcik, J., 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.
  Levinson, R. (2013). Practice and theory of socio-scientific issues: An authentic model? Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 99–116.CrossRef
  Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  McCune, J. C. (1998). The ins and outs of extranets. Management Review, 87, 23–25.
  McKay, M., Davis, M. & Fanning, P. (1995). Messages: The communication skills book. CA: New Harbinger.
  Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2001). Science curriculum standard. Beijing: MOE.
  Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2011). National science curriculum. Seoul: MEST.
  Molinatti, G., Girault, Y. & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: The influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235–2251.CrossRef
  Murnane, R. J. & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills. Principles for educating children to thrive in a changing economy. New York: Free Press.
  National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy.
  National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. Washington, DC: The National Academy.
  Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathetic: An unappreciated way of being. Counseling Psychologist, 33, 307–316.
  Rubin, R. B. & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 33–44.CrossRef
  Ruiz, P. O. & Vallejos, R. M. (1999). The role of compassion in moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 28(1), 5–17.CrossRef
  Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A. & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.CrossRef
  Sherborne, T. (2004). Immediate inspiration: Ready-made resources for teaching ethics: Ethics in science education. School Science Review, 86, 67–72.
  Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322–348.CrossRef
  Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  Wilkins, K. G., Bernstein, B. L., Bekki, J. M., Harrison, C. J., & Atkinson, R. K. (2012, October). Development of the science technology engineering and mathematics: Active listening skills assessment (STEM-ALSA). Paper presented at the 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle, Washington.
  Wilson, J. C. (2011). Service-learning and the development of empathy in US college students. Education & Training, 53(2/3), 207–217.CrossRef
  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.
  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.
  Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socioscientific issues in the classroom (pp. 277-306). The Netherlands: Springer.
  
• 作者单位：Yoonsook Chung (1)
  Jungsook Yoo (1)
  Sung-Won Kim (1)
  Hyunju Lee (1)
  Dana L. Zeidler (2)
  
  1. Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University, 52, Ewhayeodae-gil, Seoul, 120-750, Republic of Korea
  2. Department of Secondary Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620-5650, USA
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Education
  Mathematics Education
  Science Education
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-1774

文摘

Communication skills are one of the most important competencies for 21st century global citizens. Our guiding presupposition was that socioscientific issues (SSIs) could be used as an effective pedagogical tool for promoting students’ communication skills by increasing peer interactions, stimulating students’ reasoning, and in constructing shared social knowledge. We implemented a SSI program on gene modification (GM) technology to 132 9th graders in South Korea and investigated to what extent this SSI instruction contributed to enhancing students’ communication skills. Data sources included pre- and post-scores on the Communication Skills Questionnaire (CSQ), semi-structured interviews with the students and instructor, and classroom observations. The results demonstrated that SSI instruction could bring about a moderately large impact on students’ ability to understand the key ideas of others and to value others’ perspectives, as well as a marginal positive effect on developing active assertions. However, SSI instruction appeared to have a lesser impact on students’ ability to develop shared understanding. Overall, this research indicates the potential that even a limited SSI classroom could have in terms of promoting students’ communication skills in the context of their regular science class. Key words communication skill scientific literacy socioscientific issues