Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Educational Implications about Online Debates on a Socio-Scientific Issue from a Postmodernist Perspective: Focus on the Mad Cow Disease

포스트모더니즘의 관점에서 본 과학 관련 사회적 쟁점에 대한 온라인 토론의 과학교육적 함의: 광우병 사례를 중심으로

  • Received : 2009.11.26
  • Accepted : 2010.12.01
  • Published : 2010.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to characterize debate on a socio-scientific issue in the Internet and to provide implications from a postmodernist perspective. This study concentrates on disentanglement of the complex relationship among society, economy, politics and science in an issue and characterization of the given text centering on its originality, the relationship between writer and reader, and the purpose of utterance. Sixty-six most read articles on a web message board were chosen and analyzed as a typical case of a socio-scientific issue in the internet. In them, five scientific disputes were identified: the cause of mad cow disease (MCD), specified risk material and the incubation period, the cause of new variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (vCJD), vulnerability of vCJD and the relation of Alzheimer and vCJD in American patients. Each argument is intertwined with social, economic and political problems such as its impact on the domestic beef market, feeding environment of imported cattle and the retaliation against denial of importation. With regard to originality, it is found that the originality of an author is weakened but communal through repetitive quotation of 'Peom', cutting and pasting, and engagement of readers with their comments. Furthermore, in order to close the gap between writer and reader, identity and personal narrative of the writers are often introduced into their writing. In terms of purpose of utterance, these are intended to deliver one's feelings or facilitate human behavior rather than inform through verification of a principle.

이 연구는 과학 관련 사회적 쟁점의 온라인 토론의 특징을 드러내고 이를 포스트모더니즘의 관점에서 해석하여 그 시사점을 제공하고자 한다. 연구 내용은 광우병과 관련된 과학적 주장 및 사회, 경제, 정치적 쟁점 간의 연결 관계를 보여주며 텍스트의 독창성, 저자와 독자의 관계, 발화 목적에 따른 특징을 드러내는 것이다. 이에 따라 본 연구는 온라인을 통한 사회적 논쟁의 대표적 사례인, 2008년 수입 쇠고기 논쟁을 중심으로 포털 사이트의 토론 게시판 66개의 글을 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 텍스트는 광우병과 관련된 5가지 과학적 논쟁 - 광우병의 발병원인, 변형 프리온의 검출 위치, 변형 프리온 섭취량과 인간 광우병의 발병 관계, 광우병에 대한 한국인의 유전적 취약 여부, 치매환자 증가와 광우병 사이의 상관관계 - 을 담고 있었다. 각 주장은 국내 소고기 시장의 파급 효과, 수입소 위생 및 사육환경, 무역 보복 가능성 등 다양한 사회적, 경제적, 정치적 문제가 얽혀 있었다. 독창성의 관점에서 텍스트는 짜깁기와 '펌', 독자에 의한 간섭을 통해 저자의 권한이 약화되고 집단적 특징의 글쓰기를 보여주었다. 나아가 저자와 독자 간의 거리를 좁히기 위해 저자의 정체성이나 개인적인 이야기들이 텍스트 속에 소개되었다. 발화 목적의 관점에서는 체계적인 논리와 정보의 전달보다는 감정 표현이나 행동의 변화가 중심이 되는 경향이 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 곽영순. (2009). 질적 연구: 철학과 예술 그리고 교육. 파주: 교육과학사.
  2. 김상환. (1996). 해체론 시대의 철학. 서울: 문학과 지성사.
  3. 김욱동. (2004). 포스트모더니즘의 이론: 문학/예술/문화. 서울: 민음사.
  4. 서은아. (2007). 글쓰기로써 말하기 또는 네티즌의 펌글, 댓글, 베플, 악플, 아이디 그리고 이모티콘의 언어학적 분석. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
  5. 엄우용, & 최은희. (2001). 웹 기반 온라인 토론에서 성격특성과 익명성이 문제해결력에 미치는 영향. 교육정보방송연구, 7(4), 55-89.
  6. 이경렬. (2008). 댓글의 이용동기와 충족도가 온라인 커뮤니티 충성도에 미치는 영향과 과정에 대한 구조적 차원의 연구: 상호작용과 커뮤니티 몰입의 매개변인 을 중심으로. 커뮤니케이션학 연구, 16(2), 77-99.
  7. 이애현. (2004). 특수학교 교육과정의 포스트모더니즘적 이해에 대한 담론. 중등교육연구, 52(2), 485-499.
  8. 이정우. (1999). 시뮬라크르의 시대: 들뢰즈와 사건의 철학. 서울: 거름.
  9. 이준웅, 김은미, & 김현석. (2007). 누가 인터넷에서 영향력을 행사하는가? - 온라인 의견지도자의 속성. 한국언론학보, 51(3), 358-384.
  10. 조국현. (2007). 인터넷"댓글"의 텍스트유형학적 연구. 텍스트언어학, 23, 203-230.
  11. 조수선. (2007). 온라인 신문 댓글의 내용분석: 댓글의 유형과 댓글 게시자의 성향. 커뮤니케이션학회연구, 15(2), 65-84.
  12. 조용환. (1999). 질적 연구: 방법과 사례. 서울: 교육과학사.
  13. 허정아. (1997). 후기 구조주의적 관점에서 본 영화 이미지의 자기 반조성. 예술문화연구, 8(1), 193-227.
  14. 황지연. (2004). 사이버공동체의 정체성과 집합행동. 정보와 사회, 6, 105-139.
  15. Albe, V. (2008a). Students'positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17, 805-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6
  16. Albe, V. (2008b). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students'argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research In Science Education, 38, 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
  17. Allen, G. (2003). Roland Barthes. New York: Routledge.
  18. Appignanesi, R., & Garratt, C. (1995). Postmodernism for beginners. Cambridge: Icon Books.
  19. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words : the William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Barthes, R. (1972). Le Degre zero de l'e criture (김웅권 역). Paris: Seuil.
  21. Barthes, R. (1973). Le plaisir du texte (김희영 역). Paris: ditions du Seuil.
  22. Blahey, A., Campbell, A., Fensham, P. J., & Erickson, G. L. (2002). Science for All. In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching : perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 205-216). London, UK: Routledge.
  23. Brady, I. (2005). Poetics for a planet: discourse on some problems of being-in-place. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 979-1026). Thousand Oaks, CA 91320: Sage Publications, Inc.
  24. Chase, S. E. (2005). Narrative inquiry: multiple Lenses, approaches, voices. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 651-680). Thousand Oaks, CA 91320: Sage Publications, Inc.
  25. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  26. Deleuze, G. (1968). Difference et repetition (김상환 역). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  27. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  28. Denzin, N. K. (2005). Emancipatory discourses and the ethics and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 933-958). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  29. Derrida, J. (1967). L'ecriture et la diffe rence (남수인 역). Paris: ditions du Seuil.
  30. Dosse, F. (1997). History of structuralism (D. Glassman, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  31. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
  32. Falk, J. H. (2001). Free-choice science learning: framing the discussion. In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education: how we learn science outside of school (pp. 3-20). New York: Teachers College Press.
  33. Finley, S. (2005). Arts-based inquiry: performing revolutionary pedagogy. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 681-694). Thousand Oaks, CA 91320: Sage Publications, Inc.
  34. Foucault, M. (1994-1997). Histoire de la sexualite? (R. Hurley, Trans.). Paris:Gallimard.
  35. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296.
  36. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: culture, power and liberation (D. Macedo, Trans.). South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
  37. Habermas, J. (1998). On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  38. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
  39. Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 861-871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.11.008
  40. Kim, D.-J. (2006). Student's theory on classroom-level curriculum implementation: an analysis from the perspective of postmodernism. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(1), 1-40.
  41. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). 'To trust or not to trust,...'- pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016102
  42. Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
  43. LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.
  44. Lee, A.-H. (2004). Discourse of the postmodern understanding of the curriculum in special school. The Secondary Education Research, 52(2), 485-499.
  45. Levinson, R. (2008). Promoting the role of the personal narrative in teaching. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 855-871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9076-8
  46. Lewenstein, B. V. (2001). Who produces science information for the public? In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education: how we Learn science outside of school (pp. 21-43). New York: Teachers College Press.
  47. Love, K., & Simpson, A. (2005). Online discussion in schools: towards a pedagogical framework. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 446-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.07.009
  48. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  49. Norris, C., & Benjamin, A. (1988). What is deconstruction? New York: St. Martins Press.
  50. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010006518
  51. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socioscientific issues. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  52. Roth, W.-M., & Desautels, J. (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action: charting the landscape. In W.-M. Roth & J. De sautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 1-16). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
  56. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  57. Sauvagnargues, A. (2005). Deleuze et l'art (이정하 역). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  58. Skinner, E. (2007). Building knowledge and community through online discussion. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(3), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260601065151
  59. Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
  60. Song, J. (1999). The process of the quickening and development of sciencetechnology- society education in the United Kingdom (I). The Journal of Korea Association Research for Science Education, 19(3), 409-427.
  61. Song, J. (2000). The process of the quickening and development of sciencetechnology- society education in the United Kingdom (II). The Journal of Korea Association Research for Science Education, 20(1), 52-76.
  62. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
  64. World Health Organization. (2009a). The website of world health organization. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en/
  65. World Health Organization. (2009b). World health organization regional office for Europe. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/who/progs/fos/Otherissues/20020402_2
  66. Young, R. E. (1989). A critical theory of education: Habermas and our children's future. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  67. Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  68. 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

Cited by

  1. 중등과학교사의 통합과학 수업설계 과정에 대한 사례분석 및 컨설팅 -통합과학 5단계 수업계획서 설계를 중심으로- vol.33, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.208
  2. Analysis of the Science Writing Activities in the Science Textbooks of the 2009 Revised Curriculum: Focused on Writing Type, Form, Scientific Literacy, Critical Thinking vol.41, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2013.41.1.119
  3. An Analysis on the Critical Thinking of College Students through Scientific Writing about the Life Cloning vol.41, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2013.41.1.75
  4. A Case Study of Beginning Elementary School Teachers’View Changes on the Nature of Science and Science Education through Teacher Education of La main à la pâte Program vol.52, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.52.2.201308.215
  5. 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