연구동향 분석
박사

과학관련 사회쟁점 맥락에서 대학생의 개인-집단중심성향에 따른 대화적 논증의 특징 분석

고연주 2017년

논문상세정보
    • 저자 고연주
    • 기타서명 Comparison of college students’ dialogic argumentation in the context of socioscientific issues : Based on idiocentrism and allocentrism
    • 형태사항 x, 171 p.: 삽화
    • 일반주기 지도교수: 이현주, 참고문헌: p. 155-167
    • 학위논문사항 학위논문(박사)-, 2017. 8. 졸업, 이화여자대학교 대학원:, 과학교육학과,
    • DDC 500
    • 발행지 서울 :
    • 언어 kor
    • 출판년 2017
    • 발행사항 이화여자대학교 대학원,
    유사주제 논문( 315)
인용/피인용
' 과학관련 사회쟁점 맥락에서 대학생의 개인-집단중심성향에 따른 대화적 논증의 특징 분석' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • 순수과학
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
276 0

0.0%

' 과학관련 사회쟁점 맥락에서 대학생의 개인-집단중심성향에 따른 대화적 논증의 특징 분석' 의 참고문헌

  • 한국인의 집단주의 성향과 귀인 성향, 그리고 위기커뮤니케이션 수용간의 관련성: 국가위기로서의 IMF상황을 중심으로
    김영욱 박소훈 차희원 한국언론학보, 48(4), 271-298 [2004]
  • 트위터의 일본 방사능 위험 정보가 낙관적 편향에 미치는 영향: 집 단주의 성향의 조절적 역할을 중심으로
    나은영 이민영 한국언론학보, 59(6), 339-362 [2015]
  • 초등학생의 과학관련 사회적 쟁점에 관한 의사결정에 나타난 추론 유 형과 자료에 대한 반응 특성
    이화연 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문 [2015]
  • 집단지성 원리를 적용한 과학관련 사회 윤리적 쟁점 수업 모형의 개발
    고연주 이현주 최윤희 한국과학교육학회지, 34(6), 523-534 [2014]
  • 집단주의 성향이 영어 논설문에 미치는 영향: 경남지역 대학생을 중심으로
    정상섭 현대영어영문학, 48(3), 213-232 [2004]
  • 중학생의 집단주의 성향에 따른 과학 협동학습에서 언어적 상호작용 양상의 비교
    김경순 노태희 주영 한국과학교육학회지, 34(3), 221-233 [2014]
  • 조직구성원의 가치성향과 갈등상황에 따른 갈등처리방식의 차이 에 관한 연구
    조윤형 경영학 연구, 33(2), 423-448 [2004]
  • 일반인의 정당방위 판단
    박광배 성유리 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(3), 1-12 [2012]
  • 우리 안의 개인주의와 집단주의
    배민 서울: 책과나무 [2013]
  • 애착유형이 대학생활적응에 미치는 영향: 개인주의-집단주의 성향 과 성별에 따른 차이
    이희영 최태진 상담학연구, 5(1), 79-94 [2004]
  • 아동의 교류양상에 대한 분석: 집단주의 개인주의 이론의 적용
    오점조 한규석 한국심리학회지: 사회, 7(1), 185-197 [1993]
  • 소집단 토론 과정에서의 언어적 상호작용 분석
    강석진 김창민 노태희 한국과학 교육학회지, 20(3), 353-363 [2000]
  • 생명공학과 관련된 사회적 쟁점에 대한 중학생들의 가치판단 및 의사결정 과정에서 드러난 가치 적용 방식 유형
    이현주 주인애 한국과학교육학회지, 33(1), 79-93 [2013]
  • 사회 속 과학 쟁점에 대한 소집단 논변 상호작용 분석을 위한 방법론 고찰
    김희백 박지영 ( Jee Young Park ) 한국과학교육학회지, 32(4), 604-624 [2012]
  • 문화유형과 타인이해 양상의 차이
    조긍호 한국심리학회지: 일반, 15(1), 104-139 [1996]
  • 문화성향과 동조행동
    김은진 조긍호 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 15(1), 139-165 [2001]
  • 문화성향과 갈등관리행태의 관계
    김호정 한국조직학회보, 8(3), 61-89 [2011]
  • 논증 담화 분석 연구의 방법론적 고찰: 논증활동의 협력적 구성과 인식적 실행의 분석을 중심으로
    김찬종 맹승호 박영신 한국과학교육학회지, 33(4), 840-862 [2013]
  • 남녀 대학생의 개인/집단주의와 팀 스포츠 관람동기 분석
    강현욱 박형란 한동유 한국체육교육학회지, 15(2), 225-238 [2010]
  • 교육인적자원부 2009개정 과학과 교육과정
    서울: 교육인적자원부 [2007]
  • 과학관련 사회쟁점(SSI) 맥락에서의 소집단 논증활동 분석틀 개발: 담화클러스터와 담화요소의 분석
  • 과학관련 사회쟁점 수업이 초등학생의 인성 및 가치관 함 양에 미치는 영향
    고연주 김재덕 이현주 초등교육연구, 29(3), 1-25 [2016]
  • 과학과 관련된 사회적,윤리적 문제에 대한 예비 과학교사들의 의사결정 유형
    이현주 교과교육학연구, 12(2), 377-395 [2008]
  • 과학 협동학습에서 중학생들의 집단주의 성향에 따른 집단구성의 효과 및 학생들의 인식
    김경순 노태희 주영 한국과학교육학회지, 32(10), 1551-1566 [2012]
  • 고등학생의 과학관련 사회쟁점(SSI)에 대한 글쓰기 내용과 구조 분석
    신다인 이 화여자대학교 석사학위논문 [2016]
  • 겸양 편향자의 선호 현상
    김소연 조긍호 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 12(1), 169-189 [1998]
  • 개인-집단주의 성향과 도덕적 규범이 친환경 행동의도와 친환경 유기농쌀 구매의도에 미치는 영향
    김종흠(Jong Hum Kim) 한국심리학회지: 소비자 광고, 16(3), 519-539 [2015]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. A., Krabbe, E. C. W., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. S. (2013). Crosscultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251-283.
  • Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
  • Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187.
  • Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(5), 745-777.
  • Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Wagner, J. A., Ⅲ. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-172.
  • Vikan, A., Camino, C., Biaggio, A., & Nordvik, H. (2007). Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm a comparison of two Brazilian samples and one Norwegian sample. Environment and Behavior, 39(2), 217-228.
  • Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
  • Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clark, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(4), 395-415.
  • Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: University Press.
  • Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
  • Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS quarterly, 30(3), 679-704.
  • Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240-275.
  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent selfconstruals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
  • Simon, S., & Amos, R. (2011). Decision making and use of evidence in a socio-scientific problem on air quality. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research (pp. 167-192). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.
  • 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.
  • 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(1), 71-93.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88 (1), 4-27.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (12), 1463-1488.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-358.
  • Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). A neo-Kohlbergian approach: The DIT and schema theory. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 291-324.
  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision‐making about socioscientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
  • Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 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.
  • Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. R. (1993). The sociocultural self. In J. Shuls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 187-220). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
  • Olofsson, A., & hman, S. (2006). General beliefs and environmental concern transatlantic comparisons. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 768-790.
  • Oetzel, J. G. (1998). Culturally homogeneous and heterogeneous groups: Explaining communication processes through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 135-161.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Owens, M. C. (2012). The two faces of scientific argumentation: Applications to global climate change. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 17-37). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.
  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Munford, D., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002, April). Learning science through argumentation: Prospective teachers’ experiences in an innovative science course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
  • Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism‐collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127-142.
  • Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individually oriented versus duty-based interpersonal moral codes. Cross-Cultural Research, 28(1), 3-39.
  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178.
  • McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(1), 93-104.
  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
  • Lindahl, M., & Folkesson, A.-M. (2016). Attitudes and language use in group discussions on socioscientific issues. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(2), 283-301.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury park, CA: Sage.
  • Lee， H.， Yoo， J.， Choi， K.， Kim， S.-W.， Krajcik， J.， Herman， B. C. ＆ 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.
  • Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross‐context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807.
  • Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & 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.
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926.
  • Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prian, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.
  • Jin, H., Mehl, C. E., & Lan, D. H. (2015). Developing an analytical framework for argumentation on energy consumption issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(8), 1132-1162.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57.
  • Hunecke, M., Bl baum, A., Matthies, E., & H ger, R. (2001). Responsibility and environment ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(6), 830-852.
  • Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal for Research in Personality, 2(2), 17-36.
  • Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 165-196.
  • Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368.
  • Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1-2), 46-74.
  • Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: Does the west feel more invulnerable than the east? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 595-607.
  • Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2007). In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 4-27.
  • Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. M. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh‐grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.
  • Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157-1169.
  • 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.
  • Foong, C. C., & Daniel, E. G. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a Confucian classroom: Is transfer possible?. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355.
  • Foong, C. C., & Daniel, E. G. (2010). Assessing students’ arguments made in socio-scientific contexts: The considerations of structural complexity and the depth of content knowledge. Procedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1120-1127.
  • Finkelstein, M. A. (2012). Individualism/collectivism and organizational citizenship behavior: An integrative framework. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(10), 1633-1643.
  • Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135-153.
  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.
  • Evagorou, M. (2011). Discussing a socioscientific issue in a primary school classroom: The case of using a technology-supported environment in formal and nonformal settings. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research (pp. 133-159). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.
  • Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
  • Dreyfus, A., & Roth, Z. (1991). Twelfth‐grade biology pupils' opinions on interventions of man in nature: Agreement, indifference and ambivalence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 81-95.
  • 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.
  • De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22-49.
  • Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J.. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
  • Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management journal, 34(4), 827-847.
  • Connell, S., Fien, J., Lee, J., Sykes, H., & Yencken, D. (1999). ‘If it doesn’t directly affect you, you don’t think about it’: A qualitative study of young people’s environmental attitudes in two Australian cities. Environmental Education Research, 5(1), 96-113.
  • Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374.
  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
  • Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. N., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in science education, 44(4), 581-601.
  • Christenson, N., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2015). A framework for teachers’ assessment of socio-scientific argumentation: An example using the GMO issue. Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 204-212.
  • Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2014). Grade 5 students’ online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 267-287.
  • Chiou, J. S. (2001). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism among college students in the United States, Taiwan, and Argentina. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 667-678.
  • Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285-304.
  • Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M.-H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753–1773.
  • Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students’ decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of the Korean Association For Science Education, 30(7), 887-900.
  • Chang, E. C. & Asakawa, K. (2003). Cultural variations on optimistic and pessimistic bias for self versus a sibling: Is there evidence for self-enhancement in the West and for self-criticism in the East when the referent group is specified? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 569-581.
  • Byrne, J., Ideland, M., Malmberg, C., & Grace, M. (2014). Climate change and everyday life: Repertoires children use to negotiate a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1491-1509.
  • Berne, B. (2014). Progression in ethical reasoning when addressing socio-scientific issues in biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2958-2977.
  • Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377.
  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
  • Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59-82.
  • Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 264-285.
  • Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & DeCicco, T. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 255-264.
  • Abi‐El‐Mona, I., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and ‘goodness’ of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605.
  • 2015 개정 과학과 교육과정
    교육부 세종시: 교육부 [2015]