논의 기반의 협력적 정보 분석 활동이 중학생의 과학 정보 신뢰성 판단에 미치는 영향

Abstract

This study was aimed to investigate the characteristics of middle school students' judgment on the credibility of scientific information and the effect of argument-based collaborative information analysis activities on these judgments. For this purpose, based on previous studies on information evaluation and argument, a seven-session argument-based collaborative information analysis program was developed and applied to third-year middle school students in a metropolitan city. An analysis framework for assessing scientific information credibility was also developed to analyze the characteristics of scientific information credibility judgments. As a result, before participating in argument-based collaborative information analysis activities, middle school students mainly judged the authenticity of scientific information or evaluated the credibility of scientific information based on personal experiences and beliefs. Furthermore, they showed a low tendency to critically understand the intentions of information producers. On the other hand, as the experience with argument-based collaborative information analysis activities increased, middle school students tended to critically analyze scientific information, and the credibility of scientific information was judged on specific evidences considering the characteristics of various elements constituting scientific information.