50(6)-04.fm

Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2006, Vol. 50, No. 6 Printed in the Republic of Korea m w MBL x x y p *Á yá Á Á w w yw w w yw (2006. 8. 16 ) Characteristics of Verbal Interactions AccordingG to the Leader Style in MBL Experiment Class in Which Discussion was Emphasized Yangsam Ku*, KumhongGPark, Ae-KyungGShin, Byung-Soon Choi, and Kukhaeng Lee Department of Chemistry Education, Chonbuk National University, Jeonbuk 561-756, Korea Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education, Chung-buk 363-791, Korea (Received August 16, 2006). w 1w x s,, k, r w z MBL x ùkù w y w. y s ƒ ƒ š, k, ùkû. d,,,» y s ƒ ƒ ù, d w» y k ƒ ƒ. x ü y, p w, s ƒ m y»ƒ x, y w m y w š, w ùkü» w. ƒ x m y w w š, w w ù w w. k ƒ ƒ w, tx š, w ƒ û w w y w m y w., m y ü e x y š, w. w ö w yw š, ƒò yƒ» w. : y, MBL x, x ABSTRACT. This study was performed for 7th grade students to analyze by leader style, the verbal interactions between students in a small group in an MBL(Microcomputer-Based Laboratory) experiment class. The study was performed after arranging the students into four kinds of groups, including groups with leaders of inclusive, persuasive, and alienating styles and a group with no clear leader. The analysis of total frequencies of verbal interaction revealed that the group with an inclusive leader showed the highest frequency of verbal interaction, followed by the group with a persuasive leader, an alienating leader and lastly, the group with no clear leader. The group with an inclusive leader showed the highest frequency of interaction from a cognitive aspect related to question(q), response(r), making suggestion(ms), and receiving opinions(ro), while interactions from an affective aspect related to behavioral participation(bp) and students attitudes(sa) were observed more often in a group including an alienating leader than in any other group. An analysis of characteristics of verbal interaction according to leader style showed that a group with an inclusive leader had 494

m w MBL x x y p 495 a permissive atmosphere. It also showed that all members of the group actively participated in discussion and they had a sense of belonging and self-pride with their group. In a group with a persuasive leader, the leader took the lead of most experimental and discussion activities and he was rarely challenged by other students in the group. Rather, other group members showed a tendency to depend on their leader. In a group with an alienating leader, the relationship between leader and members of the group was not harmonious and unfiltered expressions of dissatisfaction and ignorance often took place. The leader s lack of concern about members low achievement became an obstacle in active discussion. In a group with no clear leader, most interactions during discussion were short and simple. Many answers to the question given by their members were not clear and the interactions were sometimes interrupted for a short while. Keywords: Verbal Interaction, MBL(Microcomputer-Based Laboratory) Experiment Class, Leader Style w w y x w š x w k ù w, w w e ƒ w. ù x w x» w w k ù w, w z wš 1-3 wš. x» w z e w m xy w y ù w, 1,4-5 x d w m wš ƒw ü» x» e x w ü 2,6 š š. m y w š»z œ wš, š w x w e» w x š. ù Newton 7 y ù m mw w w w w x y ù y w»z ƒ š w. MBL(Microcomputer-Based Laboratory) x l lr mw ful w w, yw wš vy w vp sww. x m x w w w x x wš, w w, m wš, w š y y g. 8 wr y w ü p w z w ù, k, w x,, ü w w e wš. 9-14 Richmond & Striley 15 w œ x e w w, w s w e w š y w w k ƒ, x ww ù m š w. w, yx 16 w w š w, w z,» ü w, y ƒ w w w š w. w MBL x wš, w y w w m y w x w y w ƒ ùk ù w. ü w û œw w 1w 5 w w w, w ƒ w d. m y w MBL x y w» w, 5 w x 2006, Vol. 50, No. 6

496 Á yá Á Á w 2 8 32 w. w ûw 2, w 2 4 r w x y w» w 3 (s,, k ƒ sw ) ƒ p sww w, ƒ ü w s w. ƒ ƒ k y w w w ù, ü w s³ w. MBL x x w y w» w 1 w m x MBL x š w. 2 MBL x w, x ü š w. 3 r w š (Science Reasoning Task, SRT) NEO(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness) w. w w w ƒ 3, x 2 x w ƒ w z v n 1 w š SRT NEO, ww w. 4 w MBL x ü m w, ü w ü l w. w MBL x w w» w ful (Excel)v üwš MBL x ü w 1w w 4 ƒ k MBL x ü m y w w. m y w w œ w ful v w wš ww w. 5 ƒ y yw š,» wš óù z w ƒ 1, x 2, 3 w m w. w w y w ¼ w w» w z y w w» w. v n»» l ƒƒ 1z w. 6 w x (s,, k, ) ƒƒ 2 8 y y w š, w»ƒ»»» x 1 w y w. MBL x ùkù y xk r ó w y xk š w y, w y ùkû. w y» w y w x y (Fig. 1). y w y yw» w w» 17 wš 18 w y p w. 1 4 ƒ w ü p ƒƒ w z, 2 ƒ w m ƒ ew y w š, ew w mw yw mw p w. y w» w p, ù.,,,» d w ù» d y w. w d sw ƒƒ 3~5 ù š d ù, d y yƒ f w (Table 1). w NEO š (SRT) Journal of the Korean Chemical Society

m w MBL x x y p 497 Fig. 1. Procedures of the study. w. Costa McCrae 19 (Neuroticism), w (Extraversion), (Openness), ey (Agreeableness), (Conscientiousness) 5ƒ d w» w w, ³ w 20 NEO qw. x y w» w w. NEO 5 26 w 210 w š, 50. NEO 5» (T ) x w, w ü we (Cronbach, α) w 0.83~0.95. 20 š (SRT II) Chelsea w CSMS(Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science) q w. SRT II v w 14 w š d»» x» ¾ 50. K-R r = 0.78. 21-22 MBL x MBL x m x w d ƒ wš» w f ul w. m x, ú xk x w, MBL x, l xk wš ù x m x w. l l ful š (Excel)v y w l wì v y g š ƒ w. y y w w m y w. m w MBL x MBL x w» w w 1w k y w z x w «wš, MBL x ƒ w w. x y, l w y, š y, š, k ƒ w» 5. w x 1 5 MBL x. x x ü x š w w œ w. x š x t ƒ» w w š, x w š w. w m y y w ù w» w 3ƒ w, x 2006, Vol. 50, No. 6

498 Á yá Á Á w Table 1. Analyses of studentsverbal interactions in MBL experiment class Verbal interaction by category Average frequencey (times) Percentage (%) A. On-Task 294.3 94.5 I. Cognitive-Aspect 236.1 75.7 1. Question 63.1 20.2 1) Simple question(q1) 9.7 3.1 2) Related question(q2) 24.6 7.9 3) Expanded question(q3) 28.6 9.2 4) Meta-cognitive question(q4) 0.1 0.0 2. Response 101.7 32.6 1) Simple response(r1) 57.5 18.5 2) Explanation(R2) 41.9 13.5 3) Elaborated explanation(r3) 2.3 0.7 3. Making Suggestion 49.8 16.0 1) Repetition(MS1) 2.0 0.7 2) Suggestion related to task proceeding(ms2) 24.9 8.0 3) Suggestion related to problem solving(ms3) 21.5 6.9 4) Elaborated suggestion(ms4) 1.3 0.4 4. Receiving Opinion 21.5 6.9 1) Acceptance(RO1) 12.5 4.0 2) Simple rebuttal(ro2) 8.5 2.7 3) Extensive acceptance(ro3) 0.2 0.1 4) Logical rebuttal(ro4) 0.4 0.1 II. Affective-Aspect 58.3 18.7 1. Behavioral Participation 36.1 11.6 1) Ignorance(BP1) 3.5 1.1 2) Restraint(BP2) 4.7 1.5 3) Order(BP3) 22.4 7.2 4) Recommendation(BP4) 4.6 1.5 5) Volunteering(BP5) 0.9 0.3 2. Student s Attitude 22.1 7.1 1) Dissatisfaction(SA1) 12.3 3.9 2) Lack of self-confidence(sa2) 5.3 1.7 3) Sense of belonging(sa3) 0.9 0.3 4) Self-satisfaction(SA4) 2.9 0.9 5) Praise(SA5) 0.8 0.3 B. Off-Task 17.1 5.5 Total verbal interaction 311.5 100.0 wš w w y ú y w., v m y v w w w., w MBL x š m y w ù x w ù v w š,» w, w ù ƒ š m m w z m š w. MBL x w y MBL x Journal of the Korean Chemical Society

2006, Vol. 50, No. 6 m w MBL x x y p 499 w»ƒ ƒ w w y y ù x kw w y w (Table 1)., ƒ 1 MBL x s³ 311.5z y w, w ü y 294.3z w š, w ü w y 17.1z ùkû. w, d y 236.1z ùkûš, d y 58.3z ùkû. w w y w (Off-task) š y MBL x d š. z y w w k x w y y p w 17 ù, Thinking Science y w y p w 23 w. d (R) 101.7z ƒ š, (Q), (MS),»(RO) ùkû. w w w w ü ƒƒ w ƒ» š ƒ. w ƒ w y š w š, w y x. (MS),»(RO) ƒƒ 49.8z, 21.5z ƒ» 2 ƒ ù, w x w m y w w w ùƒ», w. ù w w wù w ƒ w ù 24 17 w. d y k (Q4) 0.1z, y (RO3) 0.2z, (RO4) 0.4z û ùkû. w w m y šù š w x wš, m w»zƒ w» t. d y w (BP)ƒ 36.1z ƒ š,» (SA) 22.1z ùkû. w (BP) (BP3)ƒ 22.4z,» (SA) (SA1) 12.3z w š. w, y w y y y k (BP5), (SA3), e (SA5) ƒƒ 0.9z, 0.9z, 0.8z û. w m w wš w m yƒ x w w. m w x x w w š ƒ w MBL x w», w y ƒ, w fu l v y w m y w. x w y x w y w Table 2 w. s,, k, w y ƒƒ 414.5z, 341.2z, 278.3z, 212.2z ùkû. s w y 1.2, k 1.5, 2. w s ƒ ù k ƒ ñ w x y w ƒ w w w 14 w., y ƒ w û, x l ü w, m y ñ ƒ m w wš» w xy óü x. d w y r, s ƒ 336.5z ƒ y w,, k, ùkû. p

500 Á yá Á Á w Table 2. Result of studentsverbal interaction by leader style Verbal interaction by category Average frequency(percentage) Inclusive leader Persuasive leader Alienating leader No clear leader A. On-Task 391.8(94.5) 320.5(93.9) 264.5(95.0) 200.5(94.5) I. Cognitive-Aspect 336.5(81.2) 257.5(75.5) 184.2(66.1) 166.2(78.3) 1. Question 93.2(22.5) 70.0(20.5) 50.8(18.3) 38.3(18.1) 1) Simple question(q1) 13.5(3.3) 10.8(3.2) 6.8(2.5) 7.7(3.6) 2) Related question(q2) 34.0(8.2) 27.0(7.9) 20.5(7.4) 17.0(8.0) 3) Expanded question(q3) 45.2(10.9) 32.2(9.4) 23.5(8.4) 13.7(6.4) 4) Meta-cognitive question(q4) 0.5(0.1) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 2. Response 140.2(33.8) 106.3(31.2) 71.3(25.6) 89.0(41.9) 1) Simple response(r1) 77.2(18.6) 62.2(18.2) 39.0(14.0) 51.7(24.4) 2) Explanation(R2) 57.8(14.0) 41.8(12.3) 31.7(11.4) 36.3(17.1) 3) Elaborated explanation(r3) 5.2(1.3) 2.3(0.7) 0.7(0.2) 1.0(0.5) 3. Making Suggestion 71.5(17.3) 60.0(17.6) 40.2(14.4) 27.3(12.9) 1) Repetition(MS1) 3.2(0.8) 2.7(0.8) 1.5(0.5) 0.8(0.4) 2) Suggestion related to task proceeding (MS2) 35.7(8.6) 30.8(9.0) 20.3(7.3) 12.8(6.1) 3) Suggestion related to problem solving (MS3) 30.8(7.4) 24.5(7.2) 17.7(6.4) 13.0(6.1) 4) Elaborated suggestion(ms4) 1.8(0.4) 2.0(0.6) 0.7(0.2) 0.7(0.3) 4. Receiving Opinion 31.7(7.6) 21.2(6.2) 21.8(7.8) 11.5(5.4) 1) Acceptance(RO1) 20.2(4.9) 12.7(3.7) 10.5(3.8) 6.5(3.1) 2) Simple rebuttal(ro2) 11.2(2.7) 7.0(2.1) 11.0(4.0) 4.8(2.3) 3) Extensive acceptance(ro3) 0.2(0.0) 0.5(0.2) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 4) Logical rebuttal(ro4) 0.2(0.0) 1.0(0.3) 0.3(0.1) 0.2(0.1) II. Affective-Aspect 55.3(13.4) 63.0(18.5) 80.3(28.9) 34.3(16.2) 1. Behavioral Participation 33.5(8.1) 40.0(11.7) 54.8(19.7) 16.2(7.6) 1) Ignorance(BP1) 1.3(0.3) 1.7(0.5) 7.5(2.7) 3.5(1.7) 2) Restraint(BP2) 4.2(1.0) 5.7(1.7) 8.2(2.9) 0.8(0.4) 3) Order(BP3) 16.2(3.9) 27.2(8.0) 35.7(12.8) 10.7(5.0) 4) Recommendation(BP4) 9.8(2.4) 5.0(1.5) 3.2(1.1) 0.5(0.2) 5) Volunteering(BP5) 2.0(0.5) 0.5(0.2) 0.3(0.1) 0.7(0.3) 2. Students Attitude 21.8(5.3) 23.0(6.7) 25.5(9.2) 18.2(8.6) 1) Dissatisfaction(SA1) 9.3(2.3) 14.5(4.3) 19.2(6.9) 6.0(2.8) 2) Lack of self-confidence(sa2) 2.7(0.6) 4.3(1.3) 5.2(1.9) 9.0(4.2) 3) Sense of belonging(sa3) 2.2(0.5) 1.0(0.3) 0.0(0.0) 0.5(0.2) 4) Self-satisfaction(SA4) 5.8(1.4) 2.3(0.7) 0.8(0.3) 2.5(1.2) 5) Praise(SA5) 1.8(0.4) 0.8(0.2) 0.3(0.1) 0.2(0.1) B. Off-Task 22.7(5.5) 20.7(6.1) 13.8(5.0) 11.7(5.5) Total verbal interaction 414.5(100) 341.2(100) 278.3(100) 212.2(100) y s y (Q3) 45.2 z, y (R3) 5.2z, w (MS3) 30.8z, k ƒ sw y 23.5z(Q3), y (R3) 0.7z, w (MS3) 17.7z 2, 7 ¾ s ƒ. d y s ƒ w k ƒ. w y w w. d y r, s ƒ 55.3z, ƒ 63.0z, k ƒ 80.3z, 34.3z. w Journal of the Korean Chemical Society

2006, Vol. 50, No. 6 m w MBL x x y p 501 d. w, k (BP1), (BP3), (SA1) s ù ƒ. w l ùš. k, x x w? x w. ã. š w k w ù w tx ùkü. (BP3) (SA1) k ƒ s ƒ w 3 ùkû, d w w Ì š w, ù y y w w. ù (BP5) e (SA5) s k 4 ùk ûš, w w y y z ƒ. ñ ƒ w ü ü m y w 15,25-26 š. s ƒ y p s ƒ sw m y»ƒ, y»» m w. s w x w Ì š w x txw, w w p w ùkü. w, s ƒ w š, w w w w w w k w,. w š y» w w wì y w» w» ¾ w. ü m x w ù w w m y w ù, y w y w w ù w, w» ù wš w. w ü w y y w s ƒ x d y ƒ y w û. p (Q2), y (Q3), (R1), (R2), y (R3), w (MS2), w (MS3), (RO1) ƒ. d x w «(BP4), (BP5),» (SA4), e (SA5) ƒ, xk w (BP1), (BP3), (SA1), (SA2) y ƒ û. s ƒ w d y y. MBL x š ü þƒ x w w ( ) ( ) x» wš, w ( )ƒ w g š w. w (x ) š, š š w w w. w l w ü»ƒ» w. š ù z ƒ w y š ù z ƒw y w w ƒ š ÿ x š š É ÿ_ ùkû ƒ ü x w k y v x šw j óû š š _ w

502 Á yá Á Á w x w _» š šùz y k y w š w» l w y ü šùz ü ƒü ƒ w _ ƒ y p w x m y y w tw. m y w w «w» w. ƒ w w t w» w, w š w w j m y w. p w y, w yw w wš w ƒ. w x ù w xy w» w, d x» š, š ù z y k y wš w w w, x ƒ ùkù ù, ö w š w w. w w w w w š, w w, w w š, ƒ w. ò d x š ò x w ¾? ƒ w w œ» š ƒw š w w š q w, w w w w. w w ùkü p d s ƒ y, k ƒ ù ƒ š, p y (MS4), y (RO3), (RO4) ƒ ƒ. ƒ ƒ q w ùkù q w. wr, d (BP1), (BP2), (BP3), (SA1), (SA2) s ƒ ƒ ùkû. ù k ƒ ƒ û. k ƒ y p k ƒ, w ù ö ƒ w, tx. w m y w» x w w», w w š, w w wš ƒ w» w. w ƒ w w ƒ û w w, w w y w m y ww w. s ƒ ù ƒ w, m y š, y ù û, ö w w x ü ƒ ùkû. w p w d (Q2), y (Q3), (R1), (R2), w (MS2) w (MS3) ƒ s ƒ ù ƒ û š, d (BP1), (BP2), (BP3), (SA1) ùkû. d y þƒ x w w y wš w, k w ( ) v š šƒ» m y Journal of the Korean Chemical Society

w, m. 2006, Vol. 50, No. 6 m w MBL x x y p 503 þƒ x w ƒ x k ƒ _ ƒ k ƒy w ƒ w w w x wƒ ¾ x ƒ www ƒ š x ƒ ö w y p w w m y w š, ƒò y ƒ» w. š m y w wì wš e x š w w. w d l w ƒ», x d ù, š w w w w w wš» ƒ w. x w ù d w, w, y x»., ò d x ò, š w y w w w. wr, w w, w ù, ö y» w ü w. w p d w (MS2) w (MS3), (Q2), y (Q3) w, e w. d (BP2)ù (SA1) w û ùkû, y ƒ û q. ò d y y, w x š v s ƒ? ¾?, ò x w ¾? m y w ù, w txw š. y ò ò ù y ò ¾ w y ò ò ò x w w ò y w m w MBL x x w y w, š, w w û. y s ƒ ƒ š ƒ ƒ û, s y ƒ ƒ¾. y d w, ƒ š,,» ùkû. ƒ w ƒ w ƒƒ w» q, ƒ» ƒ w š» w» ƒ, y mw y w.

504 Á yá Á Á w ù y,, w, w y, k, y, y, y, y û. y p w, s ƒ m y»ƒ x, y w m y w š, w ùk ü» w. š w ƒ y w w, w ü w w k. w y ƒ y w. ƒ x m y w 1 w š, w w ù w w. w w wš, y, w w, w w ùkû. w x m y wš, w z ƒ v w. k ƒ ƒ w, tx š, w w ƒ û w w y w m y w. w w (helper) w, w š w w w ƒ. m y ù y ùkù e x y š, w w. w ö w yw š ƒò yƒ» w, w y x ƒ û. w w d l ƒ» m y w y w» ƒ. y j» w w y w e m w w p š w ƒ w. ü y w y w ƒ txw»z œwš, mw wì x w. w y y w ú, wì ü y y y j» w w w z ƒ. x 1. Hodson, D. K. School Science Review, 1990, 71, 33-40. 2. Lunetta, V. N. The school science laboratory: History perspectives and context for contemporary teaching. In B. J. Rrase, & K. G. Tobin, Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publisher: London, 1998; p 249-262. 3. Tobin, K.; Gallaghen, J. J. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1987, 19, 549-560. 4. y; «; ; ; ½zû; x. w w wz, 1996, 16, 13-34. 5. Lock, R. School Science Review, 1988, 70, 115-119. 6. Gunstone, R. F.; Champagne, A. B. Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel, Ed.; Routledge: London, 1990. 7. Newton, P.; Driver, R.; Osborne, J. International Journal of Science Education, 1999, 21, 553-576. 8. Thornton, Ronald & Sokoloff, David. American Journal of Physics, 1990, 58, 858-866. 9. Berg, C.; Bergendahl, V.; Lundberg, B.; Tibell, L. International Journal of Science Education, 2003, 25, 351-372. 10. Bianchini, J. A. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1997, 34, 1039-1065. 11. Kurth, L. A.; Gardner, R.; Smith, E. L. J. of Research in Science Teaching, 2002, 39, 792-818. 12. Lumpe, A. T.; Staver, J. R. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1995, 32, 71-98. 13. Nakhleh. M. B.; Krajcik, J. S. J. of Research in Science Teaching, 1993, 30, 1140-1168. 14. Rivas, M. G. Student-student negotiation: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NARST, Boston, MA., 1999. 15. Richmond, G.; Striley, J. J. of Research in Science Teaching, 1996, 33, 839-858. 16. yx. m w w w» y. y w Journal of the Korean Chemical Society

m w MBL x x y p 505 w. 2001. 17.. z y w wk x y y p. w w w. 2005. 18.. MBL x y ùkù w y p. œ w w w. 2006. 19. Costa, P. T., Jr.; McCrae, R. R. Personality and Individual. Differences, 1992, 13, 635-665. 20. x ; ½ ; ³. NEO w. w ƒ. 2005. 21. Wylam, H.; Shayer, M. CSMS science reasoning tasks. NFER Publishing Company, 1978, 6-28. 22. Adey, P.; Shayer, M. Really raising standards; Routledge: London, 1994. 23.. Thinking Science y w y p. w w w w. 2006. 24. ; w; œ k; û ;. wywz. 2004, 48, 85. 25. Alexopoulou, E.; Driver, R. J. of Research in Science Teaching, 1996, 33, 1099-1114. 26. Bianchini, J. A. J. of Research in Science Teaching, 1997, 34, 1039-1065. 2006, Vol. 50, No. 6