• Han, Eun Ok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Kim, Jae Rok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Choi, Yoon Seok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Lochhead, James (Department of English Education, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2015.06.18
  • Accepted : 2015.08.13
  • Published : 2015.09.30


To develop tailored elementary, middle, and high school textbooks suitable for understanding the nuclear energy and radiation, quantitative and qualitative research was carried out in parallel, which included nine steps to ensure the validity of content and structure. The elementary, middle, and high school students wanted to acquire information used in their daily lives, including the definition of nuclear energy and radiation, principles and status of nuclear power generation, and information about irradiated food, medical radiation, and radiation in life. In the evaluation of the effects of textbook contents according to the educational requirements of each school level, high suitability frequencies (>80%) were shown for the human character, education goals, curriculum goals, evaluation method, and education time. At some levels, the high suitability frequencies (>70%) were shown for the education grade, education type, and textbook type.


Supported by : Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning


  1. Cho KY, Moon JH. Investigation of perception of nuclear power by the local residents adjacent to nuclear installations. J Korean Radioact Waste Soc. 2011;9(3):181-189
  2. Oh MY, Choi JY, Kim HS. Stigma effect of technology with risk: the impact of stigma on nuclear power on the perception and acceptance of products based on radiation technology. J Korean Journalism & communication studies. 2008;52(1): 467-500.
  3. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psycho-dynamic unconscious. American Psychologist. 1994;49(8): 709-724.
  4. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Myer H. The ultimate LULU. AM J American Planning Association, 2007;73(3): 346-352.
  5. Lee HJ, Park ST. Comparison of perception differences about nuclear energy in 4 East Asian country students: aiming at 10th grade students who participated in scientific camps, from four East Asian countries: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 2012;32(4): 775-787.
  6. Seo HJ. Fukushima nuclear accident and negative perceptions. Journal of Governmental Studies. 2013;19: 321-361.
  7. Yi JH, Lee JG, Seok DH. Identification of dimensions in organizational safety climate and relationship with safety behavior. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organization Psychology. 2011; 24(3): 627-650.
  8. Bird DK, Haynes K, Honert RVD, McAneney J, Poortinga W. Nuclear power in Australia: a comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster. Energy Policy. 2014;65:644-653
  9. Prati G, Zani B. The Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environment and Behavior. 2012; 44(30):1-7.
  10. Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Fair play in energy policy decisions: procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy. 2012;46: 292-300.
  11. Yamamura E. Experience of technological and natural disaster and their Impact on the perceived risk of nuclear accidents after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan 2011: a cross-country analysis. The Journal of Socio-Economics. 2012; 41(4): 360-363.
  12. Park ST, Choi HJ, Kim JT, Jung KJ, Lee HB, Yuk KC. The Actual status of physics teachers' perception on the concept of radiation. Journal of the Korea Association of Research in Education. 2005;25(5):603-609.
  13. Kwon SH, Seo YK, Kang IK. Designing a curriculum of the media education for the higher grades in elementary school. Korean Association for Educational Information and Broadcasting. 2002;8: 29-59.
  14. Slovic P. Perception of risk from radiation. Radiat Prot Dosim. 1996;68(3-4):165-180.
  15. Lee SH. Strategy and process of education curriculum development. Mooneumsa, Seoul. 1994: 30-31.
  16. Kwak YH. Comparative analysis of the illustrations in the Chemistry I textbooks published before and after 2009 curriculum revision. The Graduate School of Education, Inha University. 2009:1-73.
  17. Kwon YM. A critical review of the policy regarding the procedure of the curriculum development at the national level from 1954 until 1997. Graduate School, Inha University. 2004;15: 1-229.
  18. Hong HJ. Understanding and developing education curriculums. Mooneumsa, Seoul. 2002:307-312.
  19. Ahn GD, Bae HS, Hyeon J. A study on the interests and requirements of middle and high school students in South Korea, Korean Educational Development Institute, Seoul. 1980:5.
  20. Tyler RW. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 2013:1-127.
  21. Taba H. Curriculum development: theory and practice. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, NY. 1962.
  22. Han EO, Lee SK, Choi YS. Curriculum development for nuclear power and radiation education in elementary, middle, and high Schools. J Radiat Prot Res. 2014;39(4): 187-198.
  23. Kim JS. Desirable elementary/middle/high school physics curriculums - proposal and examples: dynamics and fluctuation. Physics & High Technology. 2005;14:41-47.
  24. Simonson I, Amos T. Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marking Research. 1992;29:281-295.
  25. Shafir E, Itamar S, Amos T. Reason-based choice. cognition. 1993;49(1-2):11-36.
  26. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action Control: from Cognition to Behavior. 1985:11-39.
  27. Kwon YM. A critical review of the policy regarding the procedure of the curriculum development at the national level from 1954 until 1997. Inha University. 2004:1-229.
  28. Marsh CJ, Willis G. Curriculum: alternative approaches, ongoing issues. 3rd ed., Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 2003.
  29. Kim HB. The recent revision of the science curriculum: direction, issues, and future challenges. Education Research and Practice. 2011;77:113-132.
  30. Kim AG. Operation method of creative experience activities for effective settlement of creativity and humanism education. The 33rd Education Research Papers. 2011.
  31. Hurd PD. Science education for the 21st century. School Science & Mathematics. 2000;100(6): 282-288.
  32. Bybee RW. The contemporary reform of science eEducation." In J. Photon & R. Bowers (Eds.), Issues in Science Education, NSTA, Washington DC. 1996:1-14,
  33. Kim JO. A Comparative analysis of illustrations in sensible life of the 7th education curriculum and 2007 revised curriculum. Master's Thesis, the Graduate School of Education, Gyeongin National University of Education. 2009.
  34. Lee GJ. Improvement method and application model of illustrations in middle school science textbooks. Master's Thesis, Graduate School of Education, Yonsei University. 2009.
  35. Girondi AJ. A Discriminate analysis of attitudes related to the nuclear power controversy. Journal of Environmental Education. 1983;14(4):2-6.
  36. Eiser JR, Pligt JV. Attitude and decision. Routledge, London. 1988:150-174.

Cited by

  1. Comparison between a 13-session and One-time Program on Korean Elementary, Middle and High School Students’ Understanding of Nuclear Power vol.42, pp.1, 2017,