Comparison between a 13-session and One-time Program on Korean Elementary, Middle and High School Students' Understanding of Nuclear Power

  • Han, Eun Ok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Choi, YoonSeok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Lim, YoungKhi (Department of Radiological Science, Gachon University)
  • Received : 2016.09.26
  • Accepted : 2017.01.16
  • Published : 2017.03.31


Background: To help future generations make accurate value judgments about nuclear power generation and radiation, this study will provide an effective education plan suitable for South Korea by applying and analyzing programs for the understanding of nuclear power within the diversely operated programs in the current Korean education system. Materials and Methods: This study analyzed the difference in educational effects by operating a 13-session regular curriculum for one semester and a one-session short-term curriculum from March to July 2016. Results and Discussion: As a result of operating a 13-session model school and a one-time educational program to analyze behavior changes against the traditional learning model, it was found that all elementary, middle and high school students showed higher acceptability of nuclear power in South Korea. The variation was greater for the model school than the short-term program. Conclusion: To prevent future generations from making biased policy decisions stemming from fear regarding nuclear power, it is necessary to bolster their value judgments in policy decisions by acquiring sufficient information about nuclear power generation and radiation through educational programs.


Supported by : Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning


  1. Hodson D. Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education. 2003;25(6): 645-670.
  2. Roth WM. Activism or science, technology education as by product of capacity building. Journal for Activism in Science and Technology Education. 2009;1(1):16-31.
  3. Hong HJ. Understanding and developing education curriculums. 1st Ed. Seoul, Korea. Mooneumsa. 2002;307-312.
  4. Ahn GD, Bae HS, Hyen J. A study on the interests and requirements of middle and high school students in South Korea. RR-131. Korean Educational Development Institute. 1980;5.
  5. Marsh, CJ, Willis G. Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall. 2003;374-375.
  6. Kim, HB. The recent revision of the science curriculum: Direction, issues, and future challenges. Education Research and Practice. 2011;77:113-132.
  7. Heo SW. Energy law in the age of climate change. Journal of Law and Economic Regulation and Law. 2011;4(1): 235-253.
  8. Moon BH. Das Rechtssystem der Risikomanagement im deutschen Atomrecht. Administrative Law Journal. 2011;30(8): 1-37.
  9. Sjoberg L. Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts: A dilemma in Risk Management. Human Ecology Review. 1999; 6(2):1-9.
  10. Jung KS. Cultural Approach to Recognition for Emergency in Korean Society. Journal of Political Science and Communication. 2004;7(7):209-232.
  11. Park KS. Reexamination of Nuclear Safety Legislation. Administrative Law Journal. 2012;33(33):169-190.
  12. Cho KY and Moon JH. Investigation of Perception of Nuclear Power by the Local Residents Adjacent to Nuclear Installations. Journal of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology. 2011; 9(3):181-189.
  13. Yi JH, Lee JG, Seok DH. Identification of Dimensions in Organizational Safety Climate and Relationship with Safety Behavior. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2011;24:627-650.
  14. 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.
  15. 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. 2013;45(6):782-798.
  16. 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.
  17. 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;41:360-363.
  18. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Myer H. The Ultimate LULU? Public reaction to new nuclear activities at major weapons sites. Journal of American Planning Association. Journal of American Planning Association. 2007;73:346-352.
  19. 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 Korean Science Education. 2012;32:775-788.
  20. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis. 1993;13(6):675-682.
  21. Roberts DA. Scientific literacy/science literacy. 1st Ed. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2007;729-780.
  22. Sadler TD. Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004;41:513-536.
  23. Zeidler DL, Keefer M. The role of moral reasoning and the status of socio-scientific issues in science education. 1st Ed. Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Press. 2003;7-38.
  24. D Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes EV. Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education. 2005;89:357-377.
  25. Jang JY, Mun JY, Ryu HS, Choi KH, Joseph K, Kim SW. Korean middle school students' perceptions as global citizens of socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education. 2012;32:1124-1138.
  26. Girondi AJ. A discriminate analysis of attitudes related to the nuclear power controversy. Journal of Environmental Education. 1983;14:2-6.
  27. Eiser JR, Pligt JV. Attitude and decision. London, UK. Routledge. 1988;150-174.
  28. 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, Doctoral thesis. 2004;1-20
  29. Lee SK, Choi YS, Han EO. Curriculum development for nuclear power and radiation education in elementary, middle, and high schools. Journal of Radiation Protection and Research. 2014;39 (4):187-198.
  30. Han EO, Kim JR, Choi YS, James L. Development of nuclear energy and radiation textbooks for elementary, middle, and high school students. Journal of Radiation Protection and Research. 2015;40(30):132-146.
  31. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action control: from cognition to behavior. 1st Ed. Berlin, Germany. Springer. 1985;11-39.
  32. Ho JC, Kao SF, Wang JD, Su CT, Lee CT, Chen RY, Chang HL, Ieong MC, Chang PW. Risk perception, trust, and factors related to a planned new nuclear power plant in Taiwan after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2013;33: 773-789.
  33. deGroot JI, Steg L, Poortinga W. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis. 2013; 33:307-317.
  34. Weinstein N. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980;39:806-820.
  35. Reed SK. Cognition: Theories and Application. 8th Ed. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 2010;1-17.
  36. Ramana MV. Nuclear policy response to Fukushima: Exit, voice, and loyalty. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2103;69(2):66-76.
  37. Drottz-Sjoberg BM, Sjoberg L. Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1990;10(2):135-149.
  38. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein B. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7(6):659-667.
  39. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987;236:280-285.
  40. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein D, Read D, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences. 1978;9(2):127-152.
  41. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2000;13:1-17.<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S