Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Undergraduate Students' Perceptions and Practical Capabilities on Citizen Participation in Social Issues of Science and Technology

과학기술의 사회적 쟁점에서 시민 참여에 대한 대학생들의 인식과 실천 역량에 대한 분석

  • Received : 2017.05.08
  • Accepted : 2017.07.07
  • Published : 2017.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

It is necessary for undergraduate students whose citizenship reaches a maturity stage to recognize the importance of citizen participation in social issues related to science and technology and to be able to make meaningful use of citizens' rights and responsibilities. Therefore, in order to understand the actual status of undergraduate students' perceptions and practice capacity for citizen participation in science and technology, university students were selected from the department of arts physical studies (33 cases), humanities social studies (62 cases), and science engineering studies (67 cases) at D university in Gyeonggi province. Then, we investigated the scientific technology and society's interaction oriented by citizen participation, responsible decision-making ability, and the effectiveness of the social issue by scientific technology. Analyses of the results reveal that the overall perception level of the students about the interaction between scientific technology and society was high according to department of the arts physical studies, humanities social studies, science engineering studies, in that order, but the scores were not all in average. Therefore, it was found that the current undergraduate students lacked a deep understanding of the interaction between scientific technology and society regardless of the major field. In addition, the students' perception on citizen participation in the interaction between scientific technology and society was found to be problematic regardless of the major field. In responsible decision-making ability, undergraduate students were found to have difficulties in selecting the best alternative in terms of individual beliefs and welfare of others and formulating the action strategies. In addition, the self-confidence of the students about knowledge, skill, and capacity for action related science and technology in the effectiveness of the social issue by scientific technology was very low regardless of major field. We discussed educational implications of these findings.

시민성이 성숙 단계에 이르는 대학생들은 과학기술과 관련된 사회적 쟁점에서 시민 참여의 중요성을 인식하고, 시민의 권리와 책임을 의미 있게 활용할 수 있는 능력을 갖추고 있을 필요가 있다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 과학기술 시민 참여에 대한 대학생들의 인식과 실천역량에 대한 실태를 파악하기 위해 경기도에 위치한 D 대학교에 재학중인 예 체능 계열(33명), 인문 사회 계열(62명), 이공계열(67명)의 대학생들을 대상으로, 시민 참여 중심의 과학기술과 사회의 상호작용, 책임 있는 의사결정능력, 과학기술쟁점 효능감에 대한 인식을 조사하였다. 연구 결과, 과학기술과 사회의 상호작용에 대한 대학생들의 전반적인 인식 수준은 예 체능 계열, 인문 사회 계열, 이공계열의 순서로 높게 나타났지만, 그 점수가 모두 평균에 미치지 못하였다. 따라서 현재 대학생들은 전공 계열에 상관없이 과학기술과 사회의 관계에 대한 깊이 있는 이해가 부족한 상태임을 알 수 있었다. 그리고 과학기술과 사회 간의 관계에서 시민 참여에 대한 대학생들의 인식도 전공 계열에 상관없이 전체적으로 문제가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 책임 있는 의사결정능력에서 대학생들은 개인의 신념과 공동체의 복지를 고려하여 최선의 대안을 선택하고, 실천 전략을 수립하는데 어려움을 겪고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 과학기술쟁점 효능감에서 과학기술관련 지식과 기능 및 행위 능력에 대한 대학생들의 자신감도 전공계열에 상관없이 매우 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 이에 대한 교육적 함의를 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, K., & Kim, N. (2009). A study of neo-institutionalism for governmental policy reflection of the citizen participation: Focus on the consensus conference of bio-tech industry in Korea and Denmark. Korean Policy Science Review, 13(2), 145-174.
  2. Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. W., & Ryan, A. G. (1987). High-school graduates' beliefs about science-technology-society: Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71(2), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710203
  3. Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on science-technology-society(VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760503
  4. Andersen, I. E., & Jager, B. (1999). Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 331-340. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782301
  5. Autor, D. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3
  6. Banks, M. (1999). Teaching strategies for the social studies: Decision-making and citizen action. New York: Longman.
  7. Barnes, S., Kaase, M., Allerback, K. R., Farah, B., Heunks, F., Inglehart, R., Jennings, M. K., Klingemann, H. D., Marsh, A., & Rosenmayr, L. (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  8. Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  9. Bowman, D. M., & Hodge, G. A. (2007). Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: Some international observations. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(2), 118-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467606298216
  10. Burgess, J., & Chilvers, J. (2006). Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments. Science and Public Policy, 33(10), 713-728. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778551
  11. Bybee, R. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Graber & C. Bolte (Ed.), Scientific Literacy, (pp. 37-68). Kiel: IPN.
  12. Cha, Y. (1993). Nonparametric statistics using SPSS/PC+. Seoul: Free Academy.
  13. Choi, G. (2014). Artificial intelligence: Disruptive innovation and evolution of the internet platform. Research Report of Korea Information Society Development Institute.
  14. Choi, Y. (1999). US science and technology systems and policies. Research Report of Science and Technology Policy Institute.
  15. Fleming, R. W. (1985). Student reasoning in socio-scientific issues: Implications for instruction. In R. Bybee (Ed.), Science-Technology- Society. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
  16. Gabriele, A. (2007). Citizen involvement in public policy-making: Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of PTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 13(1), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.4036/iis.2007.103
  17. Goldstein, B., & Dyson, L. (2013). Beyond transparency: Open data and the future of civic innovation. San Francisco, CA: America Press.
  18. Hong, S. (2006). Possibility of new governance in science and technology policy: Lighting of civic participatory programs. Korea Policy Research, 6(1), 109-124.
  19. Jamison, A. (2006). Social movements and science: Cultural appropriations of cognitive praxis. Science as Culture, 15(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430500529722
  20. Jang, H., & Chung, Y. (2009). An analysis of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision-making. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 29(2), 253-266.
  21. Jang, Y., & Han, J. (2008). Development plan of citizen participatory science and technology policy. Research Report of Science and Technology Policy Institute.
  22. Jang, Y., Seoung, J., & Lee, M. (2007). Research and analysis of trends in science and technology policy by region: Analysis of cases of science and technology innovation governance in major countries. Research Report of Science and Technology Policy Institute.
  23. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223-244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320
  24. Jeong, B., & Sohn, H. (2008). Science.technology and the political paradigm of civil society: A search for an alternative possibility of the science shops in Korea. Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 15(2), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.18107/japs.2008.15.2.011
  25. Joo, C. (2010). Policy process citizen participation type, cognitive legitimacy and long tail politics. Journal of Local Government Studies, 22(4), 363-379.
  26. Ju, J. (2010). The effects of scientific technological issue-centered discussion on scientific technological citizenship. Doctoral thesis by Graduate School of Seoul National University.
  27. Kang, C. (2012). An analysis of the present condition and character for cultured education in Korean universities. The Korea Educational Review, 18(2), 83-107.
  28. Kang, S., Yoon, J., Kim, B., Kim, S., & Lee, G. (2016). A study on the institutional plan for the contribution of scientists and technologists to social progress. Research Report of the Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity.
  29. Kang, S., Han, S., Kim, J., & Noh, T. (2001). Preservice elementary school teachers' views on relationship between science/technology and society. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 21(3), 537-546.
  30. Kim, B. (2003). A search for the concept of technology assessment: A historical approach. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 6(3), 306-327.
  31. Kim, S., & Park, H. (2013). College students' understanding of nature of science: Discipline and gender difference. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 13(6), 239-256.
  32. Kleinman, D. L. (2000). Science, technology and democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  33. Kleinman, D. L. (2005). Science and technology in society: From biotechnology to the Internet. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
  34. Lee, S. (2005). Science shop: New social practice of technologists. Conference Report of Korea Institute of Science and Technology.
  35. Lee, Y. (2000). Sociology of science and technology. Paju: Hanul Publishing.
  36. Lee, Y. (2002). Science and technology, environment, citizen participation. Paju: Hanul Publishing.
  37. Lee, Y. (2014). Disaster citizenship for improving social responsiveness. Research Report of Science and Technology Policy Institute.
  38. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  39. Moon, G. (2009). A study on the improvement for social participation according to the uncertainty of science technology. Crisisonomy, 5(1), 59-72.
  40. Morrel, M. E. (1998). Broadening horizons: Can participation make better citizens? A dissertation for degree doctor of philosophy, Arizona State University.
  41. Park, G., & Yoo, M. (2013). The effects of 'science history based chemist inquiry program' on the understanding toward nature of science, scientific attitudes, and science career orientation of scientifically gifted high school students. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 57(6), 821-829. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2013.57.6.821
  42. Park, J. (2004). The history and the role of citizens' organizations in science and technology. Science and Technology Research, 4(1), 111-140.
  43. Parry, G., Moyser, G., & Day, N. (1992). Political participation and democracy in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101
  45. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(4), 512-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259197
  46. Rubba, P. A., Schoneweg, C., & Harkness, W. J. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the views on science-technology-society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180401
  47. Ryu, K., & Jung, J. (2015). Research and analysis of present status of university general education in Korea. Journal of Research in Education, 28(2), 61-83.
  48. Song, S. (2009). Exploring science and technology culture: When science and technology meet. Paju: Hanul Publishing.
  49. Song, S. (2011). Transition of science and culture policy: From science popularization to citizen participation. Research Report of Science and Technology Policy Institute
  50. Song, W. (2003). A study on the change of science and technology decision making process: Searching for new model. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 6(2), 159-174.
  51. UBS (2016). Extreme automation and connectivity: The global, regional, and investment implications of the fourth industrial revolution. White Paper for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2016.
  52. Yang, C., Lee, J., & Noh, T. (2012). An analysis of the STS content in the elementary science textbooks developed under the 2007 revised national curriculum. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(2), 154-163.
  53. Yoo, J., Han, M., Im, H., Ahn, B., & Hwang, G. (2010). The current status and tasks of technology assessment in Korea. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 13(4), 617-637.