DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Education Concerning Radiation and Nuclear Safety and Regulation on Elementary, Middle, and High School Students in Korea

  • Choi, Yoon-Seok (Department of Bio-convergence Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Jung-Min (Department of Bio-convergence Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Han, Eun-Ok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety)
  • Received : 2020.02.06
  • Accepted : 2020.07.14
  • Published : 2020.09.30

Abstract

Background: This foundational study on educational interventions aimed to analyze the changes in awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of young learners after they received objective information on safety management. Materials and Methods: Educational sessions on nuclear power and radiation safety were delivered to 4,934 Korean elementary, middle, and high school students in two separate sessions conducted in 2016 and 2017. The effects of these interventions were subsequently analyzed. Results and Discussion: Learner attitudes toward safety were found to be the predominant variables affecting the post-intervention risk (safety) awareness of nuclear power generation. Conclusion: The safety awareness of future generations will significantly influence policy decisions on nuclear power generation. Hence, the design of educational interventions on this subject must match variables suited to learner levels.

Keywords

References

  1. Lee TJ, Ki BJ, Kim IS. A national survey of the policy customers' perceptions and beliefs of nuclear energy issues and agenda. Korean J Advert. 2015;26:299-323. https://doi.org/10.14377/KJA.2015.1.15.299
  2. Yi J, Lee J, Seok D. Identification of dimensions in organizational safety climate and relationship with safety behavior. Korean J Ind Organ Psychol. 2011;24:627-650. https://doi.org/10.24230/kjiop.v24i3.627-650
  3. Bird DK, Haynes K, van den Honert R, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.047
  4. Prati G, Zani B. The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environ Behav. 2013;45:782-798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512444286
  5. Visschers VH, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.062
  6. Yamamura E. Experience of technological and natural disasters and their impact on the perceived risk of nuclear accidents after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan 2011: a cross-country analysis. J Socio Econ. 2012;41:360-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2012.04.002
  7. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Mayer H. The ultimate LULU? Public reaction to new nuclear activities at major weapons sites. J Am Plann Assoc. 2007;73:346-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360708977982
  8. 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. J Korean Assoc Sci Educ. 2012;32:775-788. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.775
  9. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal. 1993;13:675-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x
  10. Han DS, Bae JH, Kim HI, Ju JH. Nuclear policy, government reliability and communication strategy. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Science and Technology; 2004.
  11. Lee JR, Lim SH, Shin TS. The tsunami-devastated Fukushima nuclear power plant accident and media discourse. Speech Commun. 2011;16:188-213.
  12. Nemoto M, Park YH. Improving safety against nuclear power for elementary, middle and high school student: focused on radiation education in Japan. Crisisonomy. 2015:11:93-113.
  13. Sadler TD. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. J Res Sci Teach. 2004;41:513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  14. Zeidler DL, Keefer, M. The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In: Zeidler DL, editor. The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer, 2003. p. 7-38.
  15. Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes EV. Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Sci Educ. 2005;89:357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  16. Jang J, Mun J, Ryu HS, Choi K, Joseph K, Kim SW. Korean middle school students' perceptions as global citizens of socioscientific issues. J Korean Assoc Sci Educ. 2012;32:1124-1138. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1124
  17. Lee SK, Choi YS, Han EO. Curriculum development for nuclear power and radiation education in elementary, middle, and high schools. J Radiat Prot Res. 2014;39:187-198. https://doi.org/10.14407/jrp.2014.39.4.187
  18. Han EO, Kim JR, Choi YS, James L. Development of nuclear energy and radiation textbooks for elementary, middle, and high school students. J Radiat Prot Res. 2015;40:132-146. https://doi.org/10.14407/jrp.2015.40.3.132
  19. Okada T, Watanabe H, Sonobe T. Practice of radiation education class utilizing local educational resources (2): practice of radiation education in science class of junior high school attached to Fukushima University. Bull Cent Res Dev Educ Fukushima Univ. 2013;15:17-24.
  20. Girondi AJ. A discriminant analysis of attitudes related to the nuclear power controversy. J Environ Educ. 1983;14:2-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1983.9943473
  21. Eiser JR, van der Pligt J. Nuclear energy, risk perception and attitudes. In: Attitudes and decisions. London, UK: Psychology Press; 1988. p. 150-174.
  22. Cho KY, Moon JH. Investigation of perception of nuclear power by the local residents adjacent to nuclear installations. J Nucl Fuel Cycle Waste Technol. 2011;9:181-189. https://doi.org/10.7733/jkrws.2011.9.3.181
  23. Moon KS, Chang YC. An empirical analysis on safety climate constructs within Korean companies. Q J Labor Policy. 2014;14:131-154.
  24. Lidskog R. Scientised citizens and democratised science: re-assessing the expert-lay divide. J Risk Res. 2008;11:69-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701521636
  25. McComas KA. Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. J Health Commun. 2006;11:75-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500461091
  26. Sjoberg L. Risk perception by the public and by experts: a dilemma in risk management. Hum Ecol Rev. 1999;6:1-9.
  27. Krimsky S. The role of theory in risk studies. In: Krimsky S, Golding D, editors. Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers; 1992. p. 3-23.
  28. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000;13:1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S
  29. Honkanen P, Verplanken B. Understanding attitudes towards genetically modified food: the role of values and attitude strength. J Consum Policy. 2004;27:401-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-004-2524-9
  30. Bem D. The concept of risk in the study of human behavior. In: Dowie J, Lefrere P, editors. Risk and chance: selected readings. Keynes, England: The Open University Press; 1980. p. 1-15.
  31. Harris AJ, Hahn U. Unrealistic optimism about future life events: a cautionary note. Psychol Rev. 2011;118:135-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020997
  32. Slovic P. Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Golding D, Krimsky S, editors. Theories of risk. New York, NY: Praeger Publisher; 1990. p. 117-152.
  33. Nutbeam D, Harris E, Wise W. Theory in a nutshell: a practical guide to health promotion theories. 2nd ed. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill; 2004.
  34. Lee YN, Kim YS, Lee JY. A study on audience-centered government policy promotion and diffusion model: With focus on properties of the policy and communication characteristics of the organization. Korean J Advert. 2013;24:39-95. https://doi.org/10.14377/KJA.2013.10.15.39
  35. Gelb BD, Meade JA. Advertising to communicate public policy: applying lessons from Federal Tax Law. J Curr Issues Res Advert. 2005;27:99-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2005.10505184
  36. Sjoberg L, Drottz-Sjoberg BM. Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Anal. 1991;11:607-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00650.x
  37. Ajzen I, Fishbein M, Heilbroner RL. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
  38. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Action control. Heidelberg: Springer; 1985. p. 11-39.
  39. Ho JC, Kao SF, Wang JD, Su CT, Lee CT, Chen RY, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/33/4/773
  40. De Groot JI, Steg L, Poortinga W. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal. 2013;33:307-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01845.x
  41. Reed SK. Cognition: theories and applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2010.
  42. Ramana MV. Nuclear policy responses to Fukushima: exit, voice, and loyalty. Bull At Sci. 2013;69:66-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340213477995
  43. Drottz-Sjoberg BM, Sjoberg L. Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. J Environ Psychol. 1990;10:135-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80124-0
  44. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7:659-667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
  45. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987;236:280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  46. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978;9:127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
  47. Cox S, Cox T. The structure of employee attitudes to safety: a European example. Work Stress. 1991;5:93-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379108257007
  48. Cox SJ, Cheyne AJ. Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Saf Sci. 2000;34:111-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6
  49. Zohar D. A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85:587-596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.587