한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제44권1호
  • /
  • Pages.57-75
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

중등 과학교사들이 생각하는 과학기술 관련 위험교육 실태와 교육 요구

Risk Education and Educational Needs Related to Science and Technology: A Study on Science Teachers' Perceptions

  • 투고 : 2023.11.27
  • 심사 : 2024.02.13
  • 발행 : 2024.02.29
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 중등 과학교사들이 생각하는 과학기술 관련 위험교육 실태와 교육 요구를 조사하고자 총 366명의 중등 과학교사를 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였다. 그 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 과학기술로 인해 발생할 수 있는 위험을 위험지각, 위험평가, 위험관리 측면에서 교육해 본 적이 있는 교사보다 그렇지 않은 교사들이 더 많았다. 교사들이 지도해 본 위험으로는 지구온난화가 가장 많았으며, 지진, 인공지능, 교통사고가 그다음으로 많이 다루어졌다. 둘째, 교사들은 자신이 2022 개정 과학과 교육과정의 성취기준에 과학기술로 인해 발생할 수 있는 위험이 포함되어 있다는 것에 대한 이해가 부족하다고 인식하였으나 가르칠 준비는 되어 있다고 생각하였다. 셋째, 교사들은 위험관리, 위험평가보다 위험지각에 대한 자신들의 이해도가 높다고 인식하였다. 넷째, 교사들이 받은 위험에 대한 연수 경험은 매우 적었으며 위험지각에 비해 위험평가와 위험관리에 대한 연수 경험이 있는 교사의 수가 더 적었다. 교사들이 경험한 연수로는 실험실 안전교육이 가장 많았다. 다섯째, 교사들은 위험교육의 10가지 목표에 대한 자신들의 역량이 높지 않다고 인식하고 있었다. 중학교 교사, 통합과학교육 전공 교사의 경우 상대적으로 자신들의 역량을 높이 평가하였다. 여섯째, 다수의 교사들이 학교 과학교육에서 위험을 다루는 것에 대해 중요하게 생각하고 있었다. 또한 정보 활용, 의사 결정 역량, 대중매체의 영향평가 순으로 중요하다고 생각하였으며, 실천역량, 정보활용, 위험특성영향평가 순으로 교육이 시급하다고 응답하였다. 일곱째, 위험교육의 10가지 목표별 교육요구도 우선순위를 도출한 결과, 실천역량, 위험특성의 영향평가, 위험평가방법에 대한 평가가 각각 1, 2, 3위로 나타났다.

This study aimed to investigate the current state and educational needs of risk education related to science and technology as perceived by secondary science teachers. A survey was conducted with a total of 366 secondary science teachers. The results are as follows. First, There were more teachers who had not provided education on risks arising from science and technology in terms of risk perception, risk assessment, and risk management than those who had not. Global warming was the most common risk taught by teachers, followed by earthquakes, artificial intelligence, and traffic accidents. Second, teachers recognized that they lacked understanding that the achievement standards of the 2022 revised science curriculum include risks that may occur due to science and technology, but they thought they were prepared to teach. Third, teachers recognized that their understanding of risk perception was higher than that of risk management and risk assessment. Fourth, the experience of teachers in training on risk was very limited, with fewer having training in risk assessment and risk management compared to risk perception. The most common training experienced was in laboratory safety. Fifth, teachers recognized that their capabilities for the 10 goals of risk education were not high. Middle school teachers or teachers majoring in integrated science education evaluated their capabilities relatively highly. Sixth, many teachers thought it was important to address risks in school science education. They prioritized 'information use', 'decision-making skills', and 'influence of mass media', in that order, for importance and called for urgent education in 'action skills', 'information use', and 'influence of risk perception'. Seventh, as a result of deriving the priorities of education needs for each of the 10 goals of risk education, 'action skills', 'influence of risk perception', and 'evaluate risk assessment' were ranked 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문 또는 저서는 2022년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2022S1A3A2A01088439)

참고문헌

  1. Bardsley, D. K. (2007). Education for all in a global era? The social justice of Australian secondary school education in a risk society. Journal of Education Policy 22, 493-508.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930701541691
  2. Bardsley, D. K. (2017). Too much, too young? Teachers' opinions of risk education in secondary school geography. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 26(1), 36-53.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2016.1217075
  3. Beck, N. (2019). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem weg in eine andere moderne(Hong, S., Trans.). Seoul: Saemulgyeol. (Original work published 1986) 
  4. Borich, G.(1980). A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 39-42.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718003100310
  5. Brundl, M., Romang, H. E., Bischof, N., & Rheinberger, C. M. (2009). The risk concept and its application in natural hazard risk management in Switzerland. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9(3), 801-813.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-801-2009
  6. Clare, C. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 205-223. 
  7. Health and Safety Executive (2022). Risk education. Retrieved May 27, 2022, from https://www.hse.gov.uk/education/index.htm 
  8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change(Korea Meteorological Administration, Trans.). Retrieved December 27, 2018, from http://www.climate.go.kr/home/bbs/view.php?code=94&bname=climatereport&vcode=6226&cpage=2&vNum=14&skind=&sword=&category1=&category2= 
  9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Summary for policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5℃(Korea Meteorological Administration, Trans.). Retrieved October 11, 2022, from http://www.climate.go.kr/home/bbs/view.php?code=94&bname=climatereport&vcode=6244&cpage=1&vNum=20&skind=&sword=&category1=&category2= 
  10. ISO (2018). Risk management-Guidelines 
  11. Ju, Y., & Yu, M. (2016). Risk society and risk perception. Seoul: Communication Books. 
  12. Kim, J., Gu, H., Yoon, H., Jo, Y., & Hong, D. (2021). Safety education improvement plan according to the 2022 revised curriculum. Basic task 2020-02, Seoul: Sungshin Women's University School Safety Research Institute. 
  13. Lee, J., & Kim, H. (2005). Changes in risk structure in Korean society. 05-32. Korea Information Society Development Institute. 
  14. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). NY: Sage Publications. 
  15. Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. No. 2015-74. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  16. Ministry of Education. (2021). The general framework of the 2022 revised curriculum (draft). (Ministry of Education press release, November 24, 2021). Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  17. Manez, M., Carmona, M., Haro, D., & Hanger, S. (2016). Risk perception. Novel Multi-Sector Partnerships in Disaster Risk Management. Results of the ENHANCE project, 3, 51-67. 
  18. Ministry of Education. (2022). 2022 revised science curriculum. No. 2022-09. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  19. Moe, T. L., & Pathranarakul, P. (2006). An integrated approach to natural disaster management: Public project management and its critical success factors. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(3), 396-413.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560610669882
  20. Nara, Y., & Sata, T. (2016). Construction of the practical model and learning program for risk literacy of everyday life: Based on students' awareness. Procedia Computer Science, 96, 1258-1266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.170
  21. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Position Paper 
  22. Porter (2005). Evaluation of the risk education website for secondary-aged students, HSE BOOKS. 
  23. Ryu, H. (2013). A study on risk perception and communication via social media. KIPA research paper 2013-25. Seoul: The Korea Institute Of Public Administration. 
  24. Schenk, L., Hamza, K. M., Enghag, M., Lundegard, I., Arvanitis, L., Haglund, K., & Wojcik, A. (2019). Teaching and discussing about risk: Seven elements of potential significance for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(9), 1271-1286.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1606961
  25. Schneiderbauer, S., & Ehrlich, D. (2004). Risk, Hazard and People's Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: a Review of Definitions, Concepts and Data. Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 
  26. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution(Song, K., Trans.). Seoul: New present; Megastudy Books. (Original work published 2016). 
  27. Shearn, P. (2004). Teaching practice in risk education for 5-16 year olds. Report Number HSL/2005/23. Health and Safety Laboratory. Retrieved June 10, 2023 from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/12341. 
  28. Shearn, P., & Weyman, A. (2004). Risk education provision: A survey of schools in England, Scotland and Wales. Health and Safety Laboratory. 
  29. Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) (2015). Society for Risk Analysis Glossary
  30. Song, J., Kang, S. J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., ... & Joung, Y. J. (2019). Contents and features of 'Korean Science Education Standards (KSES)' for the next generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 465-478. 
  31. World Health Organization. (2002). The world health report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 
  32. World Economic Forum. (2017). The global risks report 2017. Retrieved December 27, 2018, from https://www.weforum.org/reports/ the-global-risks-report-2017
  33. World Economic Forum. (2023). The global risks report 2023, 18th Edition, insight report. World Economic Forum. Retrieved October 10, 2023, from https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2023?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwp8OpBhAFEiwAG7NaEmBg8l1uXJYKol68YL58p-Lk3_x1Th-zZCqfmbk0THitIAdjuUD92BoCYrAQAvD_BwE 
  34. Zint, M., & Peyton, R. B. (2001). Improving risk education in grades 6-12: a needs assessment of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin Science Teachers. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960109599137