한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제44권5호
  • /
  • Pages.391-404
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

틀효과 발생 요인 범주화 및 2015 개정 교육과정 과학과 교과서 분석 -위험 표현을 중심으로-

Categorization of Factors Causing the Framing Effect and Analysis of the 2015 Revised Curriculum Science Textbooks: Focusing on Risk Expressions

  • 이현주 (공주대학교) ;
  • 김민철 (공주대학교)
  • Hyeonju Lee (Kongju National University) ;
  • Minchul Kim (Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2024.07.11
  • 심사 : 2024.09.09
  • 발행 : 2024.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

과학기술의 발달은 인간의 삶에 풍요와 편리함을 제공함과 동시에 위험을 수반한다. 과학기술에 의한 위험은 보편적이고 파급력이 크기 때문에 시민들의 삶에 영향을 미치며, 시민들은 언제, 어디서 위험을 맞이할지 예측할 수 없는 불확실한 VUCA 시대 속에 살고 있다. 이러한 위험에 대응할 수 있도록 위험교육을 통해 시민들의 위험 소양수준을 높일 필요가 있다. 시민들이 위험을 과학적이고 객관적으로 판단하여 대응할 수 있도록 과학교육의 역할에 대해 논의할 필요가 있다. 한편, 시민들이 위험을 판단하고 평가하는 과정에서 위험 정보가 제시되는 틀과 방식의 영향을 받는 틀효과(Framing Effect) 현상이 발생한다. 이에 본 연구에서는 틀효과를 발생시키는 요인들을 범주화 하였고, 범주화를 바탕으로 2015 개정 과학과 교과서에 제시된 위험표현의 틀을 비교 및 분석하였다. 이를 위해 KCI, SSCI급 저널에 게재된 논문들 중에서 Keywords가 'Framing Effect'인 논문들을 통해 틀효과를 발생시키는 요인들을 범주화하고, 교과서 내 위험 표현 텍스트를 추출하여 범주에 대응하여 분석하였다. 틀효과를 발생시키는 요인은 8가지로 도출할 수 있었으며, 요인 간의 관계를 5×5 matrix 형태로 범주화할 수 있었다. 2015 개정 과학과의 교과목별 위험 표현의 빈도 차이는 교과목의 성격과 성취 기준과 관련이 있었으며, 위험 표현의 틀과 제시 방식의 빈도 차이를 범주별로 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 틀효과 발생 요인을 기준으로 과학 교과목별 위험 표현 방식을 검토하고, 과학교육 및 위험교육에서 틀효과의 중요성을 제시하는 점에서 의의가 있다.

The development of science and technology brings abundance and convenience to human life, but it also brings risks. The risks caused by science and technology are universal and far-reaching, affecting the lives of humans, and they are living in an uncertain VUCA era where humans cannot predict when and where they will encounter risks. In order to respond to these risks, it is necessary to increase the level of citizens' risk awareness through risk education. It is necessary to discuss the role of science education in helping citizens to judge and respond to risks scientifically and objectively. On the other hand, in the process of judging and assessing risks, citizens are affected by the frames and ways in which risk information is expressed, a phenomenon known as the "Framing Effect". In this study, we categorized the factors that cause the framing effect, and based on the categorization, we compared and analyzed the frames of risk expression presented in the 2015 revised curriculum science textbooks. For this purpose, we categorized the factors that cause the framing effect by looking at papers published in KCI and SSCI journals with keywords "Framing Effect", and extracted the risk expression texts in textbooks and analyzed them according to the categories. We were able to derive eight factors causing framing effect and categorize the relationship between the factors in a 5x5 matrix. The differences in the frequency of risk expressions by subject in the 2015 revised science curriculum were related to the nature of the subject and the achievement standards, and the differences in the frequency of risk expressions could be identified by the categories of framing and presentation methods. This study is significant in that it examines the way risk is expressed by science subjects based on the factors that cause the framing effect and suggests the importance of the framing effect in risk education.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2022년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2022S1A3A2A01088439)

참고문헌

  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & education, 33(2-3), 131-152.
  2. An, S., & Do, G. (2003). The effects of differences in perceived directionality between modes of expressing uncertainty on choice: Numerical /. verbal description. The Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(2), 161-179.
  3. An, S., & Do, G. (2004). Framing effect and the verbal expression of uncertainty. The Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16(3), 299-316.
  4. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. R. (2005). Social psychology. Pearson Education India.
  5. 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(5), 493-508.
  6. Beck, N. (2007). Weltrisikogesellschaft. (Park, M., & Lee, J., Trans). Seoul: Gil (Original work published 1999)
  7. Beck, N. (2019). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem weg in eine andere moderne. (Hong, S., Trans). Seoul: Saemulgyeol. (Original work published 1986)
  8. Bennett, N., & Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92(1/2).
  9. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70.
  10. Cho, G. (2018). Reinterpretation of Reflexive Modernization to Overcome Risk Society. Korean Security Science Review, (57), 277-302.
  11. Choi, Y. (2015). The framing effects of the texts on behavior intention to solve poverty issues. Research in Social Studies Education, 22(1), 183-201.
  12. Christensen, C. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 205-223.
  13. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1988). Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 398-421.
  14. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Stanford University Press.
  15. Jenkins, E. (2000). Science for all': Time for a paradigm shift. Improving science education: The Contribution of Research, 207-226.
  16. Ju, M., & Lee, J. (2013). Differential Effects of Self-relevance Levels on Framing Effects in Decision Making. Korean Journal of the Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 16(2), 177-186.
  17. Jung, C. (2014). Uber die Rolle und Verantwortung der Erziehung in der Risikogesellschaft, Theory and Practice of Education, 19(2), 1-22.
  18. Kang, H. (2006). (The)Effects and uses of drawing and writing to promote transformation of external representation in middle school chemistry instruction. Doctoral thesis, Seoul National University Graduate School.
  19. Kang, H. G. (1991). Effects of teaching strategies through hemispheric specialization on the creativity and elementary school science achievement. Ph.D thesis. Seoul National University
  20. Kim, B., & Kim, M. (2003). Expansion of the study linking social dilemmas and framing effects. Institute for Psychological Science, 12(1), 65-86.
  21. Kim, J. (2009). The effect of message framing and communication by gender in accordance with the involvement level of political advertisement. Journal of Political Communication, 15, 105-146.
  22. Kim, J., & Na, J. (2023). Elementary School Teachers' Educational Experiences, Readiness, and Needs for Science Education That Addresses the Risks Posed by Science and Technology. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 42(4), 523-537.
  23. Kim, J., Na, J., & Jung, Y. (2024). Risk Education and Educational Needs Related to Science and Technology: A Study on Science Teachers' Perceptions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 44(1), 57-75.
  24. Kim, S., An, H., Park, G., Choi, M., Seo, I., Han, M., Kim, H., Oh, H., Gu, H., Kang, H., Kim, D., Lee, J., Ryu, H., Min, M., & Lee, I. (2018). Scientific Research. Mirae N.
  25. Koh, Y. H. (1984). Cognitive processes of the brain & curriculum development and preview. Journal of Korean Education, 11(1), 105-119.
  26. Kreiner, H., & Gamliel, E. (2017). Are highly numerate individuals invulnerable to attribute framing bias? Comparing numerically and graphically represented attribute framing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(6), 775-782.
  27. Krider, R. E., Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (2001). Pizzas: π or square? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Marketing Science, 20(4), 405-425.
  28. Kwon, H., Kim, S., Kim, H., Son, H., Lee, I., & Jung, H. (2018). Life Science I. Kyohak Publication.
  29. Kwon, S., Lee, H., Jun, M., Bu, Y., Kim, T., & Cho, Y. (2018) Earth Science I. Geumsung Publication.
  30. Lee, E. (2023). Development of Risk Society Education Program (RSEP) in Connection with Science Education. Journal of Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 16(1), 103-132.
  31. Lee, J. H., Elfenbein, H. A., & Bottom, W. P. (2023). Foreign language effect in negotiations: negotiation language and framing effect on contract terms and subjective outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management.
  32. Lee, J., & Choi, J. (2014). Irrationality of Risk Judgment: Framing the Size of Risk Casualties and its Effects on Optimistic Bias. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 58(6), 40-63.
  33. Lee, M., & Lee, J. (2009). The Effects of Message Frame and Involvement on Optimistic Bias. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 191-210.
  34. Lee, N., & Lee, Y. (2009). Influences of Cognitive Processing Levels on Framing Effects in Decision Making of Risk. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 21(4), 249-263.
  35. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
  36. Lim, I., & Kim, Y. (2019). The Influencing Path of The Types of Climate Change Reporting on Behavioral IntentionsA Focus on the Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotion. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 96, 37-72.
  37. Lim, T., Baek, J., Nam, G, Kang, T., Kang, D., Lee, B., Jang, H., Hwang, I., Kim, M., Lee, Y., Go, H., Sin, M. Science 1. (2018). 
  38. Mack, O., Khare, A., Kramer, A., & Burgartz, T. (Eds.). (2015). Managing in a VUCA World. Springer.
  39. Madden, S. P., Jones, L. L., & Rahm, J. (2011). The role of multiple representations in the understanding of ideal gas problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 283-293.
  40. Masiero, M., Mazzoni, D., Pizzoli, S. F. M., Gargenti, S., Grasso, R., Mazzocco, K., & Pravettoni, G. (2022). The Individuals' Willingness to Get the Vaccine for COVID-19 during the Third Wave: A Study on Trust in Mainstream Information Sources, Attitudes and Framing Effect. Behavioral Sciences, 12(10), 399.
  41. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
  42. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from "Case Study Research in Education". Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104.
  43. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. No. 2015-74. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  44. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2022). The general framework of the 2022 revised science curriculum. No. 2022-33. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  45. Moxey, L. M. (2018). Processing quantified noun phrases with numbers versus verbal quantifiers. Discourse Processes, 55(2), 136-145.
  46. Nathan, K., Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1992). Tolerance for potential environmental health risks: The influence of knowledge, benefits, control, involvement, and uncertainty. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(4), 235-258.
  47. Noh, T., Lee, B., Kim, S., Jang, J., Kang, S., Lim, H., Yang, C., Park, J., Min, J., Bae, Y., Oh, P., Kim, Y., & Park, C. Science 1. (2018a).
  48. Noh, T., Lee, B., Kim, S., Jang, J., Kang, S., Lim, H., Yang, C., Park, J., Min, J., Bae, Y., Oh, P., Kim, Y., & Park, C. Science 2. (2018a).
  49. Oganian, Y., Korn, C. W., & Heekeren, H. R. (2016). Language switching-but not foreign language use per se-reduces the framing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(1), 140.
  50. Park, H. (2014). From Risk Society to Cosmopolitanism: Ulrich Beck's Vision on Risk Governance and Korean Sociology. Journal of Social Thoughts and Culture, 30, 83-120.
  51. Park, M. (2005). Reflektive Verantwortungsethik der Risikogesellschaft - Im Hinblick auf Webersche Verantwortungsethik und Becksche reflektive Modernisierung. Philosophia, Journal of Korean Philosophical Society, 96, 265-289.
  52. Peng, H., Xia, S., Ruan, F., & Pu, B. (2016). Age differences in consumer decision making under option framing: From the motivation perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 209474.
  53. Pietrocola, M., Rodrigues, E., Bercot, F., & Schnorr, S. (2021). Risk society and science education: Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic. Science & Education, 30(2), 209-233.
  54. Pomante, A., Selen, L. P., & Medendorp, W. P. (2019). Visual orientation uncertainty in the rod-and-frame illusion. Journal of Vision, 19(4), 19-19.
  55. Poter. (2005). Evaluation of the risk education website for secondary-aged students, HSE BOOKS.
  56. Sanford, A. J., & Moxey, L. M. (2003). New perspectives on the expression of quantity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(6), 240-243.
  57. 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.
  58. Schneiderbauer, S., & Ehrlich, D. (2004). Risk, hazard and people's vulnerability to natural hazards. A review of definitions, concepts and data. European Commission Joint Research Centre. EUR, 21410, 40.
  59. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution(Son, K., Trans.). Seoul: New present; Megastudy Books. (Original work published 2016).
  60. Shan, L., Diao, H., & Wu, L. (2020). Influence of the framing effect, anchoring effect, and knowledge on consumers' attitude and purchase intention of organic food. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 572618.
  61. Shearn, P. (2004). Teaching practice in risk education for 5-16 years olds. Report Number HSL/2005/23. Health and Safety Laboratory. Retrieved June 10, 2023 from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/12341.
  62. Shearn, P., & Weyman, A. (2004). Risk education provision: A survey of schools in England, Scotland and Wales. Health and Safety Laboratory.
  63. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Decision Research.
  64. Sun, Y., Li, S., Bonini, N., & Su, Y. (2012). Graph-framing effects in decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(5), 491-501.
  65. Teigen, K. H., & Brun, W. (1995). Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica, 88(3), 233-258.
  66. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403.
  67. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
  68. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
  69. Van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H., & de Jong, T. (1998). Learning with Multiple Representations. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Elsevier Science, Inc., PO Box 945, Madison Square Station, New York, NY 10160-0757.
  70. Vinnell, L. J., McClure, J., & Milfont, T. L. (2017). Do framing messages increase support for earthquake legislation?. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 26(1), 28-40.
  71. Wang, X. T., Simons, F., & Bredart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(1), 1-15.
  72. Welkenhuysen, M., Evers-Kiebooms, G., & d'Ydewalle, G. (2001). The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Education and Counseling, 43(2), 179-187.
  73. Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1996). Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(4), 343.
  74. World Economic Forum [WEF]. (2017). The global risks report 2017 Retrieved December 27, 2018, from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2017
  75. World Economic Forum [WEF]. (2021). The global risks report 2021 Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021
  76. World Economic Forum [WEF]. (2024). The global risks report 2024 Retrieved January 10, 2024, from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2024
  77. Xing, A. (2021). Foreign language effect on risk preference: The framing effect, loss aversion, and risk aversion. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 93, 101723.
  78. Yu, G., Jung, J., Kim, Y., & Kim, H. (2018). Qualitative Research Method(2nd ed). Parkyoungstory
  79. Yun, J. (2003). The Structure and Process of Technological Risk. Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 3(1), 75-103.