한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제42권1호
  • /
  • Pages.111-125
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

ENACT 프로젝트에 참여한 예비 과학교사들의 과학기술자의 사회적 책임에 대한 인식 변화 탐색

ENACT Project: Promoting Pre-Service Science Teachers' Views on the Social Responsibility of Scientists and Engineers

  • 투고 : 2022.01.07
  • 심사 : 2022.02.13
  • 발행 : 2022.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

ENACT 프로젝트는 과학기술과 관련한 사회쟁점(SSI)에 관심을 갖고 쟁점해결에 참여해보는 경험을 통해 사회적 책임감을 함양하는 교육프로그램으로, 본 연구에서는 ENACT 프로젝트 수행을 통해 예비 과학교사들의 과학기술자의 사회적 책임에 대한 인식이 어떻게 변화하는지 탐색해보았다. 32명의 예비 과학교사가 비교과활동으로 약 3개월에 걸쳐 자발적으로 참여하였으며, ENACT 모형 즉, 쟁점발견, 쟁점탐색, 미래상황 예측, 과학·기술·공학적 쟁점해결, 사회적 실천의 5단계에 따라 진행하였다. 예비 과학교사들의 과학기술자의 사회적 책임에 대한 인식 변화를 탐색하기 위해 혼합연구방법을 이용하였으며, 이를 위해 과학기술자의 사회적 책임인식을 측정하는 검사도구(VSRoSE)와 조별 면담 자료를 수집하였다. 연구결과, 예비 과학교사들은 VSRoSE 전체 및 8개 하위요인 중 5개 요인에서 통계적으로 유의미한 향상을 나타내었다. 각 하위 요인별 예비 교사들의 면담을 분석한 결과, 이들은 과학기술에 대한 인식론적 탐색을 강조하는 Cycle I과 쟁점해결과 실천을 강조하는 Cycle II를 수행하는 과정에서 과학기술자의 사회적 역할에 대해 고민할 수 있는 기회를 충분히 갖게 되었음을 확인하였다. 특히 프로젝트 참여 전 과학기술이 인간과 환경, 사회에 미치는 영향을 고려해야 한다는 것에 초점을 두었던 예비 교사들의 인식은, 프로젝트 참여 후 사회적 필요와 요구를 반영하고 지역사회 문제 해결을 위해 대중과 협력·소통하며 정책에 참여해야 하는 것까지 확장해서 이해하는 모습을 보였다. 위 결과를 기반으로 과학기술관련 사회쟁점 교육과 교사교육에 있어 본 연구의 시사점을 제시하였다.

This study aims to investigate the effects of the ENACT project on promoting pre-service science teachers (PSTs)' views on the social responsibility of scientists and engineers. The ENACT project was designed to cultivate the social responsibility by integrating the theoretical framework of socioscientific issues (SSIs) education with problem-based inquiry approaches for the resolution of the issues. Thirty-two PSTs voluntarily participated in the project and completed the five stages over three months. Data was collected through a questionnaire to measure PSTs' view of the social responsibility of scientists and engineers (VSRoSE) and focus-group interviews. Results indicate that the PSTs presented statistically significant changes in their views of the social responsibility after the ENACT project. The mean scores of the five sub-dimensions of VSRoSE significantly increased. The interviews also supported that the PSTs had opportunities to seriously consider the social responsibility of scientists and engineers through epistemological exploration of science and technology (Cycle I), and problem-solving and action-taking (Cycle II). In particular, they agreed more on such responsibilities as consideration of societal needs and demands, pursuit of the common good, civic engagement and services using their expertise, communications with the public regarding potential risks, and participation in policy decision-making related to science and technology advances. Educational implications for SSI education and teacher education were suggested.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2019S1A5A2A03041635).

참고문헌

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087-2107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9520-2
  2. Amos, R., & Levinson, R. (2019). Socio-scientific inquiry-based learning: An approach for engaging with the 2030 sustainable development goals through school science. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 11(1), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.11.1.03
  3. Ariza, M. R., Christodoulou, A., Harskamp, M. V., Knippels, M. C. P., Kyza, E. A., Levinson, R., & Agesilaou, A. (2021). Socio-scientific inquiry-based learning as a means toward environmental citizenship. Sustainability, 13(20), 1-22.
  4. Barelli, E. (2017). Science of complex systems and future-scaffolding skills: A pilot study with secondary school students. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Bologna, Italy.
  5. Barnett, R.(2007). A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
  6. Bencze, L. (2017). Science and technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies and environments: STEPWISE. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  7. Bernard, P., & Dudek, K. (2017). Revisiting students' perceptions of research scientist: Outcomes of an indirect draw-a-scientist test (INDAST). Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 562-575. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.562
  8. Bielefeldt, A. R. (2018). Professional social responsibility in engineering. In I. Muenstermann (Ed.), Social responsibility (pp. 41-60). London, England: IntechOpen.
  9. Canney, N. E., & Bielefeldt, A. R. (2016). Validity and reliability evidence of the engineering professional responsibility assessment tool. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(3), 452-477. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20124
  10. Choi, K. (2005). Contemplation of scientist's social role, responsibility and its educational methods. Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 10, 49-67.
  11. Glenn, C. J. (1994). Future mind: Artificial intelligence: Merging the mystical and the technological. Washington, DC: Acropolis Books.
  12. Glerup, C., & Horst, M. (2014). Mapping 'social responsibility' in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.882077
  13. Godhade, J., & Hundekari, S. (2018). Social responsibility of engineers. International Journal of Academic Research and Development, 3(2), 125-126.
  14. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Ha, M., Shin, S., & Lee, J. (2019). Developing the questionnaire to measure the perception of the norms of science and applying to pre-service science reachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(4), 489-498. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.4.489
  16. Hong, S. (2016). Science-Technology-Society: Listening to science. Seoul: Dongasiabook.
  17. Ko, Y., Shim, S. S., & Lee, H. (2021). Development and validation of a scale to measure Views of Social Responsibility of Scientists and Engineers (VSRoSE). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Online first.
  18. Lathem, S. A., Neumann, M. D., & Hayden, N. (2011). The socially responsible engineer: Assessing student attitudes of roles and responsibilities. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 444-474. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00022.x
  19. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  20. Lee, H. (2018). What is SSI education? Seoul: Parkyoung Story.
  21. Lee, H., Choi, Y., Nam, C., Ok, S., Shim, S., Hwang, Y., & Kim, G. (2020). Development of the ENACT model for cultivating social responsibility of college students in STEM fields. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 23(6), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.18108/JEER.2020.23.6.3
  22. Lee, H., Hwang, Y., Ko, Y., Choi, Y., Ok, S., Nam, C., Shim, S., & Kim, G. (2022). ENACT project. Seoul: Parkyoung Story.
  23. Levinson, R. (2018). Introducing socio-scientific inquiry-based learning (SSIBL). School Science Review, 100(371), 31-35.
  24. Levrini, O., Tasquier, G., Barelli, E., Laherto, A., Palmgren, E., Branchetti, L., & Wilson, C. (2021). Recognition and operationalization of future-scaffolding skills: Results from an empirical study of a teaching-learning module on climate change and futures thinking. Science Education, 105(2), 281-308. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21612
  25. Levrini, O., Tasquier, G., Branchetti, L., & Barelli, E. (2019). Developing future-scaffolding skills through science education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(18), 2647-2674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1693080
  26. Narayan, R., Park, S., Peker, D., & Suh, J. (2013). Students' images of scientists and doing science: An international comparison study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 115-129.
  27. Oviawe, J. I., Tazhenova, G. S., Azman, M. N. A., & Abdullah, A. S. (2021). Promoting students' academic performances and interests in blocklaying and concreting works using a futures-wheel instructional strategy versus problem solving: Implications for sustainable development. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 13(3), 79-92.
  28. Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0018-1
  29. Sakharov, A. (1981). The responsibility of scientists. Nature, 291, 184-185. https://doi.org/10.1038/291184a0
  30. 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
  31. Schlossberger, E. (2016). Engineering codes of ethics and the duty to set a moral precedent. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1333-1344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9708-3
  32. Sjostrom, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung. In Y. J. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 65-88). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  33. Song, S. (2008). Discussion on the social responsibility of scientists and engineers revisited. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 11(2), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.18108/jeer.2008.11.2.5
  34. Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., & Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154
  35. Tasquier, G., Branchetti, L., & Levrini, O. (2019). Frantic standstill and lack of future: How can science education take care of students' distopic perceptions of time?. In E. McLoughlin, O. E. Finlayson, S. Erduran, & P. E. Childs (Eds.), Bridging research and practice in science education (pp. 205-224). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  36. Tassone, V. C., O'Mahony, C., McKenna, E., Eppink, H. J., & Wals, A. E. (2018). (Re-)Designing higher education curricula in times of systemic dysfunction: A responsible research and innovation perspective. Higher Education, 76, 337-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0211-4
  37. Vanasupa, L., Slivovski, L., & Chen, K. C. (2006). Global challenges as inspiration: A classroom strategy to foster social responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(2), 373-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0036-5
  38. Wals, A. E., Tassone, V. C., Hampson, G. P., & Reams, J. (2015). Learning for walking the change: Eco-social innovation through sustainability-oriented higher education. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, M. Rieckmann, & I. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp. 25-39). London, England: Routledge.
  39. Wojcik, A., Hamza, K., Lundegard, I., Enghag, M., Haglund, K., Arvanitis, L., & Schenk, L. (2019). Educating about radiation risks in high schools: towards improved public understanding of the complexity of low-dose radiation health effects. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 58(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-018-0763-4
  40. Wyndham, J. M., Albro, R., Ettinger, J., Smith, K., Sabatello, M., & Frankel, M. S. (2015). Social responsibility: A preliminary inquiry into the perspectives of scientists, engineers and health professionals. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  41. Yoon, J., Cho, W., & Nam, Y. (2021). Gifted students' perception of the social roles and responsibilities of scientists. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 31(3), 383-404. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2021.31.3.383
  42. Zandvoort, H., Borsen, T., Deneke, M., & Bird, J. (2013). Editors' overview: Perspectives on teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1413-1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9495-7