한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제42권4호
  • /
  • Pages.523-537
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학기술로 인해 발생할 수 있는 위험을 다루는 과학교육에 관한 초등교사의 교육 경험과 교육 준비도 및 요구도

Elementary School Teachers' Educational Experiences, Readiness, and Needs for Science Education That Addresses the Risks Posed by Science and Technology

  • Kim, Jinhee (Chuncheon National University of Education) ;
  • Na, Jiyeon (Chuncheon National University of Education)
  • 투고 : 2023.10.16
  • 심사 : 2023.11.07
  • 발행 : 2023.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 과학기술로 인해 발생할 수 있는 위험을 다루는 과학교육에 대한 초등교사의 교육 경험과 교육 준비도 및 요구도를 조사하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 다수의 교사가 과학교육에서 과학기술로 인해 발생할 수 있는 위험을 다루어 본 경험이 없었다. 둘째, 2022 개정 과학과 교육과정의 성취기준에 위험이 포함되어 있다는 것을 알고 있는 교사의 수가 모르는 교사의 수보다 더 많았다. 셋째, 위험지각, 위험평가, 위험관리에 대한 교사들의 이해도를 비교하면, 위험지각에 대한 이해도가 상대적으로 높고 위험평가에 대한 이해도가 낮았다. 넷째, 대다수 교사가 위험에 대한 교육 및 연수를 받은 경험이 없었다. 다섯째, 위험교육의 10가지 목표를 가르치기 위한 교사의 현재 역량 수준은 정보 활용과 실천 역량 순으로 높게 나타났고, 확률 해석과 위험평가 방법에 대한 평가가 가장 낮게 나타났다. 여섯째, 다수의 교사는 학교 과학 수업에서 과학기술로 인해 발생할 수 있는 위험에 대해 교육하는 것이 중요하다고 응답하였으며 특히 실천 역량, 정보 활용, 의사 결정 역량 순으로 중요하다고 응답하였고 실천 역량, 정보 활용, 대중매체의 영향 평가 순으로 교육이 시급하다고 응답하였다. 그러나 교사들은 학교 과학 수업에서 위험을 다루게 될 때 예상하는 어려움으로 관련 교육자료의 부족, 위험교육 관련 교수 이론에 대한 이해 부족, 과학 교과 내용 및 성취기준과의 관계 순으로 높게 응답하였다. 일곱째, 위험교육의 10가지 목표별 교육 요구도를 산출한 결과, 위험 특성의 영향 평가, 의사 결정 역량, 실천 역량, 위험평가 방법에 대한 평가가 초등교사가 우선하여 요구하는 항목이었다.

This study encompassed the responses of 284 elementary school teachers, focusing on their teaching experiences, readiness, and needs for science education concerning the risk posed by science and technology. The key findings are summarized as follows. First, a significant portion of teachers lacked prior experience in addressing risks associated with science and technology within their science education practices. Second, a greater number of teachers were aware of the inclusion of risk-related content in the 2022 revised science curriculum's achievement standards than those who were not. Third, in terms of teachers' understanding of risk perception, risk assessment, and risk management, they demonstrated a relatively high level of understanding of risk perception but a lower level of understanding of risk assessment. Fourth, most teachers had not undergone any formal education or training related to risk. Fifth, among the 10 objectives of risk education, teachers displayed the highest competence in teaching "information use" and "action skills," while their lowest competence was observed in "interpreting probabilities" and "evaluating risk assessment." Sixth, a majority of teachers believe that it is important to teach about the risks posed by science and technology in school science classes, with "action skills," "information use," and "decision-making skills" being considered the most important and "action skills," "information use," and "influence of mass media" being regarded as the most urgent. However, teachers anticipated difficulties in addressing risk in school science classes, including a lack of relevant educational materials, a lack of understanding of teaching theories related to risk education, and the relationship between science curriculum content and achievement standards. Seventh, as a result of calculating the educational needs for each of the 10 goals of risk education, "influence of risk perception," "decision-making skills," "action skills," and "evaluate risk assessment" were the priority needs of elementary school teachers.

키워드

과제정보

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

참고문헌

  1. 교육부(2021). 2022 개정 교육과정 총론 주요사항의 신구대비표. 세종: 교육부. 
  2. 교육부(2022). 과학과 교육과정. 교육부 고시 제2022-33호 [별책 9]. 
  3. 김현경, 나지연(2017). 2015 개정 과학과 교육과정의 적용에 대한 초.중학교 교사의 인식과 요구. 한국과학교육학회, 37(1), 103-112. 
  4. 박희제(2014). 위험사회에서 세계시민주의로: 울리히 벡의 기술위험 거버넌스 전망과 한국의 사회학. 사회사상과 문화, 30, 83-120. 
  5. 엄미리(2009). 국내 교수설계자 역량개발을 위한 교육요구 분석. 직업능력개발연구, 12(1), 1-23.  https://doi.org/10.36907/KRIVET.2009.12.1.1
  6. 조광래(2018). 위험사회 극복을 위한 [성찰적 근대화]의 재해석. 시큐리티 연구, 57, 277-301. 
  7. 조대연(2009). 설문조사를 통한 요구분석에서 우선순위결정 방안 탐색. 교육문제연구, 35, 165-187. 
  8. 주영기, 유명순(2016). 위험사회와 위험인식. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스. 
  9. Atabani, A. E., Silitonga, A. S., Badruddin, I. A., Mahlia, T. M. I., Masjuki, H. H., & Mekhilef, S. (2012). A comprehensive review on biodiesel as an alternative energy resource and its characteristics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(4), 2070-2093.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.003
  10. Aven, T. (2012). Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(10), 1647-1656.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01798.x
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Beck, N. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem weg in eine andere moderne. 홍성태 역(2019). 위험사회: 새로운 근대(성)를 향하여. 서울: 새물결 출판사. 
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Clare, C. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 205-223.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142293
  17. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  18. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Stanford University Press. 
  19. 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. 기상청 역. 기후변화 2013 과학적 근거. Retrieved June 5, 2020, from http://www.climate.go.kr/home/bbs/view.php?code=94&bname=climatereport&vcode=6226&cpage=2&vNum=14&skind=&sword=&category1=&category2= 
  20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Summary for policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5℃. 기상청 역. 지구온난화 1.5℃ 특별보고서. Retrieved June 5, 2020, from http://www.climate.go.kr/home/bbs/view.php?code=94&bname=climatereport&vcode=6244&cpage=1&vNum=20&skind=&sword=&category1=&category2= 
  21. ISO (2018). Risk management-Guidelines.
  22. 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. 
  23. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). NY: Sage Publications. 
  24. 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. 
  25. 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
  26. Nadeem, M., Rana, M. S., Lone, A. H., Maqbool, S., Naz, K., & Ali, A. (2011). Teacher's competencies and factors affecting the performance of female teachers in Bahawalpur (Southern Punjab) Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(19), 217-222. 
  27. Nikiforidou, Z., Pange, J., & Chadjipadelis, T. (2012). Risk literacy in early childhood education under a lifelong perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4830-4833.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.343
  28. Nuangchalerm, P., & Prachagool, V. (2010). Influences of teacher preparation program on preservice science teachers' beliefs. International Education Studies, 3(1). 87-91.  https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v3n1p87
  29. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Position Paper. 
  30. Petrovic, S., Munukutla, L., & Robertson, J. (2007). Experiences and teaching tools in alternative energy education. Paper presented at 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education. Honolulu, Hawaii. 
  31. Porter (2005) Evaluation of the risk education website for secondary-aged students, HSE BOOKS. 
  32. 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
  33. 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. 
  34. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. 송경진 역(2016). 클라우스 슈밥의 제4차 산업혁명. 서울: 새로운 현재. 
  35. Shahid, E. M., & Jamal, Y. (2011). Production of biodiesel: A technical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4732-4745.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.079
  36. 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. 
  37. Shearn, P., & Weyman, A. (2004). Risk education provision: A survey of schools in England, Scotland and Wales. Health and Safety Laboratory. 
  38. Singer, E., & Endreny, P. M. (1993). Reporting on risk. 송해룡 역(2003). 위험 보도론. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스. 
  39. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Decision Research. 
  40. Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) (2015). Society for Risk Analysis Glossary. 
  41. Syaddad, H. N. (2020). Preparing the preservice teachers to be the industrial revolution teacher 4.0 era. Advances in Social Science. Education and Humanities Research, 397, 1165-1173. 
  42. USB. (2016). Extreme automation and connectivity: The global, regional, and investment implications of the fourth industrial revolution. USB White Paper for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2016. Retrieved December 27, 2018, from https://www.ubs.com 
  43. World Health Organization. (2002). The world health report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 
  44. World Economic Forum. (2017). The global risks report 2017. Retrieved December 27, 2018, from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2017 
  45. 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