Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship of Science Knowledge, Attitude and Decision Making on Socio-scientific Issues: The Case Study of Students’ Debates on a Nuclear Power Plant in Korea

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of students’ understanding of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues (SSI), especially on the issues of nuclear energy in Korea. SSI-focused instructions were developed to encourage students to understand and reflect on knowledge, attitude and decision making on nuclear energy in the current society. Eighty-nine students attended the instruction and participated in pre and post questionnaires to understand their understandings of nuclear energy. In this study, science knowledge was categorized into content and contextual knowledge, attitude consisted of images, safety, risk, potential, benefits and future roles, and decision making section included preference and alternative about lifetime extension of nuclear power plant. The results of questionnaires were analyzed by correlation, cross-tabulation and regression. As a result, while students’ understandings of science knowledge were significantly improved throughout the instruction, they maintained similar attitude and decision making on the issue. Regarding the relationship of the three domains, attitude showed some degree of connection to decision making whereas science knowledge did not show a significant relationship to decision making. This finding challenges SSI teaching in content-based science curriculum and classroom. Reflection and implications on the way of teaching SSI in the classroom were discussed further in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See for example, Ministry of Education Science and Technology (2011), Ministry of Science and Technology (2007), National Research Council (1996), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1991) and Oxfam (1997).

  2. The link between science content knowledge and decision making has been examined by, among others, Jiménez-Aleixandre (2002), Lewis and Leach (2006), Sadler and Zeidler (2005) and Venville et al. (2004).

  3. The link between student performance and decision making has also been examined previously. See for example, Kolstø et al. (2006), Means and Voss (1996), Sadler and Zeidler (2005) and Zeidler and Schafer (1984).

  4. See for example, Hong and Chang (2004), Jiménez-Aleixandre (2002), Pedretti (1999) and Solomon (1992).

  5. For discussions about the influential factors, see Anderson (2003), Binder et al. (2012), Frewer et al. (1996), Heilman et al. (2010) and Ho et al. (2011).

  6. Relevant reports and studies include European Commission (2009), Gaskell et al. (2003), Lee et al. (2005) and Miller (2004).

  7. See for example, Blok et al. (2008), Savadori et al. (2004), Setbon et al. (2005), Slovic (1987) and Slovic et al. (2004).

  8. Among others, see Calhoun et al. (1988), Dulski et al. (1995), Jang (2001) and Yoo (1992).

  9. See for example, Choi et al. (2000), Kirk (2007), Lartigue and Martinez (2008), Lee (2009) and Yoo (1992).

  10. These include research and reports from around the world (Allsop 1999; Choi et al. 2000; Ferguson 2011; Lee 1996; Ok 2000; OECD 1991).

  11. For elaboration, see Hong and Chang (2004), Lewis and Leach (2006), Ratcliffe (1997), Venville et al. (2004) and Zohar and Nemet (2002).

  12. See for example, Savadori et al. (2004), Setbon et al. (2005), Slovic (1987) and Slovic et al. (2004).

  13. Among others, see Grace (2009), Hong and Chang (2004), Jiménez-Aleixandre (2002), Liu et al. (2011) and Venville et al. (2004).

References

  • Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across culture: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsop, S. (1999). Understanding understanding: A model for the public learning of radioactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermúdez, J. L. (2009). Decision theory and rationality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, A. R., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., Shaw, B. R., & Corley, E. A. (2012). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 830–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blok, A., Jensen, M., & Kaltoft, P. (2008). Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, L., Shrigley, R. L., & Showers, D. E. (1988). Designing the nuclear energy attitude scale. Science Education, 72(2), 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Y. S., Kim, J. S., & Lee, B. W. (2000). Public’s perception and judgment on nuclear power. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 27, 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulski, R. E., Dulski, R. E., & Raven, R. J. (1995). Attitudes toward nuclear energy: One potential path for achieving scientific literacy. Science Education, 79(2), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). Eurobarometer surveys. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm. Accessed January 2010.

  • Ferguson, C. D. (2011). Nuclear energy: What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of science related attitudes: Handbook. Australian Council for Educational Research, Macquarie University.

  • Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 473–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science: A review. Studies in Science Education, 2(1), 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Jackson, J., Howard, S., & Lindsey, N. (2003). Ambivalent GM nation? Public attitudes to biotechnology in the UK, 1991–2002. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/ambivalent_gm_nation_uk.pdf.

  • Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, R. M., Crisan, L. G., & Houser, D. (2010). Emotion regulation and decision making under risk and uncertainty. Emotion, 10(2), 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media interpersonal communication and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science,. doi:10.1177/0963662511417936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J.-L., & Chang, N.-K. (2004). Analysis of Korean high school students’ decision-making processes in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research in Science Education, 34, 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, W.-J. (2001). Designing a Likert-type scale to measure nuclear energy attitude. Daegu: Catholic University of Daegu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, J. M. (1999). The foundation of causal decision theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapassa, M., Abeliotis, K., & Scoullos, M. (2012). Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of secondary school students on renewable feedstocks/biomass: The case of Greece. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(1), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, T. (2007). Physics for the IB diploma: Standard and higher level. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, L. (1976). A structure for the affective domain in relation to science education. Science Education, 60(3), 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koballa, T. R., Jr, & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 75–102). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust,…’-pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korea Hydro & Nuclear Co. (2012). Nuclear power plant operation. http://www.nppinfo.co.kr/action?cmd=NOPA02. Accessed 17 Nov 2012.

  • Kuchinskaya, O. (2011). Articulating the signs of danger: Lay experiences of post-chernobyl radiation risks and effects. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 405–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lartigue, J., & Martinez, T. (2008). Trends in nuclear education. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 276(3), 849–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-S. (1996). Light and shade of modern era: Nuclear power. Seoul: Korea Nuclear Energy Promotion Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. (2009). Analysis of nuclear energy education in USA: Focused on curriculum and textbooks. Journal of the Society for the International Gifted in Science, 3(1), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issue: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liarakou, G., Gavrilakis, C., & Flouri, E. (2009). Secondary school teachers’ knowledge and attitudes towards renewable energy sources. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S.-Y., Lin, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikulak, A. (2011). Mismatches between ‘scientific’ and ‘non-scientific’ ways of knowing and their contributions to public understanding of science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(2), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education Science and Technology. (2011). National science curriculum. Seoul: MEST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Science and Technology. (2007). China science and technology indicators http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/statistics/2007/200801/P020080109573867344872.pdf.

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Training Centre (2010). Nuclear power plants in the world. http://www.icjt.org/an/tech/jesvet/jesvet.htm. Accessed 2 Dec 2012.

  • Ok, C.-I. (2000). The world of radioactive physics. Seoul: Jeonpa-Gwahaksa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1991). Nuclear energy: Communicating with the public. Paris: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxfam. (1997). A curriculum for global citizenship. London: Oxfam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford University Press. (2012). Oxford dictionaries online. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/decision. Accessed 6 Oct 2012.

  • Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramana, M. V. (2011). Nuclear power and the public. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 67(4), 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A. (1989). Decision theory and decision behavior: Normative and descriptive approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., & Rumiati, R. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1289–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 433–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setbon, M., Raude, J., Fischler, C., & Flahault, A. (2005). Risk perception of the “mad cow disease” in France: Determinants and consequences. Risk Analysis, 25(4), 813–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecher, J. D. (2008). Subjective information in decision making and communication. In M. Abdellaoui, & J. Hey (Eds.), Advances in decision making under risk and uncertainty (Vol. 42, pp. 49–62, Theory and decision library). Springer: Berlin.

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2011). Secondary school students’ interests, attitudes and values concerning school science related to environmental issues in Finland. Environmental Education Research, 17(2), 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., Rennie, L., & Wallace, J. (2004). Decision making and sources of knowledge: How students tackle integrated tasks in science, technology and mathematics. Research in Science Education, 34, 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viklund, M. (2004). Energy policy options—From the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions. Energy Policy, 32(10), 1159–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 19–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, J. (1992). Attitudinal structure of middle school students toward nuclear energy. Seoul: Seoul National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D., Walker, K., Ackett, W., & Simmons, M. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socicoscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of General Education, Dankook University, Anseo dong, Dongnam gu, Cheonan, Chungnam, South Korea

    Hunkoog Jho

  2. Department of Science Education, Chuncheon University of Education, Gwahakgwan 104 Seoksa dong, Chuncheon, Gangwon do, South Korea

    Hye-Gyoung Yoon

  3. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Victoria, 3800, Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, Canada

    Mijung Kim

Authors
  1. Hunkoog Jho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hye-Gyoung Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mijung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hunkoog Jho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jho, H., Yoon, HG. & Kim, M. The Relationship of Science Knowledge, Attitude and Decision Making on Socio-scientific Issues: The Case Study of Students’ Debates on a Nuclear Power Plant in Korea. Sci & Educ 23, 1131–1151 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation