한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제38권1호
  • /
  • Pages.27-42
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

기술의 본성(NOT) 개념 틀 제안 및 과학기술공학 관련 전문가들의 인식 분석

Suggesting the Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Technology(NOT) and Examining the Conceptions of Experts of Science, Technology, and Engineering Fields regarding the NOT

  • 투고 : 2017.11.24
  • 심사 : 2018.01.05
  • 발행 : 2018.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 기술의 본성(NOT: Nature of Technology)에 대한 개념 정리를 위하여 최근 수행된 NOT 관련 문헌 연구를 통하여 포괄적인 NOT 개념 틀을 제안하고 이를 바탕으로 국내외의 과학기술공학 전문가들의 기술 개념에 대한 인식을 탐구하고자 하였다. 과학과 기술교육 영역의 다양한 NOT 관련 선행연구를 분석하여 제시된 NOT 영역은 1. 인공물로서의 기술(Technology as artifacts), 2. 지식으로서의 기술(Technology as knowledge), 3. 실행으로서의 기술(Technology as practice), 4. 시스템으로서의 기술(Technology as system), 5. 사회적 역할의 기술(The role of technology in society), 그리고 6. 기술의 역사(History of technology) 6가지로 제안되었다. 또한 제안된 6개의 NOT 영역을 기준으로 과학기술공학 전문가들 30명의 인식 분포를 조사한 결과 전문가들은 다양한 NOT 개념 중에서 3. 실행으로서의 기술, 4. 시스템으로서의 기술, 그리고 5. 사회적 역할의 기술의 3가지 영역을 주로 인식하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이것은 NOT 선행연구에서 대중이나 학생들이 주로 기술을 '인공물로서의 기술' 또는 '응용 과학으로서의 기술'로 이해하고 있다는 결과와는 달리 과학기술공학 전문가들은 기술의 개념을 기술철학적 차원의 복잡하고 추상적인 '인간의 총체적 지식과 행위'로 이해하고 있다는 것을 보여주었다.

This study aims to suggest the conceptual framework for the Nature of Technology (NOT) by examining the current researches regarding the NOT in science and technology education and to analyze the conceptions of experts in science, technology, and engineering fields based on the framework of NOT. The NOT conceptual framework developed in the study consisted of the six domains of NOT, which are 1. Technology as artifacts, 2. Technology as knowledge, 3. Technology as practice, 4. Technology as system, 5. The role of technology in society, and 6. History of technology. Also, the results of analyzing the conceptions for the 30 experts in science, technology, and engineering fields emphasize on the three domains of the 3. Technology as practice, 4. Technology as system, and 5. The role of technology in society among the 6 domains of the framework of the six domains of the NOT framework. This findings are different from the results of previous researches conducted in science and technology education for exploring the conceptions of NOT in the POV of the public and students. As such, the results show that while the public and students possess naive ideas on NOT only focusing on the technology as products and tools, experts in science, technology, and engineering fields possess the authentic views of the NOT reflecting the complex and abstract concepts of technology in terms of the perspectives of philosophy of technology.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Aikenhead, G., & Ryan, A. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on science-technology-society(VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760503
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1990) Project 2061: Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993) Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford University Press.
  4. Aydin, F. & Tasar, F. (2010). An investigation of pre-service science teachers' cognitive structures and ideas about the nature of technology. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 11(4), 209-221.
  5. Bayir, E., Cakici, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists' views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Eduation, 36(8), 1286-1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.860496
  6. Celik, S., & Bayrakceken, (2006). The effect of a "science, technology and society" course on perspective teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 24(2), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140600811692
  7. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601159407
  8. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 713-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280808
  9. Choi, U. H. (2017). The Study of Technology Education. Heoung-Sul Press.
  10. Choi, Y., & Rye, C. (2007), Analyzing preceding research on the concepts and elements of technological literacy. Korean Technology Education Association, 7(2), 141-153.
  11. Choi, Y. & Ryu, C. (2007). Analyzing preceding research on the concepts and elementary of technological literacy. Korean Technology Education Association, 7(2), 141-153.
  12. Collier-Reed, B. I. (2008). Pupils' Experiences of Technology: Exploring Dimensions of Technological Literacy. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e. K.
  13. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions im mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.
  14. DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.495400
  15. Durbin, P. T. (2006). Philosophy of technology: In search of discourse synthesis. Techne, 10(2), 4-319.
  16. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187-206). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  17. Fedock, P., Zambo, R., & Cobern, W. (1996). The professional development of college science professors as science teacher educators. Science Education, 80(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199601)80:1<5::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-N
  18. Frank, M. (2005). A systems approach for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 19-34.
  19. Freenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.
  20. Franssen, M., Lokhorst, G. J., & van de Poel, I. (2009). Philosophy of technology (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). Retrieved August 24, 2010, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/
  21. Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing open-mindness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20069
  22. ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (1996). Technology for All Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology (rationale and structure). Reston, VA: ITEA.
  23. ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: students assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: ITEA
  24. ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (2004). Measuring progress: Assessing students for technological literacy. Reston, VA: ITEA.
  25. ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: ITEA.
  26. ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: ITEA.
  27. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20069
  28. Kim, U. S. (1998). Information society and ethics: The nature of technology. Paper Presented in the 1st conference of the Korean Institute of Communication and Information Science, Seoul, Korea.
  29. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  30. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  31. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science quesrionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  32. Lee, H. (2015). Construction of nature of technology framework and its utilization for investigation of changes in college students' perception of nature of technology through SSI-based program. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ewha Womans University.
  33. Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2015). Analysis of students' socioscientific decision-making from the nature of technology perspectives. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(1), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0169
  34. Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2016). Contextualized nature of technology in socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(2), 303-315. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0303
  35. Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2017). Developing and application of rubric for assessing nature of technology in the context of socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(2), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.2.0323
  36. Lee, Y. H. (2013). A proposal of inclusive framework of the nature of science (NOS) based on the 4 themes of scientific literacy for K-12 school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 553-569. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.3.553
  37. Lee, Y. H. (2014a). Comparative analysis of the presentation of the nature of science(NOS) in Korea and US elementary science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 207-212. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0207
  38. Lee, Y. H. (2014b). What do scientists think about the nature of science?- exploring views of the nature of science of korean scientists related with life science area, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(7), 677-691. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.7.0677
  39. Liou, P. (2015). Developing an intrument for assessing students' concepts of the nature of technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 162-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.996542
  40. Marianne, C. P., Vowell, J. E., Lee, Y. H., & Plankis, B. J. (2015). How do elementary science textbooks present the nature of science? The Educational Forum, 79, 148-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2015.1004210
  41. McGinn, R. E. (1991). Science, technology, and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  42. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  43. Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 29(4), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290407
  44. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  45. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
  46. Misa, T. J. (2009). History of technology. In J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 7-17). West Sussex, UK: Blackwell.
  47. Ministry of Education(MOE). (2015). Curriculum of High School Science Education, Seoul, Korea: Author.
  48. Moon, S., Lee, Y. H., & Son, Y. A. (2015). Analysis of middle school environmental education textbooks using the environmental literacy based on the four themes of scientific literacy. The Korean Society of Environmental Education, 28(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.17965/kjee.2015.28.1.1
  49. Moore, D. R. (2011). Technology literacy: The extension of cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9113-9
  50. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  51. National Research Council (NRC) (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans needs to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Presss.
  52. National Research Council (NRC) (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  53. National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concept, and core idea. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
  54. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (1982). Science- Technology-Society: Science Education for The 1980s (An NSTA Position Statement). Washington, DC: Author.
  55. Layton, E. T. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture, 15(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3102759
  56. Oldenziel, R. (2006). Signifying semantics for a history of technology. Technology and Culture, 47, 477-485. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2006.0194
  57. Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  58. Pitt, J. C. (2000). Thinking about technology: Foundations of the philosophy of technology. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
  59. Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 35-52.
  60. Schatzberg, E. (2006). Technik comes to America: Changing meaning of technology before 1930. Technology and Culture, 47, 486-512. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2006.0201
  61. Seo, D., Lee, Y. H., & Jho, H. (2017). Understanding of students at a technical high school about the nature of technology through the course of science and technology course. Biology Education, 45(1), 199-212.
  62. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science education. Science Education, 83, 493-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199907)83:4<493::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-U
  63. Synder, J. (2004). One world, rival theories, Foreign Policy, 145, 52-62.
  64. Taylor, A. R., Jones, M.G., Broadwell, B., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry, or accountability? Scientists' and teachers' perceptions of science education. Science Education, 92(6), 1058-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20272
  65. Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: high school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1143-1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9452-6
  66. Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of technology: implications for design, development, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2875-2905. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.698763
  67. Wright, R. T., Israel, R. N., & Lauda, D. P. (1993). Teaching technology: A teacher's guide. International Technology Education Association, Reston, VA.
  68. Young, A. T., Cole, J. R., & Denton, D. (2002). Improving technological literacy: The first steps is understanding what is meant by 'Technology'. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(4), 73-79.
  69. Zorlu, Y., Baykara, O., & Zorlu, F. (1993). The views of pre-service classroom teachers about nature of technology. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 3121-3132.

피인용 문헌

  1. 기술의 본성(NOT) 개념 틀 제안 및 이공계 대학생들의 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대한 인식 탐구 vol.43, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.3.363
  2. 2015 개정 교육과정 통합과학 교과서의 과학의 본성(NOS) 분석 vol.44, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2020.44.3.273