Journal of Science Education (과학교육연구지)

Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University (경북대학교 과학교육연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Suggesting Conceptual Framework on the Nature of Technology (NOT) and Investigating College Students' Perceptions Regarding the Nature of Technology(NOT)

기술의 본성(NOT) 개념 틀 제안 및 이공계 대학생들의 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대한 인식 탐구

  • Received : 2019.10.14
  • Accepted : 2019.12.14
  • Published : 2019.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to suggest an inclusive conceptual framework for the Nature of Technology (NOT) by examining literature and researches regarding NOT and then to analyze the conceptions of the students in Science and Engineering Department of a college based on the NOT framework. Findings are as follows: First, the conceptual framework of the NOT developed from the study has the five domains of NOT, which are Technology as Artifacts, Technology as Knowledge, Technology as Practice, Technology as History, and Technology as a part of Society. Second, the participants' conceptions of the NOT emphasize on three domains of the Technology as Practice (26.4%), Technology as a part of Society (25.8%), and Technology as Knowledge (24.3%) among the five domains of the NOT. Third, according to the microanalysis of the students' conceptions regarding NOT, students in Science and Engineering Department of a college possess concrete and various views of the NOT even though NOT is abstract and complex ideas. Specifically, they seem to recognize the NOT as a product of process and ability to utilize the technology for convenience of life.

본 연구는 이공계열 대학생들의 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대한 인식 조사를 위하여 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대한 문헌 연구와 선행 연구를 분석하여 통합적이고 포괄적인 기술의 본성(NOT)의 개념 틀을 제안하였다. 또한 이를 바탕으로 수도권 소재 종합대학 이공계열 대학생 약 517명을 대상으로 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대한 인식을 분석하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같았다. 첫째, 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대한 문헌 연구를 통해서 제시된 통합적인 NOT개념 틀은 총 5가지 영역으로 1. 인공물로서의 기술(Technology as Artifacts), 2. 지식으로서의 기술(Technology as Knowledge), 3. 실행으로서의 기술 (Technology as Practice), 4. 역사로서의 기술(Technology as History), 그리고 5. 사회의 한 부분으로서의 기술(Technology as a part of Society)이다. 둘째, 본 연구에서 제안한 5개 영역의 NOT 개념 틀을 기준으로 분석한 이공계열 대학생들의 인식조사 결과, 학생들은 기술에 대하여 3. 실행으로서의 기술(26.4%), 5. 사회의 한 부분으로서의 기술(25.8%), 그리고 2. 지식으로서의 기술(24.3%)의 3가지 영역을 중요한 기술의 본성 개념으로 인식하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 학생들이 제시한 기술의 본성 개념의 세부 내용을 분석한 결과 우리나라 이공계 대학생들은 복잡하고 추상적인 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대하여 비교적 구체적이고 다양한 인식을 하고 있다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 특히 이공계열 대학생들은 기술을 삶의 편리를 위한 목적으로 기술적 지식을 활용 및 적용하는 능력이면서, 그를 통하여 산출된 결과물이라는 인식하는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
  4. Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr1997.04.4.3.5.c5869
  5. Celik, S., & Bayrakceken, S. (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
  6. 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
  7. Choi, Y., & Rye, C. (2007). Analyzing preceding research on the concepts and elements of technological literacy. Korean Technology Education Association, 7(2), 141-153.
  8. Clough, M. P. (2013). Teaching about the nature of technology: Issues and pedagogical practices. In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.). The nature of technology: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 345-369). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
  9. DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating students conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.495400
  10. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
  11. Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  12. Feibleman, J. K. (1961). Pure science, applied science, technology, engineering: An attempt at definitions. Technology and Culture, 2(4), 305-317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3100886
  13. Frank, M. (2005). A system approach for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v17i1.a.2
  14. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  15. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  16. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology (rationale and structure). Reston, VA: ITEA.
  17. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  18. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Students assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: Author.
  19. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2004). Measuring progress: Assessing students for technological literacy. Reston, VA: Author.
  20. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  21. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  22. Kim, U. S. (1998). Information society and ethics: The nature of technology. Paper presented in the 1st conference of the Korean Institue of Communication and Information Science, Seoul, Korea.
  23. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  24. 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, Seoul, Korea.
  25. 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
  26. Lee, Y., Choi, Y., Lee, H., Han, J., & Bang, J. (2005). A content analysis of technology textbooks for the secondary school students on the point of conceptual structure of technological literacy. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 5(1), 2-22.
  27. 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
  28. Lee, Y. H. (2018). Suggesting the conceptual framework of the nature of technology(NOT) and examing the conceptions of experts of science, technology, and engineering fields regarding the NOT. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.27
  29. Liou, P. (2015). Developing an instrument 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
  30. 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
  31. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London, England: King's College.
  32. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  33. Moore, D. R. (2011). Technology litearcy: The extension of cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9113-9
  34. Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 1, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300107
  35. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  36. National Research Council [NRC]. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans needs to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Presss.
  37. National Research Council [NRC]. (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  38. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concept, and core idea. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  39. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (1982). Science-teachnologyscoety: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
  40. Pacey, A. (1983). The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  41. Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  42. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing research: Principles and methods. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  43. Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 35-52.
  44. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  45. Science Co-ordinator's and Consultants' Association of Ontario [SCCAO]., & Science Teachers' Association of Ontario [STAO/APSO]. (2006). Position Paper: The Nature of Science. Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer.
  46. 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. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.1.199
  47. 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
  48. Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York, NY: First Vintage Books Edition.
  49. Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: high school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1143-1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9452-6
  50. 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
  51. Waight, N. (2013). 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
  52. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  53. Young, A. T., Cole, J. R., & Denton, D. (2002). Improving technological literacy: The first step is understanding what is meant by 'technology'. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(4), 73-79.