한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제39권4호
  • /
  • Pages.535-544
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

대중매체의 과학기사에 대한 대중들의 인식과 고빈도로 사용되는 과학용어에 대한 이해도 조사

Investigations on Public Perception of Science Articles in the Mass Media and Understanding of Scientific Terms Used in High Frequency in Science Articles

  • 투고 : 2019.05.23
  • 심사 : 2019.08.06
  • 발행 : 2019.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

우리 사회에서 전통적 대중매체가 학교 교육 밖의 대중들에게 과학적 정보를 제공하는 수단으로서의 기능을 충분히 수행하고 있는지 알아보기 위하여 대중매체 과학기사에 대한 대중의 인식과 과학기사에 고빈도로 사용되고 있는 과학용어들에 대한 대중의 이해도를 조사해 보았다. 과학기사에 대한 대중의 인식을 알아보기 위하여 과학기사의 유용성, 중요성, 접근 빈도, 이해도를 묻는 설문 도구를 제작하여 기차역, 지하철역 등 유동인구가 많은 지역에서 설문조사를 실시하였고, 총 425명의 설문 응답을 분석에 사용하였다. 과학기사에 사용된 고빈도 과학용어를 추출하기 위하여 전통적 대중매체 가운데 텔레비전 뉴스와 신문을 각각 두 곳씩 지정하고 2001년부터 2017년까지 17년간 보도된 과학관련 기사의 텍스트를 수집하여 사용된 과학용어의 빈도를 조사하였다. 그리고, 빈도수를 기준으로 상위 100개의 과학 용어에 대하여 자기보고식의 이해도 검사를 실시하였다. 연구 결과 우리 사회의 대중들은 과학기사의 중요성과 유용성에 대해서는 비교적 높이 평가하고 있으나 기사를 읽고 이해하는 데에는 다소 어려움이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 과학기사에 고빈도로 사용되고 있는 과학용어들에 대해 대학원 이상의 고학력, 자연계열 전공, 남성이 상대적으로 이해도가 높았다. 또한 성별, 연령, 학력, 전공계열에 따라 이해도가 높은 과학용어들이 특징적으로 나타났다.

In order to find out whether the traditional mass media in our society are sufficiently functioning as a vehicle of providing scientific information to the public outside the school education, public perception of science articles in mass media and scientific terms used in high frequency in science articles have been examined. To investigate the public perception on science articles, a questionnaire was constructed about the usefulness, importance, access frequency, and understanding of science articles. The questionnaires were conducted in areas with high flow populations such as train stations or subway stations. A total of 425 responses were used for analysis. In order to extract high frequency scientific terms used in science articles, two television companies and two newspapers were designated as target media, and their texts on science articles reported over the last 17 years were collected to investigate the frequency of scientific terms used. Based on the frequency, we conducted the self-report comprehension test for the top 100 scientific terms. The results of this study show that the public in our society has relatively high perception of the importance and usefulness of science articles, however, reading and understanding the articles seems to be somewhat difficult. In addition, the scientific terminology used in science articles has a high degree of comprehension for those of higher education, natural sciences majors, and men. In addition, scientific terms with high understanding degree were characterized according to gender, age, educational background, and field of major.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
  2. Brossard, D. & Shanahan, J. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication 28(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006291345
  3. Choi, S., Moon, G., & Lee, H. (2011). Students and the public understanding of scientific terms in mass media. Research for Learner Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 11(1), 367-389.
  4. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal or Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
  5. Dudo, A. D., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2011). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38(6), 754-777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384988
  6. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290165
  7. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
  8. Kang, S. J., & Koh, H. J. (2014). An analysis on the readability of the texts in elementary school science textbooks in terms of word and sentence units. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(3), 549-557. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.3.549
  9. Kim, G. H. (2003). Vocabulary by grade for Korean education. Pagijoung Press.
  10. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<71::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C
  11. Lee, M. J. (2015). An analysis of fields and scientific literacy content elements of scientific reports in a popular portal site in Korea. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 34(3), 338-345. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2015.34.3.338
  12. Leskovec, J., Backstrom, L., & Kleinberg, J. (2009). Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
  13. Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L, & Besley, J. C. (2014). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 86-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916215
  14. Mende, A., Oehmichen, E., & Schroter, C. (2012). Usage and repertoires of information across different media. Media Perspectives, 1, 2-17.
  15. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
  16. Miller, G. (2001). The science of words. W.H. Freeman & Company.
  17. Naganuma, S. (2017). An assessment of civic scientific literacy in Japan: development of a more authentic assessment task and scoring rubric. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1323131
  18. National Science Board (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Volume 2, Arlington. VA : National Science Foundation.
  19. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
  20. Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310909
  21. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C. National Academy Press.
  22. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) Feasibility Study Report. Volume 2. Data Analysis and National Experiences.
  23. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110(Suppl.3), 14040-14047. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213275110
  25. Shen, B. S. (1975). Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In S. Day (Eds.), Communication of scientific information (pp.44-52). Basel: Karger Publishers.
  26. Shin, S. (2009). Language of science: in aspects of theory-constitution and communication. Ratio et Oratio, 2(1), 36-60. https://doi.org/10.19042/kstc.2009.2.1.36
  27. Shin, J. (2014). Prosody in spoken Korean. Korean Semantics, 44, 119-139.
  28. Sung, H., Kim, S., Yim, I., Kim, B., Ahn, Y., Nam, H., Sohn, S., Yang, H. (2004). Construction of astronomical database based on MySQL and JSP. Publicaions of the Korean Astronomical Society, 19(1), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.5303/PKAS.2004.19.1.109
  29. van Eijck, M. & Roth, W. M. (2010). Theorizing scientific literacy in the wild. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 184-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.03.002
  30. Yacoubian, H. A. (2018). Scientific literacy for democratic decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 308-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1420266
  31. Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018
  32. Yun, E., & Park, Y., (2017). Comparison of the explanation texts for science terminology in portal dictionary, pyojun Korean dictionary and science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0001
  33. Yun, E., Kwon, S. G., & Park, Y. (2015). Analysis of problems of current science textbooks perceived by teachers and students in view of learnercentered classroom. Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 404-417. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2015.39.3.404
  34. Yun, E., Kim, J., Nam, K., Song, H., Ok, C., Choi, J., & Park, Y. (2018). Building Korean science textbook corpus (K-STeC) for research of scientific language in education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4), 575-585. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.4.575