Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis for Gender Stereotypes of Illustrations in Middle School Science Paper Textbooks and Digital Textbooks Developed under the 2015 Revised National Curriculum

2015 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 서책형 교과서와 디지털 교과서의 삽화에 나타난 성역할 고정관념 분석

  • Song, Nayoon (The Center for Educational Research, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Hyejin (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Noh, Taehee (Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University)
  • 송나윤 (서울대학교 교육종합연구원) ;
  • 김혜진 (서울대학교 화학교육과) ;
  • 노태희 (서울대학교 화학교육과)
  • Received : 2021.06.24
  • Accepted : 2021.08.04
  • Published : 2021.10.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzed illustrations presented in middle school science 14 paper textbooks and 14 digital textbooks under the 2015 revised curriculum in terms of gender stereotypes. In both paper and digital textbooks, the most common type of illustration was multiple pupils. For pupils, the frequency of gender was balanced in both paper and digital textbooks. However, there were differences among publishers in digital textbooks. In both paper and digital textbooks, girls showed a higher frequency than boys in learning activities. However, the opposite tendency was observed in non-learning activities. In particular, non-learning activities of digital textbooks showed gender imbalance among all publishers. In both paper and digital textbooks, behavioral characteristics were mostly described to be active without gender differences. But, there were differences among publishers in digital textbooks. For adults, men showed a higher frequency than women in both paper and digital textbooks. Gender frequency was balanced in family activities, however, men showed a higher frequency in social activities. Unlike paper textbooks, digital textbooks were gender balanced in occupational activities. In both paper and digital textbooks, the number of occupations in which men appeared more frequently was higher than that in which women appeared more frequently. Especially, men showed a higher frequency than women in both scientist and researcher. Behavioral characteristics were mostly biased in terms of gender in both paper and digital textbooks.

이 연구는 2015 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 서책형 교과서 14권과 디지털 교과서 14권의 삽화를 성역할 고정관념의 측면에서 분석하였다. 서책형 교과서와 디지털 교과서 모두 다수 학생 삽화의 유형이 가장 많았다. 학생의 경우, 서책형 교과서와 디지털 교과서 모두 성별 등장 빈도는 대체로 균형을 이루고 있었지만, 디지털 교과서에서는 출판사간 편차가 나타났다. 서책형 교과서와 디지털 교과서 모두 학습 활동에서는 여학생의 등장 빈도가, 학습 외 활동에서는 남학생의 등장 빈도가 더 높았다. 특히, 디지털 교과서의 학습 외 활동에서는 모든 출판사가 성별 불균형을 이루었다. 서책형 교과서와 디지털 교과서 모두 행동 특성은 성별에 따른 차이 없이 대부분 적극적으로 묘사되었지만, 디지털 교과서에서는 출판사 간 편차가 나타났다. 성인의 경우, 서책형 교과서와 디지털 교과서 모두 남성의 등장 빈도가 더 높았다. 또한, 가정 활동에서는 성별 등장 빈도에 차이가 없었지만, 가정 외 활동에서는 남성의 등장 빈도가 더 높았다. 서책형 교과서와 달리 디지털 교과서에서는 직업 활동이 성별 균형을 이루었다. 서책형 교과서와 디지털 교과서 모두 남성의 등장 빈도가 높은 직업 유형이 여성의 등장 빈도가 높은 직업 유형보다 더 많았다. 유명과학자뿐만 아니라 무명과학자를 의미하는 연구직 모두 남성의 등장 빈도가 더 높았다. 행동 특성은 서책형 교과서와 디지털 교과서 모두 대체로 남성 편향적으로 나타났다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Publication cost of this paper was supported by the Korean Chemical Society.

References

  1. Korea Foundation for Women In Science, Engineering and Technology (WISET). Report on the Status of Women in Science, Engineering & Technology in 2019 [2019년도 여성과학기술인력 활용 실태조사 보고서]; Ministry of Science and ICT: Sejong, 2021.
  2. Choi, H. Recent Growth in Female Professions and Performance in Labor Market [최근의 여성 전문직 증가와 노동시장성과]; Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade: Sejong, 2017.
  3. Paik, S.; Kim, J.; Cho, S.; Kim, S.; Kim, H.; Kim, D.-I.; Kim, S.; Lee, B. Journal of Engineering Education Research 2015, 18, 52.
  4. Cho, S.; Gu, N.; Lee, S.; Lee, I.; Kim, H. OECD Programme for International Student Assessment: PISA 2018 Results Report [OECD 국제 학업성취도 평가 연구: PISA 2018 결과보고서]; Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation: Jincheon, 2019.
  5. Ku, J.; Koo, N. Journal of Science Education 2018, 42, 165. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2018.42.2.165
  6. Chung, Y. L.; Shin, A. Y. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction 2011, 15, 877. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2011.15.4.877
  7. Ellemers, N. Annual Review of Psychology 2018, 69, 275. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719
  8. Ahn, J. Y.; Yun, S. M.; Kim, C. J.; Choe, S. U. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2017, 37, 49. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0049
  9. Kerger, S.; Martin, R.; Brunner, M. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2011, 81, 606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02019.x
  10. Makarova, E.; Aeschlimann, B.; Herzog, W. Frontiers in Education 2019, 4, 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00060
  11. Reuben, E.; Sapienza, P.; Zingales, L. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014, 111, 4403. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111
  12. Farenga, S. J.; Joyce, B. A. Science Education 1999, 83, 55. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199901)83:1<55::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-O
  13. Good, J. J.; Woodzicka, J. A.; Wingfield, L. C. The Journal of Social Psychology 2010, 150, 132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366552
  14. Jones, M. G.; Howe, A.; Rua, M. J. Science Education 2000, 84, 180. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<180::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-X
  15. Seo, Y.; Kim, M.; Ryu, J.; Park, N.; Kim, N.; Ahn, Y.; Ahn, J. A Survey of the Status of Primary and Secondary Career Education [초.중등 진로교육 현황조사]; Ministry of Education, Research Institute for Vocational Education & Training: Sejong, 2020.
  16. Ko, M.; Kang, K. Asia-Pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology 2017, 7, 127.
  17. Kim, C.-C.; Byeon, H.-J. The Journal of Curriculum Studies 2008, 26, 21. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.26.4.200812.002
  18. Kerkhoven, A. H.; Russo, P.; Land-Zandstra, A. M.; Saxena, A.; Rodenburg, F. J. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165037. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165037
  19. Lee, J. F. Gender and Education 2018, 3, 30.
  20. Papadakis, S. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies 2018, 1, 9.
  21. Yang, C.; Park, J.-S.; Kim, Y.-J.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2014, 58, 210. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2014.58.2.210
  22. You, J.; Lee, J.; Jo, J.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2012, 56, 509. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2012.56.4.509
  23. Cha, J.; Kim, S.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2004, 24, 1181.
  24. Maher, D.; Phelps, R.; Urane, N.; Lee, M. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2012, 28, 138. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.888
  25. Ministry of Education; Korea Education and Research Information Service. Teaching Good Lessons with Digital Textbooks [디지털교과서로 좋은 수업하기]; Korea Education and Research Information Service: Daegu, 2016.
  26. Min, K.-Y. Culture and Convergence 2017, 39, 183.
  27. Song, N.; Hong, J.; Noh, T. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education 2020, 39, 1. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2020.39.1.1
  28. Kim, N.; Chang, J.; Song, J. School Science Journal 2018, 12, 309. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.12.3.201810.309
  29. Song, N.; Hong, J.; Noh, T. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2020, 64, 416. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2020.64.6.416
  30. Ahn, S.; Kim, H.; Hwang, J.; Joo, K.; Seo, J; Ahn, S.; Lee, S.; Lee, J.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Lee, S. A Study on the Status of Digital Textbook and Future Implication [디지털교과서현황분석 및향후추진 방안연구]; Korea Education and Research Information Service: Daegu, 2020.
  31. Blazev, M.; Karabegovic, M.; Burusic, J.; Selimbegovic, L. Social Psychology of Education 2017, 20, 831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9397-7
  32. Hand, S.; Rice, L.; Greenlee, E. Social Psychology of Education 2017, 20, 929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9408-8
  33. Jones, B. D.; Ruff, C.; Paretti, M. C. Social Psychology of Education 2013, 16, 471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9222-x
  34. Buck, G. A.; Clark, V. L. P.; Leslie-Pelecky, D.; Lu, Y.; Cerda-Lizarraga, P. Science Education 2008, 92, 688. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20257
  35. Zirkel, S. Teachers College Record 2002, 104, 357. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00166
  36. Collins, R. L. Sex Roles 2011, 64, 290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5
  37. Greenwood, D. N.; Lippman, J. R. In Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology; Chrisler, J. C., McCreary, D. R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, 2010; p 643.
  38. Eagly, A. H.; Wood, W.; Diekman, A. B. In The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender; Eckes, T., Trautner, H. M., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 2000; p 123.
  39. Smyth, F. L.; Nosek, B. A. Frontiers in Psychology 2015, 6, 415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415
  40. Miller, D. I.; Eagly, A. H.; Linn, M. C. Journal of Educational Psychology 2015, 107, 631. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005
  41. Trepanier-Street, M. L.; Romatowski, J. A. Early Childhood Education Journal 1999, 26, 155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022977317864