$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$

연합인증

연합인증 가입 기관의 연구자들은 소속기관의 인증정보(ID와 암호)를 이용해 다른 대학, 연구기관, 서비스 공급자의 다양한 온라인 자원과 연구 데이터를 이용할 수 있습니다.

이는 여행자가 자국에서 발행 받은 여권으로 세계 각국을 자유롭게 여행할 수 있는 것과 같습니다.

연합인증으로 이용이 가능한 서비스는 NTIS, DataON, Edison, Kafe, Webinar 등이 있습니다.

한번의 인증절차만으로 연합인증 가입 서비스에 추가 로그인 없이 이용이 가능합니다.

다만, 연합인증을 위해서는 최초 1회만 인증 절차가 필요합니다. (회원이 아닐 경우 회원 가입이 필요합니다.)

연합인증 절차는 다음과 같습니다.

최초이용시에는
ScienceON에 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 로그인 (본인 확인 또는 회원가입) → 서비스 이용

그 이후에는
ScienceON 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 서비스 이용

연합인증을 활용하시면 KISTI가 제공하는 다양한 서비스를 편리하게 이용하실 수 있습니다.

이공계 대학생의 사회적 책임감 함양을 위한 ENACT 모형의 개발과 교육적 함의
Development of the ENACT Model for Cultivating Social Responsibility of College Students in STEM Fields 원문보기

공학교육연구 = Journal of engineering education research, v.23 no.6, 2020년, pp.3 - 16  

이현주 (이화여자대학교 과학교육과) ,  최유현 (충남대학교 기술교육과) ,  남창훈 (대구경북과학기술원 뉴바이올로지 전공) ,  옥승용 (한경대학교 사회안전시스템공학부) ,  심성옥 (볼주립대학교 교육심리학과) ,  황요한 (서울대학교 교육종합연구원) ,  김가형 (이화여자대학교 해저드리터러시 융합교육연구소)

Abstract AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

This study aims to introduce the ENACT model, which is a systematic teaching-learning model for cultivating social responsibility of science and engineering college students, and to discuss its educational implications. For the development of the ENACT model, we conducted extensive literature review...

주제어

참고문헌 (61)

  1. 김가형.이현주(2019). 블록체인을 활용한 적정기술에 대한 청소년 과학캠프 참여를 통한 이공계 대학(원)생과 과학기술자의 교육경험 탐색. 교과교육학연구, 23(3), 251-263. 

  2. 김영재(2019). 과학기술인력의 사회참여인식에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구: 미국 나노과학자 사례를 중심으로. 한국인사행정학회보, 18(4), 33-53. 

  3. 박희제.성지은(2015). 더 나은 사회를 위한 과학을 향하여: 사회에 책임지는 연구혁신(RRI) 의 현황과 함의. 과학기술학연구, 15(2), 99-133. 

  4. 손화철.송성수(2007). 공학윤리와 전문직 교육: 미시적 접근에서 거시적 접근으로. 철학, 91, 305-331. 

  5. 송성수(2008). 과학기술자의 사회적 책임에 관한 논의의 재검토. 공학교육연구, 11(2), 5-14. 

  6. 안윤정.임윤서(2017). 4차 산업혁명에 대한 대학생 인식과 진로교육의 방향모색. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 17(18), 329-351. 

  7. 유양석(2019). 4차 산업혁명의 사회적 문제에 대한 대학생의 인식과 준비 여부. 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 19(3), 566-575. 

  8. 이현옥.이현주(2016). 대학생들의 과학기술관련 사회쟁점(SSI) 논의에서 기술의 본성(NOT) 은 어떻게 나타나는가?. 한국과학교육학회지, 36(2), 303-315. 

  9. 이현주(2018). SSI 교육이란 무엇인가. 서울: 박영스토리. 

  10. 장용철.김건국.김민철(2013). 창의설계입문의 PBL(Problem-Based Learning) 적용: 충남대학교 환경공학분야 사례. 공학교육연구, 16(2), 78-85. 

  11. 정무권(2012). 위험사회론과 사회적 위험의 역동성: 사회적 위험의 거시적 연구를 위한 비판적 검토. 한국사회와행정연구, 23(2), 195-224. 

  12. 한경희 외(2012). 공학 분야의 윤리적 문제해결방법: 매트릭스 가이드. 공학교육연구, 15(1), 61-71. 

  13. 홍찬숙(2011). 루만과 벡의 근대성 이론 비교: 자기대면 (reflexivity) 개념과 주체의 문제를 중심으로. 사회와이론, 19, 47-87. 

  14. Barnett, R.(2007). A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. 

  15. Bencze, L.(2017). Science and technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies and environments: STEPWISE. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 

  16. Bencze, L. & Krstovic, M.(2017). Science students' ethical technology designs as solutions to socio-scientific problems. In L. Bencze (Ed.), Science and technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies and environments (pp. 201-226). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 

  17. Bielefeldt, A. R.(2018). Professional social responsibility in engineering. In I. Muenstermann (Ed.), Social responsibility (pp. 41-60). London, UK: IntechOpen. 

  18. Biswas, W. K.(2012). The importance of industrial ecology in engineering education for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), 119-132. 

  19. Burdinger, F. B. & Burdinger, M. D.(2006). Ethics of emerging technologies. Wiley: John Wiley & Sons, INC. 

  20. Canney, N. & Bielefeldt, A.(2015). A framework for the development of social responsibility in engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1B), 414-424. 

  21. 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. 

  22. Colucci-Gray, L., Giuseppe Barbiero, E.C. & Gray, D.(2006). From scientific literacy to sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90, 227-252. 

  23. Davis, M.(1999). Ethics and the university. London and New York: Routledge. 

  24. De Vries, J. & De Vries, M.(2006). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers (Vol. 27). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 

  25. Enelund, M. et al.(2013). Integration of education for sustainable development in the mechanical engineering curriculum. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 51-62. 

  26. Gorghiu, G., Anghel, G. A. & Ion, R. M.(2015). Students' perception related to a responsible research and innovation demarche. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 600-605. 

  27. Hughes, T. P.(2012). The evolution of large technological systems. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, T. J. Pinch, & D. G. Douglas (Eds.). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 45-74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

  28. Kahn, S. & Zeidler, D. L.(2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking in support of socioscientific reasoning. Science & Education, 28(6-7), 605-638. 

  29. Kim, G., Ko, Y. & Lee, H.(2020). The effects of community-based socioscientific issues program (SSI-COMM) on promoting students' sense of place and character as citizens. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(3), 399-418. 

  30. Kruse, J. W.(2013). Implications of the nature of technology for teaching and teacher education. 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. 

  31. Lambrinidou, Y. & Canney, N. E.(2017, June). Engineers' imaginaries of "the public": Content analysis of foundational professional documents. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Society for Engineering Education, Columbus, OH. 

  32. Lee, H. et al.(2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. 

  33. Levrini, O. et al.(2019). Developing future-scaffolding skills through science education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(18), 2647-2674. 

  34. Lundstrom, M., Sjostrom, J. & Hasslof, H.(2017). Responsible research and innovation in science education: The solution or the emperor's new clothes?. Sisyphus: Journal of Education, 5(3), 11-27. 

  35. Schinzinger, R. & Martin, M. W.(2000). Introduction to engineering ethics. Boston: McGraw-Hill. 

  36. Mejlgaard, N. et al.(2019). Teaching responsible research and innovation: A phronetic perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(2), 597-615. 

  37. Morgan, A.(2011). Place-based education versus geography education? In G. Butt (Ed.), Geography, education and the future (pp. 84-108). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. 

  38. Mueller, M. P. & Zeidler, D. L.(2010). Moral-ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. J. Tippins, et al. (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism (pp. 105-128). Springer, Dordrecht. 

  39. Newton, M. H. & Zeidler, D. L.(2020). Developing socioscientific perspective taking. International Journal of Science Education, 1-18. 

  40. Nye, D. E.(2006). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

  41. Okada, A.(2016). Engaging science: Innovative teaching for responsible citizenship. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. 

  42. Owen, R. et al.(2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz. (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 27-50). West Sussex: Wiley. 

  43. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. & Scott, B.(2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific Inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. 

  44. Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V.(2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667. 

  45. Schlossberger, E.(2016). Engineering codes of ethics and the duty to set a moral precedent. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1333-1344. 

  46. Schumacher, E.(1973). Small is beautiful: A study of ecomonics as if people mattered. New York, NY: Vintage. 

  47. Sjostrom, J. & Eilks, I.(2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung. In Y. J.Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 65-88). Dordrecht: Springer. 

  48. Smith, G. A. & Williams, D. R.(1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and the environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

  49. Stahl, B. C.(2013). Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework. Science and Public Policy, 40, 708-716. 

  50. Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J. & Wilsdon, J.(2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4-15. 

  51. Stilgoe, J., Owen R. & Macnagthen, P.(2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568-1580. 

  52. Tassone, V. C. et al.(2018). (Re-)Designing higher education curricula in times of systemic dysfunction: A responsible research and innovation perspective. Higher Education, 76, 337-352. 

  53. Valdivia, W. D. & Guston, D. H.(2015), Responsible innovation: A primer for policymakers. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. 

  54. Volti, R.(2009). Society and technological change. New York, NY: Worth. 

  55. Von Schomberg, R.(2013). A vision of responsible innovation. In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51-74). London: John Wiley. 

  56. 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. 

  57. Wals, A. E. J. et al.(2016). Learning for walking the change: Eco-social innovation through sustainability-oriented higher education. In M. Barth. et al. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp. 25-39). London, UK: Routledge. 

  58. Wyndham, J. M. et al.(2015). Social responsibility: A preliminary inquiry into the perspectives of scientists, engineers and health professionals. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

  59. Zafrani, E. & Yarden, A.(2017). Becoming a science activist: A case study of students' engagement in a socioscientific project. Sisyphus-Journal of Education, 5(3), 44-67. 

  60. Zandvoort, H. et al.(2013). Editors' overview perspectives on teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1413-1438. 

  61. Zeidler, D. L. et al.(2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. 

저자의 다른 논문 :

관련 콘텐츠

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

FREE

Free Access. 출판사/학술단체 등이 허락한 무료 공개 사이트를 통해 자유로운 이용이 가능한 논문

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

저작권 관리 안내
섹션별 컨텐츠 바로가기

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

AI-Helper 아이콘
AI-Helper
안녕하세요, AI-Helper입니다. 좌측 "선택된 텍스트"에서 텍스트를 선택하여 요약, 번역, 용어설명을 실행하세요.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.

선택된 텍스트

맨위로