기술의 발전과 사회적 요구의 변화에 따라 인공지능 기술이 전 영역에 걸쳐 영향력을 미치고 있다. 이에 국내 대학에서는 전공뿐 아니라 교양 교육에서도 인공지능의 중요성을 강조하며 관련 수업을 활발하게 진행하고 있다. 그러나 인공지능 교양 교육이 초창기이기 때문에 교육 방법과 교육 프로그램 개발에 관한 연구가 부족한 실정이다. 따라서 더 효과적인 AI 교육이 될 수 있는 SSI를 적용한 교과목 방향을 설계하고자 한다. SSI는 과학과 관련된 사회적, 윤리적 문제를 창의적, 합리적으로 해결책을 제시할 수 있는 열린 문제에 적용할 수 있는 교육이다. 본 연구에서는 다음과 같은 세 가지 목적을 가지고 SSI를 적용한 인공지능 교양 교과목을 개발하였다. 첫째, 교육 대상의 지능정보 사회의 행위 주체로서 특징을 고려하여 접근할 수 있도록 설계한다. 둘째, 인공지능 프로그램을 직접 경험해보고 실생활의 다양한 사례를 중심으로 과학 기술과 사회 관련성을 심도 있게 다룰 수 있도록 접근하고 설계한다. 셋째, 공동의 문제해결을 목적으로 참여해 협력할 수 있도록 하여 협력적 문제해결 능력을 기를 수 있도록 접근하고 설계한다.
Artificial intelligence technology is influencing across all areas as technology advances and social needs change. Therefore, Korean universities have actively developed and operated classes related to artificial intelligence, and have emphasized the importance of artificial intelligence not only in major education but also in liberal arts education. However, there is a lack of research on the development of educational methods and educational programs because artificial intelligence education in liberal arts is in its early stages. SSI is an education that can apply social and ethical problems related to science to open problems that can creatively and reasonably present solutions. SSI can be applied to make AI education more effective. In this study, an artificial intelligence liberal arts curriculum applied SSI was developed with three purposes: First, it is designed is designed so that students subject to education can access it by considering its characteristics as actors of the intelligent information society. Second, it is designed so that students can experience artificial intelligence programs themselves and deal with science technology and social relevance in depth, focusing on various examples of real life. Third, it is designed and approached so that students can participate and cooperate for the purpose of solving common problems to develop cooperative problem-solving skills.
Y. M. Kim. (2019). Artificial Intelligence(AI) Manpower Nurturing Policies and Implications by Major Country. Khidi Brief 276, Korea Health Industry Development Institute.
S. C. Ur & I. H. Kim. (2018). Study on the Development of Liberal Arts and the Needs of Other Liberal Arts Subjects in response to the Fourth Industrial Revolution - A Paradigm on the Education of Universities for Humanities to Meet the AI Era. University of Transportation Policy Research Report.
C. S. Lee. (2008). Development of Technology Attitude Scale for Korea Pupils. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 14(2), 157-174. DOI : 10.17055/jpaer.2008.14.2.157
M. Y. Ryu & S. K. Han. (2018). The Educational Perception on Artificial Intelligence by Elementary School Teachers. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 22(3), 317-324. DOI : 10.14352/jkaie.2018.22.3.317
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
Ministry of Science and ICT. (2019). Beyond IT World Power to AI Powerful Nation.
Chinese Artificial Intelligence Textbook. (2020). Artificial Intelligence Experimental Textbook - Part I. (Online). https://item.jd.com/12461281.html
KOFAC. (2019). Development a Standard Curriculum Model of Next-generation Software Education. Seoul: Korea Foundation for the Advancement Science Creativity.
E. S. Jang. (2020). A Case Study on the Operation of Artificial I ntelligence in a Liberal Arts Mandatory Curriculum. The Korean Association of General Education, 14(5), 137-148. DOI : 10.46392/kjge.2020.14.5.137
Soonchunhyang University. (n.d.). liberal arts course. (Online). https://nanum.sch.ac.kr/0204.php
J. S. Park. (2020). Need AI education" ...97.9% answered. Etnews. (Online). https://www.etnews.com/20200310000244
Ministry of Education. (2019). 2019 OECD Education Indicators. Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD).
C. Bailey. (1975). Neutrality and rationality in teaching. In Bridges, D. and Scrimshaw, P. (Eds.). Values and authority in school. London: Hodder and stoughton.
P. J. Fensham. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 9-24.
J. M. Reiss. (2009). Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34, 115-140.
E. Pedretti. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through and issue-based approach. School Science & Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181.
D. L. Zeidler, T. D. Sadler, M. L. Simmons & E. V. Howes. (2005). Beyond STS: A Research-based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
P. Nuangchalerm. (2009). Development of socioscientific issues-based teaching for preservice science teachers. Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 239-243.
H. J. Song. (2016). Study on Developing Inventory of Students Satisfaction in University. The Journal of the Korea Contents Associatio,. 16(8), 556-567. DOI : 10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.08.556
C. H. Lawshe. (1975). A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575. DOI : 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
J. S. Lee. (2001). Delphi Method. Seoul: Education Science Co.