A Curriculum on Radioactivity Based on the Concept of Acceptable Level

1989 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary

• Project/Area Number: 63580243
• Research Category: Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
• Allocation Type: Single-year Grants
• Research Field: 科学教育(含教育工学)
• Research Institution: National Institute for Educational Research
• Principal Investigator: MATSUBARA Shizuo NIER, Res. Center for Sci. Ed., Chief, 科学教育研究センター, 室長 (50132692)
• Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha): WATANABE Kenju Tokyo Gakugei Univ., Dept. of Sci. Ed., Prof., 教育学部, 教授 (40092473) ; SARUTA Yuji NIER, Res. Centre for Sci. Ed., Researcher, 科学教育研究センター, 研究員 (70178820) ; MIYAKE Masao NIER, Res. Centre for Sci. Ed., Chief, 科学教育研究センター, 室長 (50000071)
• Project Period (FY): 1988 – 1989
• Keywords: Nuclear energy / Radioactivity / STS education / Acceptable level / Risk-benefit evaluation / Secondary science / Environmental education / Curriculum development

Research Abstract

A curriculum on radioactivity based on the concept of acceptable level has been developed for lower and upper secondary students in Japan. It consists of works in small groups and presentations. Pilot instructions were carried out in lower and upper secondary schools. It was suggested that the length of time to be spent on these instructions should be flexible between one and six school hours corresponding to teaching plans and students' abilities.
Trial instructions based on the revised materials were carried out in lower and upper secondary schools in 1988. The responses of lower secondary students were preferable to those of upper secondary students in the summary questionnaire. It was thought the curriculum was available to lower secondary students, though some technical terms were too difficult for them to understand. The appropriate responses on risk-benefit evaluation in this study in lower and upper secondary schools were more than ones in our previous studies.
Three surveys were carried out in 1989. First was for control-group students who enrolled the same schools and grades as the experimental groups. Second was for students who had received the instructions one year before and those who had not in a upper secondary school. Third was for students who received the instructions in a upper secondary school, and some students were examined with the questionnaire after receiving it and others were before.
In the first survey it was indicated that the risk-benefit evaluation was difficult for lower secondary students who did not receive the instructions. In the second and third ones the students who received it showed higher response rate in the risk-benefit evaluation than those who did not.