A Curriculum on Radioactivity Based on the Concept of Acceptable Level

根据可接受水平的概念，日本已经为初中和高中学生制定了关于放射性的课程。它由小组作品和演示组成。在初中和高中开展了试点指导。建议根据教学计划和学生的能力，在一到六个学时之间灵活安排这些指导的时间。1988年，根据修订后的教材在初中和高中试行了教学。在总结问卷中，低年级学生的回答优于高年级学生。该课程被认为是面向低年级学生的，尽管一些专业术语对他们来说太难理解了。在本研究中，中小学生和高中学生对风险-收益评价的适当反应多于以往研究。1989年进行了三次调查。第一组是对照组学生，他们与实验组在相同的学校和年级入学。第二组是在一年前收到指示的学生和没有收到指示的高中学生。第三组是在高中接受指导的学生，部分学生在收到问卷后接受调查，部分学生在收到问卷前接受调查。在第一次调查中发现，没有接受指导的低年级学生的风险-收益评价比较困难。在第二和第三个实验中，接受药物治疗的学生在风险-收益评估中的反应率高于未接受药物治疗的学生。

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.