Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED545402: Technology Teachers' Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy and Their Implications for Technology Education"

See other formats


Running head: TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


1 


Technology Teachers’ Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy and Their Implications 

for Technology Education 


Lung-Sheng Lee & Hsiu-Chuan Yang 


Author Note 

Dr. Lung-Sheng Lee is a professor of the Department of Technology Application and 
Human Resource Development at National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), 
Taipei, Taiwan. He also serves as the president of Industrial Technology Education 
Association (ITEA), Taiwan. Mr. Hsiu-Chuan Yang is a doctoral student of the 
Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, NTNU, 
and the Consulting Director of Da-Yeh Elementary School, Taoyuan, Taiwan. This 
paper was presented at PATT (Pupils' Attitude Jowards Technology) 27: Technology 
Education for the Future - A Play on Sustainability, Christchurch, New Zealand, 
December 2-6, 2013. The authors acknowledge that the presentation of this paper 
was supported by National Science Council (NSC) and NTNU. 



TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


2 


Technology Teachers’ Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy and Their Implications for 

Technology Education 

Abstract 

The purpose of this paper was to explore high-school (grades 10-12) technology 
teachers’ attitudes toward nuclear energy and their implications to technology 
education. A questionnaire was developed to solicit 323 high-school technology 
teachers’ responses in June 2013 and 132 (or 41%) valid questionnaires returned. 
Consequently, the following five conclusions can be made: (1) Most high-school 
technology teachers in Taiwan are keen on news about Japan’s Fukushima nuclear 
disaster. (2) The majority of high-school technology teachers oppose more nuclear 
power plants in Taiwan, are now “less supportive of expanding nuclear power plants in 
Taiwan after Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, oppose to extend the operating 
lifespan of the operating nuclear power plants in Taiwan, and oppose the construction 
of a new nuclear reactor within 80 kilometers of their homes. (3) The majority of 
technology teachers in Taiwan are now more supportive than they were before 
Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster of using clean renewable energy resources - 
such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more 
nuclear power in Taiwan, and support a termination or moratorium on new nuclear 
power plant construction in Taiwan if increased energy efficiency and off the shelf 
renewable technologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for 
the near term. (4) Nearly a half of high-school technology teachers in Taiwan do not 
know the evacuation route and what other steps to take in the event of the nearest 
nuclear power plant emergency. (5) The majority of high-school technology teachers 
in Taiwan includes nuclear energy in their technology courses, and will enrich nuclear 
energy in their technology courses. 


Keywords: nuclear energy, nuclear waste, technology education, technological issue 



TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


3 


BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 

We are pursuing sustainable energy sources that are available to supply the 
world's expanding needs without detriment to our future generations. Although 
considered as a low carbon power generation source, nuclear energy has been the 
subject of debate because its radioactive wastes remain a major issue and its safety 
becomes a global concern. Since the world's first nuclear power plant was set up in 
1954, the three worst nuclear disasters occurred as follows: Three Mile Island in the 
United States, 1979, Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, 1986 and Fukushima in 
Japan, 2011 . This history unfolds that the nature of nuclear energy could be unsafe 
and unethical. However, Kubota (2012) examined public attitudes toward nuclear 
energy after the Fukushima nuclear accident and reveals that the need for the efficient 
production of nuclear power outweighs concern for the potential danger of a nuclear 
incident. 

Taiwan imports 99% of its energy and nuclear power has been a significant part 
(about 20%) of the electricity supply. There are three operating nuclear power plants 
with six reactors and the fourth one with two reactors is under construction in Taiwan. 
Taiwan authorities argue that nuclear power is considerably cheaper than alternatives. 
However, due to Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, the anti-nuclear movement has 
grown and the public (or technological) issue in favor of or against nuclear power has 
become controversial in Taiwan. 

Energy and Power, including nuclear energy, is a content area of the official 
high-school technology education curriculum in Taiwan. One of the goals of 
technology education in Taiwan is to facilitate students in dealing with technological 
issues critically and intellectually. Social psychologists’ attitude-behavior consistency 
theory argues that our attitudes (predispositions to behavior) and actual behaviors are 
more likely to align if our attitude and behavior are both constrained to very specific 
circumstances (Changing Minds, u.d.). Accordingly, technology teacher’s attitudes 
influence what students are taught and how they are taught. An exploration of 
technology teachers’ attitudes toward nuclear energy can help technology teachers 
understand their own as well as their peer’s attitudes and to further develop 
curriculum and instruction. Thus, the purpose of this paper was to explore high-school 
technology teachers’ attitudes toward nuclear energy and their implications to 
technology education. 


METHOD AND PROCEDURE 

In order to attain the purpose, a questionnaire survey was conducted. We 
administered a survey using a questionnaire modified from the ORC International 
(2011) and distributed it to all 323 high schools offering technology education courses. 



TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


4 


In June 2013, the modified questionnaire was sent to the Director of Academic Affairs 
of each school who was asked to pass over the questionnaire to a technology teacher. 
Technology teachers directly sent back the questionnaire when they complete it. As a 
result, 132 (or 41%) valid questionnaires were obtained. 

In addition to descriptive statistical analyses, the inferential statistical analysis, 
Pearson’s Chi-square test, was employed to test how likely it is that the questionnaire 
respondent’s answer and his/her gender, school as well as location affiliation, 
respectively, are completely independent. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

As shown in Appendix, in the 30 Chi-square tests, only three Chi-square values 
are statistically significant. This indicates that there are few significant differences 
between the gender, school, and location affiliation among our samples. Hence, the 
findings of this survey can be highlighted as follows: 

1 . 97% of technology teachers are “following news about Japan’s Fukushima nuclear 
disaster.” 

2. 61% of technology teachers oppose more nuclear power plants in Taiwan. 

3. 70% of technology teachers are now “less supportive of expanding nuclear power 
plants in Taiwan after Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster.” 

4. 79% of technology teachers say they are now “more supportive than they were 
before Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster in using clean renewable energy 
resources - such as wind and solar - and increasing energy efficiency as an 
alternative to more nuclear power in Taiwan.” 

5. 71% of technology teachers support a termination or moratorium on new nuclear 
power plant construction in Taiwan if increased energy efficiency and existing 
renewable technologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands 
for the near term. 

6. 66% of technology teachers oppose to extend the operating lifespan of the 
operating nuclear power plants in Taiwan. 

7. 85% of technology teachers oppose the construction of a new nuclear reactor 
within 80 kilometers of their homes. 

8. 46% of technology teachers do not know the evacuation route and what other 
steps to take in the event of the nearest nuclear power plant emergency. 

9. 61% of technology teachers include nuclear energy in their technology courses. 

1 0. 65% of technology teachers will enrich nuclear energy in their technology courses. 
Based on the above findings, the high-school technology teachers prefer 

increasing energy efficiency and existing renewable technologies to constructing 
more nuclear power plants or extending the operating lifespan of the operating 



TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


5 


nuclear power plants. They also consider a nuclear plant as a NIMBY (Not In My Back 
Yard) object. In addition, they intend to include more nuclear energy issues in their 
technology education courses. According to the attitude-behavior consistency theory 
that attitudes can predict behavior, against nuclear power will be stronger than in favor 
of nuclear power in the circumstance of high-school technology education in Taiwan. 

Based upon the above findings and discussions, the following conclusions can be 
drawn: 

1 . Most high-school technology teachers in Taiwan are keen on news about Japan’s 
Fukushima nuclear disaster. 

2. The majority of high-school technology teachers oppose more nuclear power 
plants in Taiwan, are now “less supportive of expanding nuclear power plants in 
Taiwan after Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, oppose to extend the 
operating lifespan of the operating nuclear power plants in Taiwan, and oppose 
the construction of a new nuclear reactor within 80 kilometers of their homes. 

3. The majority of technology teachers in Taiwan are now more supportive than 
they were before Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster to use clean renewable 
energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as 
an alternative to more nuclear power in Taiwan, and support a termination or 
moratorium on new nuclear power plant construction in Taiwan if increased 
energy efficiency and off the shelf renewable technologies such as wind and 
solar could meet our energy demands for the near term. 

4. Nearly a half of high-school technology teachers in Taiwan do not know the 
evacuation route and what other steps to take in the event of the nearest nuclear 
power plant emergency. 

5. The majority of high-school technology teachers in Taiwan includes nuclear 
energy in their technology courses, and will enrich nuclear energy in their 
technology courses. 


IMPLICATIONS 

Based on the above conclusions, the implications of teachers’ attitudes toward 
nuclear energy to technology education can be made as follows: 

1 . Training and development opportunities, such as workshop and discussion forum, 
should be offered. 

Being keen on news about nuclear energy is not enough. To ensure technology 
teachers’ knowledge regarding nuclear energy is updated and accurate, 
appropriate training and development opportunities should be offered. 

2. Best practices of nuclear energy education should be identified and benchmarked 
The majority of technology courses have included nuclear energy. Best practices 



TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


6 


of nuclear energy education should be identified among them for further 
promotion. 

3. Both energy saving and development should be valued in high-school technology 
courses. 

That is to say, the strategies and possibilities to increase energy efficiency and 
develop clean renewable energy resources should taught in high-school 
technology courses. However, to high-school student increasing energy efficiency 
has higher priority than the development of new energy resources. 

4. A debate can be served as a strategy for high-school students to clarify the 
controversial issue of nuclear energy. 

To help high-school students to become informed critical thinkers and decision 
makers, technology teachers can adopt a debate as an instructional strategy. In 
addition, the debate activity can be collaboratively conducted with other subjects, 
such as sciences, moral education, and so on. 

References 

Changing Minds, (n.d.). Attitude-behavior consistency. Retrieved from 

http://chanqinqminds.org/explanations/theories/attitude behavior consistency.ht 
m 

Kubota, Y. (2012). Facing a crisis with calmness? The global response to the 
Fukushima nuclear disaster. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 13(3), 
441-466. 

ORC International. (2011, March 22). After Fukushima: American attitudes about 
nuclear power policy questions. A survey conducted for the Civil Society Institute. 
Retrieved from 

http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/032111%200RC%20lnternational 

%20Japan%20Nuclear%20Reactor%20survey%20report%20FINAL1.pdf 


TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


7 


Appendix: The contingency table of Chi-square analyses 





a. Gender 


b. 

School 

c. Location-Living within 80 kilometers 

of a nuclear power plant site? 

Question 

Answer 

Total 

Male 

Female 

Pubic 

Private 

Yes 

No 

Don’t 
Know/ 
Not sure 

I.How closely 

Very closely 

22 

16 

6 

17 

5 

5 

16 

1 

are you 


(16.7%) 

(72.7%) 

(27.3%) 

(77.3%) 

(22.7%) 

(22.7%) 

(72.7%) 

(4.5%) 

following 

Somewhat 

82 

66 

16 

43 

39 

14 

65 

3 

news about 

closely 

(62.1%) 

(80.5% 

(19.5%) 

(52.4%) 

( 47.6% ) 

(17.1%) 

( 79.3% ) 

(3.7%) 

Japan’s 

Not very 

25 

19 

6 

18 

7 

3 

20 

2 

Fukushima 

closely 

(18.9%) 

(76.0%) 

(24.0%) 

(72.0%) 

(28.0%) 

(12.0%) 

(80.0%) 

(8.0%) 

nuclear 

Not 

3 

B 

2 

3 

0 

0 

2 

1 

disaster? 

following it 

(2.3%) 

(33.3%) 

(66.7%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(66.7%) 

(33.3%) 


Don’t 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


know/Not 

sure 

(0.0% 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 


Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

21 

22 

103 

f\ 


a- X 2 (4) 
=4.063 
b.* 2 (4) 
=8.185 
C- X 2 (8) 
=6.707 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

( 22.7% ) 

( 61 .4% ) 

( 38.6% ) 

(16.7%) 

(78.0% ) 

(5.3%) 

2. Would you 

Support 

6 

6 

0 

2 

4 

2 

4 

0 

say that you 

strongly 

(4.5%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(33.3%) 

(66.7%) 

(33.3%) 

(66.7%) 

(0.0%) 

support or 

Support 

30 

25 

5 

17 

13 

5 

23 

2 

oppose more 

somewhat 

( 22.7% ) 

(83.3%) 

(16.7%) 

(56.7%) 

(43.3%) 

(16.7%) 

(76.7%) 

(6.7%) 

nuclear 

Oppose 

35 

27 

8 

21 

14 

4 

28 

3 

power plants 

somewhat 

(26.5%) 

(77.1%) 

(22.9%) 

(60.0%) 

(40.0%) 

(11.4%) 

(80.0%) 

(8.6%) 

in Taiwan? 

Oppose 

46 

36 

10 

28 

18 

9 

36 

1 


strongly 

(34.8%) 

(78.3%) 

(21.7%) 

( 60.9% ) 

(39.1%) 

(19.6%) 

(78.3%) 

(2.2%) 


Don’t 

15 

8 

7 

13 

2 

2 

12 

1 


know/Not 

sure 

(11.4%) 

(53.3%) 

(46.7%) 

(86.7%) 

(13.3%) 

(13.3%) 

(80.0%) 

(6.7%) 


Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

22 

103 

1 


a- X 2 (4) 

=7.313 
b- X 2 (4) 
=6.350 
C- X 2 (8 ) 
=4.070 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

( 22.7% ) 

( 61 .4% ) 

( 38.6% ) 

(16.7%) 

(78.0%) 

(5.3%) 

3. Are you now 

Much more 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

3 

0 

more or less 

supportive 

(2.3%) 

(66.7%) 

(33.3%) 

(66.7%) 

(33.3%) 

(0.0%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

supportive 

Somewhat more 

5 

4 

B 

1 

4 

1 

3 

1 

of expanding 

supportive 

(3.8%) 

( 80.0% ) 

(20.0%) 

( 20.0% ) 

( 80.0% ) 

( 20.0% ) 

( 60.0% ) 

( 20.0% ) 

nuclear 

Somewhat less 

38 

29 

9 

25 

13 

6 

30 

2 

power plants 

supportive 

(28.8%) 

(76.3%) 

(23.7%) 

(65.8%) 

(34.2%) 

(15.8%) 

(78.9%) 

(5.3%) 

in Taiwan 

Much less 

54 

41 

13 

33 

21 

10 

43 

1 

after Japan’s 

supportive 

(40.9%) 

( 75.9% ) 

(24.1%) 

(61.1%) 

(38.9%) 

(18.5%) 

( 79.6% ) 

(1.9%) 

Fukushima 

No change 

28 

25 

3 

16 

12 

5 

21 

2 

nuclear 


(21.2%) 

(89.3%) 

(10.7%) 

(57.1%) 

(42.9%) 

(17.9%) 

(75.0%) 

(7.1%) 

disaster? 

Don’t 

4 

i 

3 

4 

0 

0 

3 

1 


know/Not 

sure 

(3%) 

( 25.0% ) 

( 75.0% ) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

( 75.0% ) 

( 25.0% ) 


Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

22 

103 

7 


a. x 2 (5) 
=8.813 
b- x 2 (5) 
=6.688 
c.X 2 (10) 
=8.320 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

(22.7%) 

(61.4%) 

(38.6%) 

(16.7%) 

(78.0%) 

(5.3%) 




TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 





a. Gender 

b. 

School 

c. Location-Living within 80 kilometers 

of a nuclear power plant site? 

Question 

Answer 

Total 

Male 

Female 

Pubic 

Private 

Yes 

No 

Don’t Know/ 
Not sure 

4. Would you say 

Much more 

50 

40 

10 

31 

19 

10 

39 

1 

that you are 
now more or 

suppor 

-tive 

(37.9%) 

(80.0%) 

(20.0%) 

(62.0%) 

(38.0%) 

(20.0%) 

(78.0%) 

(2.0%) 

less than you 

Somewhat 

54 

39 

15 

32 

22 

9 

41 

4 

were before 

Japan’s 

Fukushima 

more 

suppor 

-tive 

(40.9%) 

(72.2%) 

(27.8%) 

(59.3%) 

( 40.7% ) 

(16.7%) 

( 75.9% ) 

(7.4%) 

nuclear 

Somewhat 

4 

4 

0 

2 

2 

0 

3 

1 

disaster in 
using clean 
renewable 

less 

suppor 

-tive 

(3%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(50.0%) 

(50.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(75.0%) 

(25.0%) 

energy 

Much less 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

resources - 
such as wind 

suppor 

-tive 

(0.8%) 

(0.0%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

and solar - 

No change 

22 

19 

3 

15 

7 

3 

19 

0 

and increasing 


(16.7%) 

(86.4%) 

(13.6%) 

(68.2%) 

(31.8%) 

(13.6%) 

(86.4%) 

(0.0%) 

energy 

Don’t 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

efficiency as 
an alternative 

know/Not 

sure 

(0.8%) 

(0.0%) 

(100.0%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(100.0%) 

to more 

Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

22 

103 

7 

nuclear power 
in Taiwan? 

a-x 2 (5) 
=10.008 
b- X 2 (5) 
=2.977 
c.* 2 (10) 
=25.064 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

(22.7%) 

(61.4%) 

(38.6%) 

(16.7%) 

(78.0%) 

(5.3%) 

5. If increased 

Yes 

93 

71 

22 

61 

32 

16 

75 

2 

energy 


(70.5%) 

(76.3%) 

(23.7%) 

(65.6%) 

(34.4%) 

(17.2%) 

(80.6%) 

(2.2%) 

efficiency 

No 

20 

17 

3 

6 

14 

4 

14 

2 

and existing 


(15.2%) 

(85.0%) 

(15.0%) 

( 30.0% ) 

( 70.0% ) 

(20.0%) 

( 70.0% ) 

(10.0%) 

renewable 

Don’t 

19 

14 

5 

14 

5 

2 

14 

3 

technologies 
such as 

know/Not 

sure 

(14.4%) 

(73.7%) 

(26.3%) 

(73.7%) 

(26.3%) 

(10.5%) 

(73.7%) 

(15.8%) 

wind and 

Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

22 

103 

7 

solar could 
meet our 
energy 
demands for 
the near 
term, would 
you support 
a 

termination 

or 

moratorium 
on new 
nuclear 
power plant 
construction 
in Taiwan? 

a-x 2 (2) 
=0.865 
b- X 2 (2) 
=10.216 
C. x 2 (4) 

= 7.387 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

(22.7%) 

( 61 .4% ) 

( 38.6% ) 

(16.7%) 

( 78.0% ) 

(5.3%) 




TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


9 





a. Gender 

b. School 

c. Location-Living within 80 kilometers of a 
nuclear power plant site? 

Question 

Answer 

Total 

Male 

Female 

Pubic 

Private 

Yes 

No 

Don’t 
Know/ 
Not sure 

6. Would you 

Support 

2 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

support or 

strongly 

(1.5%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

oppose to 

Support 

31 

24 

7 

14 

17 

6 

24 

1 

extend the 
operating 

some 

-what 

(23.5%) 

(77.4%) 

( 22.6% ) 

( 45.2% ) 

( 54.8% ) 

(19.4%) 

(77.4%) 

(3.2%) 

lifespan of 

Oppose 

40 

27 

13 

24 

16 

6 

30 

4 

the operating 
nuclear 

some 

-what 

(30.3%) 

(67.5%) 

(32.5%) 

(60.0%) 

(40.0%) 

(15.0%) 

(75.0%) 

(10.0%) 

power plants 

Oppose 

47 

40 

1 

34 

13 

8 

38 

1 

in Taiwan? 

strongly 

( 35.6% ) 

(85.1%) 

(14.9%) 

( 72.3% ) 

(27.7%) 

(17.0%) 

( 80.9% ) 

(2.1%) 


Don’t 

12 

9 

3 

9 

3 

2 

9 

1 


know/Not 

sure 

(9.1%) 

(75.0%) 

(25.0%) 

(75.0%) 

(25.0%) 

(16.7%) 

(75.0%) 

(8.3%) 


Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

22 

103 

'i 


a- X 2 (4) 
=4.442 
b- X 2 (4) 
=9.970* 

c- X 2 (8) 

= 3.896 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

( 22.7% ) 

(61.4%) 

(38.6%) 

(16.7%) 

( 78.0% ) 

(5.3%) 

7. Would you 

Support 

5 

5 

0 

3 

2 

3 

2 

0 

support or 

strongly 

(3.8%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(60.0%) 

(40.0%) 

(60.0%) 

(40.0%) 

(0.0%) 

oppose the 

Support 

7 

6 

1 

3 

4 

| 

6 

0 

construction 
of a new 

some 

-what 

(5.3%) 

(85.7%) 

(14.3%) 

( 42.9% ) 

(57.1%) 

(14.3%) 

(85.7%) 

(0.0%) 

nuclear 

Oppose 

28 

23 

5 

17 

11 

7 

17 

4 

reactor 
within 80 

some 

-what 

(21.2%) 

(82.1%) 

(17.9%) 

(60.7%) 

(39.3%) 

(25.0%) 

(60.7%) 

(14.3%) 

kilometers of 

Oppose 

84 

61 

23 

52 

32 

9 

73 

2 

your home? 

strongly 

(63.6%) 

( 72.6% ) 

(27.4%) 

( 61 .9% ) 

(38.1%) 

(10.7%) 

(86.9%) 

(2.4%) 


Don’t 

8 

7 

1 

6 

2 

2 

5 

1 


know/Not 

sure 

(6.1%) 

(87.5%) 

(12.5%) 

(75.0%) 

(25.0%) 

(25.0%) 

(62.5%) 

(12.5%) 


Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

2 

103 

7 


a- X 2 (4) 
=3.645 
b- X 2 (4) 
=1.659 
c.* 2 (8) 
=19.124* 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

( 22.7% ) 

(61.4%) 

( 38.6% ) 

(16.7%) 

(78.0%) 

(5.3%) 

8. Do you know 

Yes 

34 

24 

10 

20 

14 

9 

23 

2 

the 


(25.8%) 

(70.6%) 

(29.4%) 

(58.8%) 

(41.2%) 

(26.5%) 

(67.6%) 

(5.9%) 

evacuation 

No 

61 

47 

14 

36 

25 

9 

49 

3 

route and 


( 46.2% ) 

(77.0%) 

( 23.0% ) 

( 59.0% ) 

(41.0%) 

(14.8%) 

(80.3%) 

(4.9%) 

what other 

Don’t 

37 

31 

6 

25 

12 

4 

31 

2 

steps to take 
in the event 

know/Not 

sure 

(28%) 

(83.8%) 

(16.2%) 

(67.6%) 

(32.4%) 

(10.8%) 

(83.8%) 

(5.4%) 

of the 

Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

22 

103 

7 

nearest 
nuclear 
power plant 
emergency? 

a. x 2 (2) 

=1.760 
b- X 2 (2) 
=0.835 

c.X 2 (4) 

=19.124* 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

( 22.7% ) 

(61.4%) 

( 38.6% ) 

(16.7%) 

(78.0%) 

(5.3%) 





TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY 


10 





a. Gender 

b. School 

c.Location — Living within 80 kilometers of a 
nuclear power plant site? 

Question 

Answer 

Total 

Male 

Female 

Pubic 

Private 

Yes 

No 

Don’t 
Know/ 
Not sure 

9. Do you 

Yes 

80 

61 

19 

50 

30 

15 

62 

3 

include 


(60.6%) 

(76.3%) 

(23.8%) 

(62.5%) 

(37.5%) 

(18.8%) 

(77.5%) 

(3.8%) 

nuclear 

No 

46 

35 

11 

28 

18 

7 

36 

3 

energy in 


( 34.8% ) 

(76.1%) 

( 23.9% ) 

( 60.9% ) 

(39.1%) 

(15.2%) 

( 78.3% ) 

(6.5%) 

your 

Don’t 

6 

6 

0 

3 

3 

0 

5 

1 

technology 

courses? 

know/Not 

sure 

(4.5%) 

(100.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(50.0%) 

(50.0%) 

(0.0%) 

(83.3%) 

(16.7%) 


Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

22 

103 

i 


a-x 2 (2) 

=1.849 

b- x 2 (2) 

=0.375 
c- X 2 (4) 
=3.245 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

( 22.7% ) 

( 61 .4% ) 

(38.6%) 

(16.7%) 

(78.0%) 

(5.3%) 

lO.Will you 

Yes 

86 

66 

20 

51 

35 

14 

69 

3 

enrich 


(65.2%) 

(76.7%) 

(23.3%) 

(59.3%) 

(40.7%) 

(16.3%) 

(80.2%) 

(3.5%) 

nuclear 

No 

18 

15 

3 

10 

8 

4 

13 

1 

energy in 


(13.6%) 

(83.3%) 

(16.7%) 

(55.6%) 

( 44.4% ) 

(22.2%) 

( 72.2% ) 

(5.6%) 

your 

Don’t 

28 

21 

7 

20 

8 

4 

21 

3 

technology 

courses? 

know/Not 

sure 

(21.2%) 

(75.0%) 

(25.0%) 

(71.4%) 

(28.6%) 

(14.3%) 

(75.0%) 

(10.7%) 


Total 

132 

102 

30 

81 

51 

22 

103 

1 


a- X 2 (2) 
=0.473 

b- x 2 (2) 

=1.607 
c- X 2 (4) 
=2.683 

(100%) 

(77.3%) 

( 22.7% ) 

(61.4%) 

( 38.6% ) 

(16.7%) 

( 78.0% ) 

(5.3%) 


p<.05