科学教育研究如何应对社会政治变革？对韩国研究的BERTopic分析
How Does Science Education Research Respond to Sociopolitical Change? A BERTopic Analysis of Korean Research
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
本研究以韩国2008-2025年科学教育研究为案例，运用BERTopic分析主题及趋势，发现锚定政策实践的主题更易随社会政治变革调整，锚定学科的主题则更稳定。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
研究领域并非孤立发展：其研究问题和重点会随政策、课程改革及更广泛的社会变革而变化。分析已发表的文献不仅能揭示某一领域的成熟度，还能展现其对这些条件的响应。以往科学教育领域的研究聚焦于识别研究主题及其趋势，但较少关注研究开展所处的外部条件。本研究以2008至2025年的韩国科学教育研究为案例，该案例中集中式课程修订、政府教育举措及人口下降是显著特征。本研究采用基于嵌入的主题建模技术BERTopic，识别主要主题及时间趋势，并分析它们与选定社会政治因素的关联。本研究对每个主题进行解读，并将其分为三组：社会政治类、学科特定类及学生相关类。在第一组中，科学教师专业性与课程实施、资优学生科学教育、STEAM教育与社会政治条件的关联最强，如政府政策举措及科学资优教育的招生人数下降，而基于数字的科学教育则无此类关联。相比之下，学科特定类和学生相关类未出现可比拟的变化，且与本研究考察的外部指标无关联；此模式被解读为反映出更强的学科根基。综合来看，这些模式表明，主题对政策与实践或对学术学科的锚定程度，决定了其追踪外部变化的紧密程度。这有助于解释为何一些研究议程会随本国背景变动，而另一些则保持稳定，以及为何同一主题在不同国家的发展可能存在差异。
英文摘要
Research fields do not evolve in isolation: their questions and priorities shift with policy, curriculum reform, and broader social change. Analyzing published literature can reveal not only how a field matures but also how it responds to these conditions. Prior work in science education has focused on identifying research topics and their trends, but paid less attention to the external conditions in which research is produced. We examine Korean science education research from 2008 to 2025, a case in which centralized curriculum revision, government education initiatives, and demographic decline are prominent. Using BERTopic, an embedding-based topic modeling technique, we identify major topics and temporal trends, and analyze their associations with selected sociopolitical factors. We interpret each topic and distinguish three groups: sociopolitical, subject-specific, and student-related topics. Within the first group, science teacher professionalism and curriculum implementation, science education for gifted students, and STEAM education show the strongest associations with sociopolitical conditions, such as government policy initiatives and declining enrollment in science-gifted education, whereas digital-based science education does not. The subject-specific and student-related groups, by contrast, show no comparable movement and are not linked to the external indicators we examine; this pattern is interpreted as reflecting stronger disciplinary grounding. Taken together, these patterns suggest that a topic's anchoring to policy and practice or to academic disciplines shapes how closely it tracks external change. This helps explain why some research agendas move with their national context while others hold steady, and why the same topic may develop differently across countries.
