Developing Radiation Literacy Through Interdisciplinary Education: A Case Study of the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site

Maksat Zhanibek; Arafat  Mamyrbekov; Bibigul  Ospanova

doi:10.48161/qaj.v6n1a2346

Authors

Maksat Zhanibek Department of History, Alikhan Bokeikhan University, Semey 071400, Kazakhstan; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7423-959X
Arafat Mamyrbekov Department of Anthropology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3454-8563
Bibigul Ospanova Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, Shakarim University, Semey 071400, Kazakhstan. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0314-3539

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v6n1a2346

Keywords:

radiation literacy, interdisciplinary education, socio-scientific issues, risk communication, nuclear legacy, Semipalatinsk nuclear test site.

Abstract

Radiation literacy is increasingly recognized as an essential component of scientific literacy, particularly in regions shaped by nuclear legacies. This study explores how interdisciplinary education can foster radiation literacy using the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site as a context-rich case study. An interdisciplinary instructional module was designed and implemented by integrating physics (radiation and dose), chemistry (radioactive decay and environmental pathways), biology (health effects and risk), geography (contamination and land use), and history/civics (ethics, policy, and collective memory). The module emphasized evidence-based reasoning, risk communication, and socio-scientific decision-making. Data were collected through pre–post assessments of radiation concepts and risk interpretation, analysis of students’ written explanations of scenarios, and reflective responses on ethical and civic dimensions. The results indicate measurable gains in core conceptual understanding (for example, sources of radiation, exposure pathways, and dose-related reasoning), improved ability to distinguish hazard from risk, and greater use of scientific evidence when discussing real-world issues such as environmental monitoring and community health. Qualitative findings show that the Semipalatinsk context enhanced engagement and supported empathy-driven civic reflection while also requiring careful facilitation to prevent misconceptions and emotional overload. For education policymakers in other post-nuclear regions, these findings underscore the value of supporting interdisciplinary, place-based curricula that integrate scientific risk reasoning with local historical and socio-civic contexts when designing radiation education standards.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. Science Education, 95(1), 1–21.

Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2020). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Lampou, R., Noor, M., Vivekanantharasa, R., & Patnaik, S. (2026). AI–driven educational ecosystems: Integrating learning analytics, adaptive assessment, and intelligent feedback for sustainable student performance. Qubahan Techno Journal, 5(1), 25–36.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). (2022). Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report to the General Assembly. United Nations.

Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.

Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.

Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Sense Publishers.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2013). The museum experience revisited. Routledge.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education. National Academies Press.

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.

Covitt, B. A., Gunckel, K. L., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Students’ developing understanding of water in environmental systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 636–658.

Feinstein, N. W. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185.

Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 1–18.

Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin’! Agency, identity, and science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.

Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. Teachers College Press.

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education. NSTA Press.

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning. School Science Review, 87(320), 107–111.

Freudenberg, N., & Tsui, E. (2014). Evidence, power, and policy change in public health. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), 40–49.

Slovic, P. (2016). The perception of risk. Earthscan.

Perko, T., Turcanu, C., Carlé, B., & Oughton, D. (2012). Public involvement in nuclear research. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 108, 76–83.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2014). Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources. Vienna: IAEA.

Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (2006). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12(3–4), 471–486.

Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263–291.

Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.

World Health Organization. (2016). Communicating radiation risks in paediatric imaging: Information to support healthcare discussions about benefit and risk. WHO.

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2019). Communicating radiation risks in normal and emergency situations. IAEA.

Perko, T. (2014). Radiation risk perception: A discrepancy between the experts and the general population. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 133, 86–91.

Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.

Leach, J., & Scoones, I. (2006). The social and political lives of zoonotic disease models: Narratives, science and policy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(5), 498–528.

Grossman, Z., & Chevalier, A. (2020). Teaching nuclear science and radiation safety through interdisciplinary approaches. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 219–231.