Development of a Theoretical Model for STEAM Education

융합인재교육(STEAM)을 위한 이론적 모형의 제안

  • Received : 2012.02.24
  • Accepted : 2012.03.22
  • Published : 2012.04.30


This study attempted to propose a theoretical model for STEAM education, entitled to the Ewha-STEAM education model, which could provide more concrete guidelines for science educators and curriculum developers to execute STEAM ideas. We identified key knowledge and key competencies to nurture future creative/convergent human resources. Key knowledge included an understanding of core ideas cutting across traditional disciplinary boundaries as well as the nature of different disciplines. And additionally, key competencies implied such abilities as to explore the scientific world, to resolve problems, and to communicate and collaborate with others. We also added creativity and character as an essential part of key competencies. In order to provide more specific guidelines when developing, implementing, and evaluating STEAM curriculum, we suggested three elements of convergence to consider: 1) unit of convergence (i.e. concept/skills, problem/phenomenon, activity), 2) degree of convergence (i.e. multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, extra-disciplinary), and 3) context of convergence (i.e. personal, societal, global). It is expected that the Ewha-STEAM education model would contribute towards diverse education communities understanding the direction of STEAM education and its educational potentials.


Supported by : 한국연구재단


  1. 교육과학기술부 (2010). 창의인재와 선진과학기술로 여는 미래 대한민국. 2011년 업무보고서.
  2. 교육과학기술부 (2011). 2009 개정 교육과정에 따른 과학과 교육과정. 교육과학기술부.
  3. 권혁수, 박경숙 (2009). 공학적 디자인: 과학, 기술, 공학, 수학교육의 촉진자. 과학교육연구지, 33(2), 207-219.
  4. 김재복 (2003). 통합교육 과정. 서울: 교육과학사
  5. 김진수 (2007). 기술교육의 새로운 통합방법인 STEM 교육의 탐색. 한국기술교육학회지, 7(3), 1-29.
  6. 김진수 (2011). STEAM 교육을 위한 피라미드 모형과 큐빅 모형. 한국현장과학교육학회 학술대회 심포지엄 주제발표.
  7. 문대영 (2008). STEM 통합 접근의 사전 공학 교육 프로그램 모형 개발. 공학교육연구, 11(2), 90-101
  8. 박현주 (2012, 2월). 우리나라 STEAM 교육을 위한 고려사항. 2012년 한국과학교육학회 총회 및 제61차 동계학술대회 발표.
  9. 배선아 (2011). 중학교 전기전자기술 영역의 활동 중심 STEM 교육프로그램 개발 및 적용. 대한공업교육학회지, 36(1), 1-22.
  10. 배선아, 금영충 (2009). 공업계열 전문계 고등학교 활동 중심 STEM 교육프로그램 개발 모형. 실과교육연구, 15(4), 345-368.
  11. 신영준, 한선관 (2011). 초등학교 교사들의 융합인재교육(STEAM)에 대한 인식 연구. 초등과학교육, 30(4), 514-523.
  12. 이효녕 (2012, 2월). 외국의 STEM/STEAM 교육 사례. 2012년 한국과학교육학회 총회 및 제61차 동계학술대회 발표.
  13. 한국과학기술단체총연합회 (2011). 미래융합과학 기술인재 양성을 위한 STEAM 교육. 2011 대한민국 과학기술연차대회 심포지엄.
  14. American Association for the Advancement of Science[AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
  15. California Science Teacher Association [CSTA] (2009). CSTA position statement on STEM career pathways. Available at: accessed Mar. 14, 2012.
  16. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670-697.
  17. Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2007). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24-26.
  18. Drake, S. M. (1993). 통합 교육 과정(박영무, 강현석, 허영식, 김인숙 역). 서울: 원미사. (번역 2006 출판).
  19. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C., National Academies Press.
  20. Ede, S. (2005). Art and science. London and New York: I.B.Tauris.
  21. Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrated curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61-65.
  22. International Technology Education Association [ITEA] (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd Ed.). Reston. VA: Author.
  23. Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service Reports, Paper 35. accessed Mar. 14, 2012.
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Meade, S. D., & Dugger, W. F. (2004). Reporting on the status of technology education in the U.S.: The data on STL and AETL usage is positive in the respect that more and more states are becoming informed about what technology/ technological literacy encompasses. The Technology Teacher, 63, 29-35.
  26. Merrill, C., Cardon, P., Helgeson, K., & Warner, S. (2006). Technology education research symposium: An actional research approach. The Technology Teacher, 65, 6-10.
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston. VA: Author.
  28. National Research Council [NRC]. (2010). Conceptual framework for new science education standards. Available at: accessed Mar. 14, 2012. http://www7.nationalacademies. org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html.
  29. Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield- Sacre, M., Shuman, L. J., & Larpkiattaworn, S. (2007). A method for identifying variables for predicting STEM enrollment. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 33-44.
  30. Sanders, M. (2006, November). A rationale for new approaches to STEM education and STEM education graduate programs. Paper presented at the 93rd Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference, Nashville, TN.
  31. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
  32. Sanders, M., Kwon, H., Park. K., & Lee, H. (2011). Integrative STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education: Contemporary Trends and Issues, 중등교육연구, 59(3), 729-762.
  33. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., Krajcik, J., (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular. Theory Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 14(1&2), 1-98.
  34. Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., & Krajcik, J.S., (2009). The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  35. van Langen, A., & Dekkers, H. (2005). Cross-national differences in participating in tertiary science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Comparative Education, 41(3), 329-350.
  36. Wilson, E. O. (1998). 지식의 대통합: 통섭(최재천, 장대익 역). 서울: (주) 사이언스 북스. (번역 2005 출판).
  37. Yakman, G. (2006). STEM pedagogical commons for contextual learning. Unpublished paper for EDCI 5574 STEM Education Pedagogy. Virginia Tech.
  38. Witz, K. G., & Lee, H. (2009). Science as an ideal: Teachers' orientations to science and science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(3), 409-431.

Cited by

  1. An Analysis of Core Competence and Core Element on the STEAM Program in the Research Report of School vol.25, pp.4, 2013,
  2. Analysis on the Convergence for Knowledge Fusion in the Field of the Engineering, Science, Aesthetics, Humanities and Social Sciences vol.25, pp.5, 2013,
  3. Seeking a Way for the Connection of Curriculum of Infants and Children Based on the Area of Inquiry in Daily Life -Centered on the Early Learning Standards in America- vol.10, pp.6, 2014,
  4. Analysis of Articles Related STEAM Education using Network Text Analysis Method vol.33, pp.4, 2014,
  5. The Development and Validation of Instrument for Measuring High School Students' Attitude Toward Convergence vol.34, pp.2, 2014,
  6. Development and Application of Integrative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Education Model Based on Scientific Inquiry vol.34, pp.2, 2014,
  7. Examination of the Practical Model for STEAM Education through Case Studies vol.27, pp.6, 2015,
  8. The Development and Application of STEAM Education Program based on Kinetic Art vol.34, pp.3, 2015,
  9. Understanding STEM, STEAM Education, and Addressing the Issues Facing STEAM in the Korean Context vol.35, pp.4, 2015,
  10. Analysis of Korean Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Changing Attitudes About Integrated STEAM Pedagogy Through Developing Lesson Plans vol.15, pp.4, 2017,
  11. A Theoretical Framework for Developing an Intercultural STEAM Program for Australian and Korean Students to Enhance Science Teaching and Learning pp.1573-1774, 2018,