Journal of the Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회논문지)

Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of STEAM Education as an Education Policy of Korean Governments

융합인재교육의 정책적 목표를 중심으로 한 STEAM 교육의 효과성에 관한 메타분석

  • Kang, Jiyeon (Office of Institutional Research & Assessment, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Jin, Sukun (Department of Education, Konkuk University)
  • 강지연 (충북대학교 교육혁신연구원) ;
  • 진석언 (건국대학교 교육학과)
  • Received : 2019.10.23
  • Accepted : 2019.12.20
  • Published : 2019.12.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Since 2011, when the Korean government initiated STEAM education in schools, many STEAM programs have been developed and many researches on STEAM education have been published in Korea. This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of STEAM education by calculating effect sizes using statistics from 177 studies that reported their efforts in examining the effectiveness of STEAM programs. The findings of this study are the followings: 1)the total mean effect size of STEAM education is above medium level(effect size=.69). 2)Mean effect sizes of all four effect factors are above medium level, .58-.74. Mean effect sizes are .65 for STEAM interests, .74 for STEAM capacity, .63 for STEAM academic achievement, and .58 for STEAM careers. 3)The mean effect size of STEAM education in middle schools is significantly higher than in other school levels. This result suggests that STEAM education is more effective in middle schools.

본 연구는 2011년 이후 우리나라의 중요 교육정책으로 추진되고 있는 융합인재교육(이후, STEAM 교육)의 효과성을 STEAM 교육의 정책적 목표를 중심으로 확인해보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 국내 연구물들 중 STEAM 교육의 효과성을 보고하고 있는 연구물들을 대상으로 메타분석을 수행하였다. 관련 연구물들에 대한 검토를 통해 총 177편의 연구물들을 최종 분석대상으로 선정하였고, 이들 연구물들로부터 추출한 통계치를 활용하여 효과크기를 산출하였다. 본 연구를 통해 얻은 결론은 다음과 같다. 첫째, STEAM 교육의 전반적인 효과크기는 중간 이상인 .69로 나타났다. 둘째, STEAM 교육의 효과성 요인별로 확인한 효과크기는 .58~.74 정도로 나타났으며, STEAM흥미, STEAM역량, STEAM학업성취, STEAM진로 등의 요인 모두에서 중간 이상의 효과크기가 산출되었다. 셋째, 중학생을 대상으로 실시한 STEAM 교육의 효과에 대한 연구에서 보고한 효과크기가 가장 높게 나타남으로써 중학생 대상 STEAM 교육의 활성화가 더욱 절실하다는 주장의 근거가 될 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. M. Sanders. (2008). STEM, STEM Education, STEM mania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
  2. G. Yakman (2008). $ST\Sigma@M$ Education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. [Online]. http://steamedu.com/
  3. J. S. Kim. (2007). Exploration of STEM Education as a New Integrated Education for Technology Education. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 7(3), 1-29.
  4. J. S. Kim (2011). A Cubic Model for STEAM Education. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 11(2) , 124-139.
  5. Ministry of Science and Technology. (2011). Research on The 2nd National Basic Plan for Human Resources in S&T(2011-2015).
  6. J. Y. Kim. (2012). A Study on K-12 STE(A)M policy for The Creative Talented. Seoul: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning
  7. Y. H. Choi, M. J. Kim & Y. J. Kim (2019). Perceptions of Elementary and Secondary Science Teachers on the Accessibility to STEAM Programs. Brain, Digital, & Learning, 9(3), 125-137. DOI : 10.31216/BDL.2019.9.3.125
  8. H. I. Chae & S. G. Noh. (2015). Analysis of elementary school teachers' innovation configuration on STEAM. Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2015.39.1.44
  9. H. J. Noh & S. H. Paik (2014). STEAM experienced teachers' perception of STEAM in secondary education. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 14(10), 375-402.
  10. H. J. Park et al. (2012). Components of 4C-STEAM Education and a Checklist for the Instructional Design. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 12(4), 533-557.
  11. E. Jolly, P. B. Campbell & L. Perlman. (2004). Engagement, capacity and continuity: A trilogy for student success. GE Foundation.
  12. A. Carnevale, N. Smith & M. Melton. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. [Online]. https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/stem-complete.pdf
  13. I. Olkin. (1996). Meta-analysis: Current issues in research synthesis. Statistics in Medicine, 15, 1253-1257. DOI : 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960630)15:12%3C1253::AID-SIM303%3E3.0.CO;2-R
  14. D. S. Park(2007). Understanding and Applying Educational Evaluation. Seoul: Kyoyook Book.
  15. H. Cooper & L. Hedges. (1994). Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges(Eds.), The Handbook of reserch synthesis(pp. 3-14). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  16. S. D. Hwang. (2014). Meta Analysis. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  17. S. Wood & E. Mayo-Wilson. (2012). School-based mentoring for adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(2), 257-269. DOI : 10.1177/1049731511430836
  18. L. V. Hedges & I. Olkin. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  19. J. Cohen. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI : 10.4324/9780203771587
  20. R. G.. Orwin & R. F. Boruch. (1983). RRT meets RDD: statistical strategies for assuring response privacy in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 560-571. DOI : 10.1086/268752
  21. G. C. Banks, S. Kepes & M. A. McDaniel. (2012). Publication Bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(2), 182-196. DOI : 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00591.x