Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education (대한지구과학교육학회지)

The Korean Society of Earth Science Education (대한지구과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Suggesting a Framework for Science and Engineering Integrated Lesson Design and Engineering Design Level

과학·공학 융합 수업 준거틀 및 공학 설계 수준 제안

  • Received : 2020.03.31
  • Accepted : 2020.04.20
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study proposes a lesson design framework to design a science and engineering integrated lesson in a meaningful and easy way based on engineering design, which is the core feature of STEM education. The science and engineering integrated lesson design framework is developed based on the analysis of domestic and foreign theoretical and practical research papers and expert discussion on science and engineering integrated education as well as the feedbacks from science teachers. The science and engineering integrated lesson design framework uses engineering design as the main pedagogical method. The framework includes the core elements of the engineering integrated lesson suggested in previous studies and the achievement level of each grade group suggested in NGSS and provides a way for teachers to easily introduce engineering design into science classes. In addition, the framework developed in this study complements the shortcomings of the complicated Korean STEAM education framework. It can also provide specific guidance to in-service teachers as well as pre-service teachers to easily understand and apply engineering design and problem solving processes to science and engineering integrated lessons.

본 연구는 융합(STEM)교육의 핵심인 공학 설계를 기반으로 과학 수업에서 공학을 의미있고 쉽게 융함하여 수업을 설계할 수 있도록 수업 준거틀을 제안 한 것이다. 본 연구에서 개발된 과학·공학 융합 수업 준거틀은 과학과 공학 융합 교육에 대한 국내외 이론적, 실제적 선행 연구 분석과 전문가 토의, 그리고 현장교사들의 피드백에 근거하여 개발되었다. 과학·공학 융합 수업 준거틀은 과학 수업에서 공학 설계를 주요 교수법 및 문제해결 방법으로 사용하며, 선행 연구에서 제시된 공학 융합 수업의 핵심요소와 학년군별 성취수준을 고려하여 공학 설계에 대한 이해가 부족한 현장 교사들이 쉽게 공학 설계를 과학 수업에 도입할 수 있는 방법을 제공한다. 또한 본 연구에서 개발된 과학·공학 융합 수업 준거틀은 복잡하게 제시된 한국 STEAM 교육 준거틀의 단점을 보완하여 현장교사뿐 아니라 예비교사들이 쉽게 공학적 설계와 문제해결과정에 대해 이해하고 이를 적용하여 과학 융합 수업을 설계하는데 구체적인 지침을 제공할 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강주원, 남윤경(2016). 융합인재교육(STEAM)을 위한 창의적 공학문제해결 성향 검사 도구 개발. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 9(3), 276-290. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2016.9.3.276
  2. 교육부(2018). 초등학교 5-6학년군 과학 교사용지도서. 경기: 단국대학교 국정도서편찬위원회.
  3. 김영민, 김현정, 허혜연, 이창훈, 김기수(2013). 초.중등 교육에서의 공학교육 프로그램 개발: 중학교 건설공학분야를 중심으로. 한국기술교육학회지, 13(2), 21-41.
  4. 심재호, 이양락, 김현경(2015). STEM, STEAM 교육과 우리나라 융합인재교육의 이해와 해결 과제. 한국과학교육학회지, 35(4), 709-723. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0709
  5. 윤진아, 한금주, 남윤경(2019). Model Eliciting Activity(MEA)를 통한 초등 과학영재들의 문제해결 특성 분석. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 12(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2019.12.1.64
  6. 이동영, 남윤경(2018). 공학설계 측면에서 한국 STEAM 프로그램 분석틀 제안. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 11(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2018.11.1.63
  7. 이정민, 신영준(2014). 융합인재교육 (STEAM) 수업에서 초등교사들이 겪는 어려움 분석. 초등과학교육, 33(3), 588-596.
  8. 이진숙, 김은주(2019). 융합인재교육 실행의 문제점과 개선방안에 대한 초등교사의 인식. 초등교육연구, 32(3), 327-355.
  9. 이효진, 남윤경(2019). '빛'과 '소리'교육을 위한 공학 설계 기반의 과학.공학 융합프로그램 개발 및 적용. 현장과학교육, 13(3), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.13.3.201908.211
  10. 임유나(2012). 통합 교육과정에 근거한 융합인재교육(STEAM)의 문제점과 개선 방향. 초등교육연구, 25(4), 53-80.
  11. Buck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(1), 52-58.
  12. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738-797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
  13. Cunningham, C. M. (2017). Engineering in elementary STEM education: Curriculum design, instruction, learning, and assessment. Teachers College Press.
  14. Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165
  15. Guzey, S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H. H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014). A high quality professional development for teachers of grades 3-6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12061
  16. Hutchinson, J., & Karsnitz, J. (1993). Design and problem solving in technology. New York, United States: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill School Pub.
  17. Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Carberry, A., & Hammer, D. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications/165.
  18. Kelly, A. E. (2008). Engineering and design research: Intersections for education research and design. In Hjalmarson, M., Lesh, R., & Baek, J. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching, pp. 96-110. New York: Routledge.
  19. Kennedy, T., & Odell, M. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
  20. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255-281. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20111
  21. MDE(Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) (2016). 2016 massachusetts science and Technology/Engineering curriculum framework. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2016-04.pdf.
  22. Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research(J-PEER), 4(1), 2.
  23. Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 296-318. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21199
  24. Moss, E., & Cervato, C. (2016). Quantifying the level of inquiry in a reformed introductory geology lab course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 64(2), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.5408/15-096.1
  25. Nam, Y. K., Lee, S. J., & Paik, S. H. (2016). The impact of Engineering Integrated Science(EIS) curricula on firstyear technical high school students' attitudes toward science and perception of engineering. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12, 1881-1907.
  26. National Research Council (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
  27. National Research Council (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington DC: National Academies Press.
  28. National Research Council (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
  29. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
  30. Roehrig, H. (2017). A curricular framework for integrated STEM. In: Science and engineering integrated STEM education. Workshop conducted at the Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea.
  31. Roehrig, H. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
  32. Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1136. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20310
  33. Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383-399.