대한화학회지 (Journal of the Korean Chemical Society)

  • 제64권3호
  • /
  • Pages.159-174
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1017-2548(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-8530(eISSN)
대한화학회 (Korean Chemical Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

디자인씽킹 기반 고등학교 화학 수업의 효과 연구

The Effects of Design Thinking in High School Chemistry Classes

  • 양희선 (한국교원대학교 초등과학교육과) ;
  • 김미영 (한국교원대학교 화학교육과) ;
  • 강성주 (한국교원대학교 화학교육과)
  • Yang, Heesun (Department of Elementary Science Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Kim, Mi-Yong (Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Kang, Seong-Joo (Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education)
  • 투고 : 2019.12.12
  • 심사 : 2020.02.27
  • 발행 : 2020.06.20
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 창의 융합형 인재의 핵심역량을 위한 교육 전략으로 '디자인씽킹(Design Thinking)' 기반 화학 수업 프로그램을 검토하고자 한다. 이를 위하여, '과학교육에서의 디자인적 사고 프로세스'가 화학 교과 수업에 적용할 수 있도록 '관련 지식 이해', '공감', '관점 공유', '아이디어 생성', '1차 프로토타입', '1차 검증', '2차 프로토타입', '2차 검증'의 총 8단계로 수정·보완하였다. 2015 개정 교육과정과 2009 개정 교육과정의 연계성을 고려하여 성취기준을 선정하고 이를 만족할 수 있는 주제에 따라 교수·학습 지도안과 학생 활동지를 개발하였다. 4가지 주제가 개발되어 일반계 고등학교 2학년을 대상으로 3월에서 8월까지 화학I시간에 적용하고, '공감', 'STEAM교육역량', '문제 해결 과정' 검사를 토대로 수업 장면에 대한 질적 데이터 분석과 사전·사후 평가를 실시하였다. 과학수업에서의 '공감'요소는 타인과의 공감과 문제 상황과의 공감에서 유의미한 향상을 보였고, 'STEAM교육역량'에서는 과학, 디자인 역량에서 유의미한 효과가 나타났다. '문제 해결 과정'에서는 문제 발견, 문제 정의, 문제 해결책 고안, 문제 해결 검토에서 유의미한 향상이 확인되었다. 본 연구 결과는 디자인씽킹 기반 화학 수업에 대한 적용 가능성과 그 교육적 효과에 대하여 시사점을 제시하고 있다.

The purpose of this study is to examine 'Design Thinking' based Chemistry Class program as an education strategy for core competence of creative convergence talent. The program stages were modified and supplemented into eight stages, including 'Knowledge Understand', 'Empathy', 'Sharing perspective', 'Ideate', '1st Prototype', '1st Test', '2nd Prototype', and '2nd Test', so that the 'Design Thinking Process in Science Education' can be applied to the chemistry class. Considering the linkage between the 2015 and 2009 revised national curriculum, the achievement criteria were selected, and the lesson plans and student activity sheet were developed according to the themes to be met. Four thematic educational programs were developed and applied to Chemistry I for the second grade of high school students from March to August. The results were verified through qualitative data analysis of the class scene and pre- and post-test based on inventories of 'Empathy' 'STEAM educational competence', 'Problem solving process'. As a result of applying the developed program, 'empathy' showed a significant improvement in empathy with others and empathy with the problem situation. In 'STEAM educational competence', there was a significant enhancement in science and design competence. In the 'problem finding process', the problem definition, problem solution design, and problem-solving review were significantly improved in the 'problem-solving process'. The results of this study provided implications for the applicability of design thinking - based chemistry classes and its educational effect.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development 2015 Revised National Curriculum 2015; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Notice No. 2015-74.
  2. Martin, R. Strategy & Leadership 2010, 38, 37. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571011029046
  3. Lee, S.; Kim, T.; Kim, J.; Kang, S.; Yoon, J. Journal of Korean Information Education 2019, 23, 73. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2019.23.1.73
  4. Brown, T. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation; Harper Business: New York, 2009.
  5. Carroll, M.; Goldman, S.; Britos, L.; Koh, J.; Royalty, A.; Hornstein, M. International Journal of Art & Design Education 2010, 29, 37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x
  6. Mootee, I. Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation: What They Can't Teach you at Business or Design School; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, N.J., 2013.
  7. Liedtka, J. Strategy & Leadership 2011, 39, 13. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571111161480
  8. Dolak, F.; Uebernickel, F.; Brenner, W. Design Thinking and Design Science Research. Positioning Paper DESRIST. Institute of Information Management. New York: University of St. Gallen, 2013, HSG/IWI-1-11.
  9. Dorst, K. Des Stud. 2011, 32, 521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
  10. Lawson, B. How Designers Think; Routledge: London, 2006.
  11. Rauth, I.; Koppen, E.; Jobst, B.; Meinel, C. In Design thinking: an educational model towards creative confidence; DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010); 2010.
  12. Kwon, Y.; Lim, S. Journal of Communication Design 2017, 60, 8.
  13. Jeon, S. Journal of Art Education 2005, 19, 355.
  14. Retna, K. S. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 2016, 36, 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049
  15. Lee, J. Journal of the Korean Society of Design Culture 2015, 21, 455.
  16. Zong, E. Journal of Korean Society of Communication Design 2015, 25, 247.
  17. Lee, E; Tae, J. Journal of Curriculum Integration 2017, 11, 143.
  18. Kim, H.; Shim, H.; Cho, S. Korean Academy of Commodity Science & Technology 2016, 34, 43.
  19. Lee, H.; Park, Y. Journal of Art Education 2016, 30, 145.
  20. Suh, E. Korean Association for Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction 2017, 17, 173. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2017.17.16.173
  21. Lee, D.; Yoon, J.; Kang, S. School Science Journal 2016, 10, 151. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.10.2.201606.151
  22. Lim, J.; Ahn, M. Analysis of Learning Experience for Collaborative Communication in Design Thinking Activities with Engineering Students. Journal of the Korea Computer Education Association's Academic Presentation Conference 2018, 23, 27.
  23. Lim, J. The effects of Design Thinking on College students' Empathy Ability, Master dissertation, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea, 2017.
  24. Goldman, S.; Carroll, M. P.; Kabayadondo, Z.; Cavagnaro, L. B.; Royalty, A. W.; Roth, B.; Kwek, S. H.; Kim, J. In Assessing d. Learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker; Design thinking research; Springer: 2012; pp 13-33.
  25. Razzouk, R.; Shute, V. Review of Educational Research 2012, 82, 330. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
  26. Young, G. Zumio Meaningful Innovation 2010, 61, 1.
  27. Melles, G.; Howard, Z.; Thompson-Whiteside, S. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2012, 31, 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.035
  28. Kim, S.; Kim, J.; Kang, S.; Kim, T.; Yoon, J. The Journal of Korean Institute of Industrial Education 2019, 44, 162. https://doi.org/10.35140/kiiedu.2019.44.1.162
  29. Liedtka, J. J. Prod. Innovation Manage. 2015, 32, 925. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163
  30. Kurtmollaiev, S.; Pedersen, P. E.; Fjuk, A.; Kvale, K. Academy of Management Learning & Education 2018, 17, 184. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2016.0187
  31. Chun, O.; Yang, H.; Kang, S. Cogent Education 2018, 5, 1499477. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1499477
  32. Yang, H.; Kang, S. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education 2019, 39, 249.
  33. Park, J.; Woo, O. Journal of Educational Technology 1999, 15, 55. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.15.3.55
  34. Kim, Y.; Lee, D. The Korean Association of Yeolin Education 2011, 1.
  35. Kincheloe, J. L. Autobiography and Critical Ontology: Being a Teacher, Developing a Reflective Persona. In Auto/biography and Auto/ethnography: Praxis of Research Method; Wolff-Michael Roth, Ed.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, 2005.
  36. Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2014.
  37. Buxton, B. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design; Morgan kaufmann: San Francisco, 2010.
  38. Arnheim, R. Visual Thinking (35th anniversary printing); University of California Press: Berkeley, 2004.
  39. Kim, H.; Cho, S.; Shim, H. Korean Academy of Commodity Science & Technology 2015, 33, 91.