과학교육연구지 (Journal of Science Education)

  • 제45권3호
  • /
  • Pages.364-378
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1225-3944(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-4074(eISSN)
경북대학교 과학교육연구소 (Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

융합 인재 교육 경험을 가진 중등 과학 교사들의 공학적 설계에 대한 인식 탐색

Exploring the Perception of Integrated STEAM Secondary Teachers on Engineering Design

  • 투고 : 2021.10.27
  • 심사 : 2021.11.22
  • 발행 : 2021.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 융합 인재 교육 경험을 오랫동안 해 온 교사들의 공학적 설계에 대한 인식을 탐색한 것이다. 본 연구에 참여한 교사들은 융합 인재 교육 경험을 5년 이상 해 온 초·중등 교사 12명으로 진행하였으며, 반구조화된 인터뷰를 통해서 진행되었으며, 면담은 1~2회에 걸쳐 60~90분 정도로 진행되었다. 면담 질문은 융합 인재 교육 경험과 공학적 설계에 대한 인식, 공학적 설계의 교육과정 반영 여부, 공학적 설계를 도입한 융합 인재 교육의 실제사례 등을 중심으로 진행하였다. 본 연구의 결과로는 과학, 기술, 공학에 대한 개념의 동일시 그리고 혼재, 공학적 설계는 창의적 설계를 위해 필요한 요소들의 적절한 조합, 공학적 설계는 창의적 설계에 유용성과 경제성을 추구했을 때 가능, 공학적 설계는 이공계 진로를 선택한 학생들만을 위한 것으로 인식하고 있었다. 본 연구를 토대로 과학, 기술, 공학에 대한 올바른 개념을 정립하여 제시하고 과학적 문제 해결을 위한 공학적 설계에 대한 내용을 교육과정에 포함시키는 노력이 필요하다. 또한, 공학적 설계가 포함된 융합 인재 교육 프로그램을 개발하고 확산하여 현장에 적용해야 할 것이다. 이를 통해 교사와 예비 교사들의 과학, 공학 융합 프로그램과 공학적 설계에 대한 인식을 개선시킬 수 있는 구체적인 실행 방안을 모색해야 할 것이다.

This study explores the perception of Engineering Design of teachers who have long experience in the Integrated STEAM education. The teachers participating in this study were 12 elementary and secondary teachers with more than five years of experience in the Integrated STEAM Education. The study conducted semi-structured interviews. Interview questions focused on experiences of Integrated STEAM Education and recognition of Engineering Design, whether or not to reflect the curriculum of Engineering Design, and actual cases of Integrated STEAM Education with Engineering Design. As a result of this study, the teachers who participated in this study recognized that 'identification and coexistence of concepts for science, technology, and engineering' about Engineering Design, 'Creative design is possible when creativity is added to Engineering Design', 'Engineering Design is to analyze the economic feasibility and utility of the output created through the creative design process', 'Engineering Design is only for students who choose a career in science and engineering'. Based on this research, We need to establish and present correct concepts for science, technology, and engineering, and make an effort to include Engineering Design for solving scientific problems in the curriculum. In addition, we will have to develop and spread the Integrated STEAM Education program including Engineering Design and apply it in the field. Through this, we will have to find concrete action plans to improve the perception of science and engineering Integrated STEAM programs and Engineering Design among novice teachers and preservice teachers.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Apedoe, X., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M., & Schunn, C. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 454-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6
  2. Bethke Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513-540. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20026
  3. Brington, C. M. (2001). Internal factors that influence teacher change: Teachers' beliefs and conceptions (Doctorial Dissertation). University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
  4. Brownlow, S., Smith, T. J., and Ellis, B. R., (2002). How interest in science negatively influences perceptions of women. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014613429388
  5. Brophy. S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x
  6. Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. F. (2004). Exploiting design to inspire interest in engineering across the K-16 engineering curriculum . International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 372-378.
  7. Choi, Y. (2016). Exploring the recognition of parenting m ethods of science gifted m other through science experience. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 26(4). 721-746. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2016.26.4.721
  8. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
  9. Erwin, B. (1998). K-12 education and systems engineering: A new perspective. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education National Conference, Session 1280: p6, Seattle, WA.
  10. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040
  11. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and mathematics, 105(3), 127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18047.x
  12. Glancy, A. W., & Moore, T. J. (2013). Theoretical foundations for effective STEM learning environments. SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION WORKING PAPERS, Paper 1.
  13. Han, N., & Nam, Y. (2018). The change of elementary science fifted students' perception about engineers and engineering practices through science and engineering integrated (SEI) lessons. Journal of the Korean earth science society, 39(3), 275-290. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2018.39.3.275
  14. Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers' beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86(6), 783-802. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10038
  15. Hjalmarson, M., & Lesh, R. (2008). Engineering and design research: Intersections for education research and design. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching, (pp. 96-110) New York: Routledge.
  16. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex system s. The journal of the learning sciences, 9(3), 247-298. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2
  17. Jung, J. (2011). A survey on the background elements of engineering technology learning in elementary students. Journal of Korean practical arts education, 24(3), 25-54.
  18. Kang, J. (2011). A study on the creative plan for practical subject in practical arts education by creative engineering design strategy of elementary school teachers. Journal of Korean practical arts education, 24, 281-303.
  19. Kang, J., & Nam, Y. (2016). The development of an instrument for measuring the creative engineering problems solving propensity for STEAM. Journal of The Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 9(3), 276-291. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2016.9.3.276
  20. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospectus. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  21. Kim, B., & Kim, J. (2014) Analysis of articles related STEAM education using network text analysis method. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(4), 674-682. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2014.33.4.674
  22. Kim, J. (2012). STEAM education theory. Seoul: Yangseowon.
  23. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., ... & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(4), 495-547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
  24. Koszalka, T. A., Wu, Y., & Davidson, B. (2007). Instructional design issues in a cross-institutional collaboration within a distributed engineering educational environment. In T. Bastiaens, & S. Carliner (Eds.), E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1650-1657). San Diego, CA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  25. Lee, M., & Kwon, S. (2017). Teacher's perception analysis of STEAM education policy: Implications for convergence education. Educational Research, 69, 121-161. https://doi.org/10.17253/swueri.2017.69..005
  26. Lee, H., Park, K., Kwon, H., & Seo, B. (2013). Development and implementation of engineering design and scientific inquiry-based STEM education program. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 293-318. https://doi.org/10.14333/KJTE.2013.29.3.293
  27. Lee, H., & Nam, Y. (2019). Development and application of engineering.science integrated program for teaching the concept of 'light' and 'sound'. The Korean Society For School Science, 13(3), 211-224.
  28. Lim, K., & Kim, H. (2014). The effects of STEAM education on scientific inquiry skills of high school students. Journal of Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 7(2), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2014.7.2.180
  29. Lim, C., & Oh, B. (2015). Elementary pre-service teachers and in-service teachers' perceptions and demands on ST EA M education. Journal of Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2015.8.1.1
  30. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  31. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012). 2009 revised science teacher's guide. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  32. Ministry of Education (2017). On-site review of 2015 revised science teacher's guide. Sejong, Korea: Author.
  33. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2010). 2011 Korea's future opening with creative talent and advanced science and technology. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  35. Moon, D. Y. (2008). The development of pre-engineering educational program model based on STEM integration approach. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 11(2), 90-101. https://doi.org/10.18108/JEER.2008.11.2.90
  36. Moon, D. Y. (2009). A case study on elementary' attitudes engineering and engineering problems solving: Through applyng the education program of STEM Integration approach. Journal of The Korean Association of Practical Arts Education, 22(4), 51-66.
  37. 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, 1-13.
  38. 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(3), 296-318. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21199
  39. Moore, T. J., Johnston, A. C., & Glancy, A. W. (2020). STEM integration: A synthesis of conceptual frameworks and definitions. In Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 3-16). Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.
  40. Morrison , J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student, the school, the classroom. TIES (Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM), 20, 2-7.
  41. Nam, Y. K., Lee, S. J., & Paik, S. H. (2016). The impact of engineering integrated science (EIS) curricula on first-year technical high school students' attitudes toward science and perception of engineering. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 12, 1881-1907.
  42. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  43. National Research Council (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Under standing the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
  44. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  45. NGSS Lead States (2013), Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
  46. Olds, S., Harrell, D., & Valente, M. (2006). Get a grip! A middle school engineering challenge. Science Scope, 20, 21-25.
  47. Park, H., Kim, Y., Noh, S., Lee, J., Jung, J., Choi, Y., Paik, Y. (2012). Components of 4C-STEAM education and a checklist for the instructional design. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 12, 533-557.
  48. Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_6
  49. Roehrig, H. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M . S. (2012). Is ad ding the Eenough? 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
  50. Roehrig, H. (2017). A curricular framework for integrated STEM . In : Scienceand engineering integrated STEM education. Workshop conducted at the Pusan National University. Pusan, South Korea.
  51. Roth, W. M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of educational research, 71(3), 365-392. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003365
  52. Samuel, M., Robert, T. P., Ryan, J. D., & Dina, C. M. (2011). Racial and ethnic minority students' success in STEM education. New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.
  53. Seong, E., & Na, S. (2012). The effects of the integrated STEM education on science and technology subject self-efficacy and attitude toward engineering in high school student. Journal of Korean Technology Education Association, 12(1), 255-274.
  54. Shin, Y. J., & Han, S. K. (2011). A study of the elementary school teachers' perception in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) education. Journal of Korean elementary science education, 30(4), 514-523. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2011.30.4.514
  55. Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x
  56. Sneider, C. I., & Ravel, M. K. (2021). Insights from two decades of P-12 engineering education research. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 11(2), 5.
  57. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
  58. Witz, K. (2006). The participant as ally and essentialist portraiture. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 246-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284365