Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development and Application of Integrative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Education Model Based on Scientific Inquiry

과학 탐구 기반의 통합적 STEM 교육 모형 개발 및 적용

  • Received : 2013.12.11
  • Accepted : 2014.02.26
  • Published : 2014.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Integrative STEM education is an engineering design-based learning approach that purposefully integrates the content and process of STEM disciplines and can extend its concept to integration with other school subjects. This study was part of fundamental research to develop an integrative STEM education program based on the science inquiry process. The specific objectives of this study were to review relevant literature related to STEM education, analyze the key elements and value of STEM education, develop an integrative STEM education model based on the science inquiry process, and suggest an exemplary program. This study conducted a systematic literature review to confirm key elements for integrative STEM education and finally constructed the integrative STEM education model through analyzing key inquiry processes extracted from prior studies. This model turned out to be valid because the average CVR value obtained from expert group was 0.78. The integrative STEM education model based on the science inquiry process consisted of two perspectives of the content and inquiry process. The content can contain science, technology, engineering, and liberal arts/artistic topics that students can learn in a real world context/problem. Also, the inquiry process is a problem-solving process that contains design and construction and is based on the science inquiry. It could integrate the technological/engineering problem solving process and/or mathematical problem solving process. Students can improve their interest in STEM subjects by analyzing real world problems, designing possible solutions, and implementing the best design as well as acquire knowledge, inquiry methods, and skills systematically. In addition, the developed programs could be utilized in schools to enhance students' understanding of STEM disciplines and interest in mathematics and science. The programs could be used as a basis for fostering convergence literacy and cultivating integrated and design-based problem-solving ability.

통합적 STEM 교육은 과학, 기술, 공학, 수학의 내용과 과정을 체계적이고 의도적으로 통합하려는 공학적 설계기반 학습을 말하며, 다른 교과와 통합을 통해 더욱 발달할 수 있다. 이 연구는 과학 탐구 기반의 통합적 STEM 교육 프로그램의 개발과 효과 검증을 위한 기초연구이며, STEM 교육 관련 문헌 연구를 통해 STEM 교육의 가치와 핵심요소를 분석하고 과학 탐구 기반의 통합적 STEM 교육 모형의 개발 및 모형을 적용하여 개발한 대표적인 예시 프로그램을 제시하는 것이다. 모형에 포함될 요소를 확정하기 위해 문헌 분석을 실시하였고, 선행 연구에 포함된 내용과 탐구 과정을 분석하여 통합적 STEM 교육 모형을 구성하였다. 전문가의 내용 타당도 분석 결과 CVR 값의 평균은 0.78로 구성된 모형은 내용 타당도가 있는 것으로 판단되었다. 이 STEM 교육 모형은 내용과 탐구 과정의 두 가지 측면으로 나누어진다. 내용의 측면은 실생활 문제에서 경험할 수 있는 과학, 기술, 공학, 수학 그리고 인문사회와 예술적 소재까지 포괄할 수 있으며, 탐구 과정은 설계와 제작을 기반으로 한 문제해결 과정이다. 탐구 과정은 과학 탐구를 기반으로 하여 기술 공학적 문제해결 과정을 적용할 수 있도록 구성하였다. 학생들은 실생활 문제를 분석하고, 설계하고 제작하는 과정에서 STEM 교과에 대한 흥미를 향상시킬 수 있고 문제에 포함된 지식과 탐구의 방법과 기능을 체계적으로 학습할 수 있다. 개발된 프로그램은 학교 현장에서 활용되어, STEM 교과에 대한 이해도 증진과 과학, 수학에 대한 흥미를 높이고, 과학기술 기반의 융합적 소양과 설계 기반의 문제해결력을 배양하는 데 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schun, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of science education and technology, 17(5), 454-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6
  2. Austin. C. Y. (2009). Factors influencing African American high school students in career decision-making self efficacy and engineering related goal intentions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
  3. Bae, S. (2009). The development of activity-centered STEM education program of electricity, electronics, and communication area in industrial technical high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Korea National University of Education, Chungbuk, Korea.
  4. Bae, S. (2011). The development and application of activity-centered STEM education program of electrics technology area in middle school. The Journal of Korean Institute of Industrial Education, 36(1), 1-22.
  5. Bae, S., & Geum, Y. (2010a). The recognition and needs of chemical industry teachers about STEM education of chemical industry area in industrial technical high school. The Journal of Korean Institute of Industrial Education, 35(1), 44-67.
  6. Bae, S., & Geum, Y. (2010b). Development model of activity-centered STEM education program in industrial technical high school. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 15(4), 345-368.
  7. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  8. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
  9. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  10. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
  11. Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18032.x
  12. Bisogno, J., & JeanPierre, B. (2008). Virtual bridge design, Science Scope, 26-33.
  13. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  14. Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. Technology Teacher, 64(1), 6-8.
  15. Burney, V. H. (2008). Applications of social cognitive theory to gifted education. Roeper Review, 30, 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190801955335
  16. Bybee, R. W. (1985). NSTA yearbook: science/technology/society. Washington, DC.: National Science Teachers Association.
  17. Bybee, R. W. (1987). Teaching about science-technology-society(STS) : View of science education in the United State. School Science and Mathematics, 87(4), 274-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1987.tb11706.x
  18. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. The Technology Teacher, 60(1), 23-28.
  19. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 Vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
  20. Byeon, S. H. (2010). Development and application of invention educational program for students' creativity. Unpublished master's thesis. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  21. Carroll, D. R. (1997). Bridge engineering for the elementary grades. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(3), 221-226. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00288.x
  22. Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (2011). Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IMaST) Modules. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from http://cemast.illinoisstate.edu/.
  23. Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
  24. Cho, H. (1994). Science-Technology-Society and science education. Seoul, Korea: Kyoyookbook Publishing Company.
  25. Cho, H., & Park, S. (1995). The theory of science and science education. Seoul, Korea: Kyoyookbook Publishing Company.
  26. Cho, J., Choi, Y., & Kim, S. (2011). Development of integrative STEM invention education program model of chemical area. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 17(1), 165-188.
  27. Choi, B. S., & Lee, S. W. (2004). The development of TSM integration program for making hands-on activity in the elementary school: Centered on making a model boat. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 17(3), 191-205.
  28. Choi, K. (1996). Understanding and application of STS education. Seoul, Korea: Kyohak Publishing Company.
  29. Choi, K. (1997). An analysis of STS material and activity in the middle school science textbooks published by the sixth curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 17(4), 425-433.
  30. Choi, Y., Moon, D., Kang, K., Lee, J., & Lee, J. (2008). The Development and the effect of educational program based on STEM for the inventively gifted. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 8(2), 143-164.
  31. Congress of the United States of America[CUSA]. (2009). American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. Washington DC: Author.
  32. Daugherty, J. L. (2009). Engineering professional development design for secondary school teachers: A multiple case study. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 5-19.
  33. De Romero, N., Slater, P., & DeCristofano, C. (2006). Design challenges "ELL-elementary". Science Children, 34-37.
  34. Department for Education (2013a), The national curriculum in England Framework document. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/.
  35. Department for Education (2013b), Reform of the national curriculum in England. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/.
  36. Everett, L. J., Imbrie, P. K., & Morgan, J. (2000). Integrated curricula: Purpose and design. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00511.x
  37. Farrior, D., Hamill, W., Keiser, L., Kessler, M., LoPresti, P., McCoy, J., Pomeranz, S., Potter, W., & Tapp, B. (2007). Interdisciplinary lively application projects in calculus courses. Journal of STEM Education, 8(3&4), 50-61.
  38. Fitzgerald, M. (2004). Cereal box design: An interdisciplinary graphics activity. Techdirection, 22-25.
  39. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of Creative Class. NY: Basic Books.
  40. Fortus, D., Dershimer. C. R., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2004). Design-Based Science and Student Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081 - 1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040
  41. Frazier, W., & Sterling, D. (2008). Motor mania: Revving up for technological design, The Technology Teacher, 5-12.
  42. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  43. Hacker, M., & Burghardt, M. D. (2004). Technology education: Learning by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  44. Harms, H. R., & Janosz, D. A. (2012). Pre-Engineering. New York: McGraw Hill
  45. Hofstein, A. (1988). Discussions over STS at the fourth IOSTE symposium. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 357-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100403
  46. Hong, J. (2001). The effects of decision-making centered - STS(Science-Technology -Society) classes on the students' attitudes towards science and perceptions about STS. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 21(2), 422-432.
  47. Hughes, B. (2009). How to start a STEM team. The Technology Teacher, 69(2), 27-29.
  48. Hutchinson, P. (2002). Children designing & engineering: Contextual learning units in primary design and technology. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 122-145.
  49. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association[ITEEA]. (2009). The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering. Reston, VA: Author.
  50. International Technology Education Association[ITEA]. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  51. International Technology Education Association[ITEA]. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Students assessment, professional development, program standards, Reston, VA: Author.
  52. Jang, K. Y. (2009). The changes of teacher perceptions on professional development program about multi-subject integration-based invention. Unpublished master's thesis. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  53. Jang, S. (2008). Creative invention problem solving based on STEM. Seoul, Korea: Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO).
  54. Jensen, R. (2001). Dream society. IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
  55. Jung, Y. (1997). A Study on Freudenthal's mathematising instruction theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  56. Karsnitz, J. R., O'Brien, S., & Hutchinson, J. P. (2009). Engineering design: An instruction. New York: Delmar.
  57. Kim, B. Y. & Lee, Y. S. (2003). A study of mathematical problem solving in korea. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education, 42(2), 137-157.
  58. Kim, J. (2007). Exploration of STEM education as a new integrated education for technology education. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 7(3), 1-29.
  59. Kim, J. (2011). A cubic model for STEAM education. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 124-139.
  60. Kim, J., Byeon, S., Shin, J., Lee, G., & Bae, I. (2011). Recent trends of education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in the U.S.(Report 2012-001), Seoul, Korea: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Evaluation and Planning.
  61. Kim, K., Kim, S., Kim, N., Park, S., Kim, J., Park, H., & Jung, S. (2008). Characteristics of achievement trend in Korea's middle and high school students from International Achievement Assessment(TIMSS/PISA) (REE 2008-3-1). Seoul, Korea: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  62. Kim, S., Chung, Y. L., Woo, A. J., & Lee, H. (2012). Development of a theoretical model for STEAM education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 388-401.
  63. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social cognitive framework for designing pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3
  64. Ko, J., Do, J., Cho, J., Kim, M., Choi, I., Song, M., & Kim, S. (2007). National assessment of educational achievement in 2005: The result analysis of the mathematics achievement test(RRE 2007-3-4). Seoul, Korea: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  65. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science classroom: putting learning by design into practice. Journal of Learning Science, 12(4), 495-547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
  66. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity[KOFAC]. (2012a). Teacher training program for STEAM education. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  67. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity[KOFAC]. (2012b). Introduction of STEAM education policy. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  68. Kwon, H., & Lee, H. (2008). Motivation issues in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education: A meta-analytic approach. Secondary Education Research, 56(3), 125-148.
  69. Kwon, H., & Park, K. (2009). Engineering design: A facilitator for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, Journal of Science Education, 33, 207-219.
  70. Kwon, H., Park, K., & Lee, H. (2009). Research trends on the integrative efforts in technology education: Reviews of the relevant journals, Secondary Education Research, 57(1), 245-274.
  71. Kwon, J. S. (1991). Problems of discipline centered science education and a method of the utilization of everyday materials in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 11(1), 117-126.
  72. Kwon, Y., Nam. J., Lee, K., Lee, H., & Choi, K. (2013). Science education: From thinking to learning. Seoul, Korea: Bookshill Publishing Company.
  73. LaPorte, J. E., & Sanders, M. (1993). Integrating technology, science, and mathematics in the middle school. The Technology Teacher, 52(6), 17-21.
  74. LaPorte, J. E., & Sanders, M. (1996). Technology science mathematics: Connection activities binder. Vol. 52. Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
  75. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  76. Lee, D. (2011). The need for STEM Education, awareness and demand for technology teachers. Unpublished master's thesis. Chungnam National University, Daejon, Korea.
  77. Lee, H., Kwon, H., Nam, J., Park, K., Seo, B., Son, D., Oh, Y., Oh, H., Lee, S., Lee, Y., & Jung, H. (2012). The understanding and application of science inquiry and design-based STEM/STEAM education. Seoul, Korea: Bookshill Publishing Company.
  78. 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), 301-326.
  79. Lee, S., & Rho, T. (2011). The development of instructional design model for STEM integrated approach in technology education. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 11(3), 1-20.
  80. 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
  81. Lomask, M. (1996). Extended performance tasks for Mathematics, Science & Technology(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 402 346).
  82. Lou, S-J., Shih, R-C, Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K-H. (2011). The Impact of Problem-Based Learning Strategies on STEM Knowledge Integration and Attitudes: An Exploratory Study among Female Taiwanese Senior High School Students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9114-8
  83. Lou, S-J., Shih, R-C., Tseng, K-H., Diez, C. R., & Tsai, H-Y. (2010). How to Promote Knowledge Transfer through a Problem-Based Learning Internet Platform for Vocational High School Students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(5), 539-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.489938
  84. Mcdermott, R., & Webber, V. (1998). When is math or science? In J. Greeno, & S. Goldman(eds). Thinking practices (pp. 321-340) Marwah, New Jersey: Lawence Erlbaum Association.
  85. McGinnis, J., McDuffe, A., & Gradber, A. (2006). Perceptions of making connections between science and mathematics in a science methods course. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 18(2), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174685
  86. Merill, C., & Daugherty, J. (2010). STEM education and leadership: A mathematics and science partnership approach. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2). 21-34.
  87. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development[MOEHRD]. (1999). National middle school curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  88. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development[MOEHRD]. (2001). National high school curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  89. Ministry of Education and Science Technology[MEST]. (2007). 2007 Revised national science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  90. Ministry of Education and Science Technology[MEST]. (2008). National middle school curriculum(III): Mathematics, Science, Technology.Home Economics. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  91. Ministry of Education and Science Technology[MEST]. (2009). 2009 Revised national high school curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  92. Ministry of Education and Science Technology[MEST]. (2010). The 2011 policy report of MEST. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  93. Ministry of Education and Science Technology[MEST]. (2011). The 2nd national plan for fostering science-technology human resources. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  94. Ministry of Education and Science Technology[MEST]. (2012). The 2012 policy report of MEST. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  95. Ministry of Education[MOE]. (2013). The introduction and policy direction of STEAM education. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  96. Minogue, J., & Guentensberger, T. (2006). Paper tower: Building students' understanding of technological design, Science Scope, 18-20.
  97. 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.
  98. Murray, J., & Bartelmay, K. (2005). Inventors in the making. Science and Children, 40-44.
  99. National Academy of Engineering[NAE]. (2002). Diversity in engineering: Managing the workforce of the future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  100. National Academy of Engineering[NAE]. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  101. National Academy of Engineering[NAE]. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  102. National Center for Education Statistics[NCES]. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering and mathematics(STEM) in postsecondary education.(NCES 2009-161). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  103. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics[NCTM]. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  104. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics[NCTM]. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  105. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics[NCTM]. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  106. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics[NCTM]. (2000). Principles and Standard for School mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  107. National Research Council[NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  108. National Research Council[NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  109. National Research Council[NRC]. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  110. National Research Council[NRC]. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  111. National Research Council[NRC]. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  112. National Research Council[NRC]. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  113. New York State Department of Education[NYSDE]. (1995). Principles of engineering: A MST approach to technology education. Albany. Author.
  114. Norton, S. J. (2006). The use of design practice to teach mathematics and science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 19-44.
  115. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for tomorrow's world. Volume 1: Analysis. Paris: OECD.
  116. Park, H. (2003). The development of activity-centered MST program through making solar cell car for fifth and sixth grade elementary school. Unpublished master's thesis. Korea National University of Education, Chungbuk, Korea.
  117. Pearson, F., & Young, A. T. (Eds). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  118. Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  119. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Co. Inc.
  120. Poster, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Oliver, S., & Johnson, D. (2006). A systems model of innovation processes in university STEM education. Journal of Engineering, 95(1), 13-24.
  121. Project the Lead Way[PTLW]. (2011). Biomedical sciences. http://www.pltw.org/.
  122. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20048
  123. Racow, S. J. (1986). Teaching science as inquiry. Bloomington, In: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
  124. Rogers, M. A., Volkmann, M. J., & Abell, S. K. (2007). Science and mathematics: A natural connection. Science and Children, 60-61.
  125. Roth, W-M. (1991). Learning Science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 38(7), 768-790.
  126. Roth, W-M. (1993). Problem-centered learning for the integration of mathematics and science in a constructivist laboratory: A case study. School Science & Mathematics. 93(3), 13-122.
  127. Roth, W-M. (1995). Authentic school science : knowing and learning in open-inquiry school laboratories. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  128. Roth, W-M. (1996). Learning to talk engineering design: Results from an interpretive study in a grade 4/5 classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 6(2), 107-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419920
  129. Roth, W-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1031
  130. Rowell, P. W., Gustafson, B. J., & Guilbert, S. M. (1999). Characterization of technology within an elementary science program. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008899911931
  131. Sanders, M. (1999). Technology education in the middle level school: Its role and purpose. NASSP Bulletin, 83(608), 34-44.
  132. Sanders, M. (2006). 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.
  133. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
  134. Sanders, M. (2011). An introduction to integrative STEM education. International Seminar for integrative STEAM Education, Daegu, Korea.
  135. Sanders, M., & Wells, J. (2011). Integrative STEM Education definition. Available: http://www.soe.vt.edu/istemed.
  136. Scarborough, S. R., & White, C. (1994). PHYS-MA-TECH: An integrated partnership. Journal of Technology Education, 5(2), 31-39.
  137. Sinn, J., Walthour, S., & Haren, D. (1995). Technology-based math and science applications. The Technology Teacher, 55(2), 16-24.
  138. Smith, K. L., & Burghardt, D. (2007). Teaching engineering at the K-12 level: Two perspectives. The Technology Teacher, 66(7), 20-24.
  139. Song, J. B. (2010). A Study on the development of classroom-friendly robot-education model and program for the STEM integration education. Unpublished master's thesis. Korea National University of Education, Chungbuk, Korea.
  140. Torp, L. T. & Sage, S. M. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-16 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  141. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
  142. Venville, G. Rennie, L., & Wallace, J. (2004). Decision making and sources of knowledge: How students tackle integrated tasks in science, technology, and mathematics. Research in Science Education, 34, 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000033762.75329.9b
  143. Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a discipline-based culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 294-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17424.x
  144. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language, M.I.T. Press.
  145. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  146. Wang, S., & Lin, S. (2007). The application of social cognitive theory to web-based learning through NetPorts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 600-612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00645.x
  147. Wender, I. (2004). Relation of technology, science, self-concept, interest, and gender. Journal of Technology Studies, 30(3), 43-51.
  148. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  149. Yager, R. E. (1990). The Science/technology/society movement in the United States: Its origin, evolution, and rationale. Social Education, 54(4), 198-201.
  150. Yager, R. E. (1992). A STS approach to human biology instruction affects, achievement and attitude of elementary science majors. The America Biology Teacher, 54(6), 349-355. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449509
  151. Yakman, G., (2008). $ST\Sigma@M$ Education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education. Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology 2008 Annual Proceedings. Netherlands.
  152. Yang, J. (2009). The effect of 3D CAD based STEM education on spatial visualization ability of elementary school's students. Unpublished master's thesis. Chongju National University, Chungbuk, Korea.
  153. Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge University.

Cited by

  1. Development and Application of the Scientific Inquiry-based STEAM Education Program about Earthquakes vol.37, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2016.37.7.476
  2. The Effects of Engineering Design and Scientific Inquiry based STEAM Education Programs on the Interest, Self-Efficacy and Career Choices of Middle School Students vol.18, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2014.18.3.513
  3. 국가 경쟁력 강화를 위한 중학교 영재 학생들의 과학, 수학, 기술 및 공학에 대한 인식 조사 vol.25, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.9722/jgte.2015.25.3.363
  4. 수학 기반 융합 수업 모형의 가능성 탐색 vol.18, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2015.18.2.107
  5. 고등학생을 위한 시스템 사고 기반의 융합인재교육 프로그램 개발 및 적용 효과 vol.35, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.1007
  6. 영재 학생들의 공학 설계 기반 통합적 STEM 연구 활동이 창의적 공학문제해결 성향 및 공학에 대한 태도에 미치는 영향 vol.37, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.4.719
  7. 공학설계 측면에서 한국 STEAM 프로그램 분석틀 제안 vol.11, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2018.11.1.63
  8. 유아를 위한 공학중심 융합인재교육(E-STEAM)프로그램의 개발 및 효과 vol.19, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5392/jkca.2019.19.11.211