Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Perception about Maker Education by Invention Class Students

발명 교실 학생들의 메이커 교육에 대한 인식 분석

  • Received : 2017.11.22
  • Accepted : 2018.01.08
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The goal of this study is to analyze and understand invention classes, student's experiences, and motivation to suggest a future direction for K-12 Maker Education in Makerspace. We collected qualitative data using open-ended survey from 100 Invention class students. Through data analysis, we could explore perceptions of students about their inventions and meaningful experiences when they used technologies for enhancing their idea and problem finding ability using interpretive approach. We found that the main themes are (1) Perception and motivation to join in the invention class courses, (2) Perception and the normal method of obtaining the idea on invention, (3) Finding new technology for enhancing of knowledge for the invention, and (4) Relevance of the learning experience and invention activities in Makerspace. As a result of this study, we found that the educational programs using technologies should focus on supporting implement of prototypes instead of helping students create their own ideas in Makerspace.

본 연구는 발명 교육을 받고 있는 학생들의 일상생활 및 메이커스페이스 안에서 아이디어 산출 경험을 분석하여 학생들의 사고를 이해하는 목적을 가지고 있다. 이를 토대로 발명 교육에 학생들의 인식과 첨단 기술을 활용했을 때의 유의미한 발명에 대한 인식을 탐색하여, 미래 발명, 메이커 교육을 위한 시사점을 제공하려고 한다. 이에 교육청에서 운영하고 있는 발명 교실 학생들 100명에게 설문을 진행하여, 메이커스페이스 활용 경험에 대해 데이터를 수집하고 해석적 분석방법을 사용하여 데이터를 분석하였다. 여기서 발견된 중심 의미는 (1) 발명 교육에 대한 인식과 교육을 받게 된 동기 (2) 평소 발명 아이디어를 얻는 방법과 발명에 대한 인식 (3) 발명을 위한 지식의 확장으로서의 첨단 기술 (4) 메이커스페이스에서 첨단 기자재의 활용이 발명 아이디어 산출에 영향을 주는 지 여부였다. 연구 결과 메이커 스페이스 안에서의 첨단 기술 활용 교육은 학생들의 아이디어를 직접 산출을 지원하기 보다는, 시제품을 제작할 수 있도록 지원해야 한다는 것을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to "the social psychology of creativity.". Westview press.
  2. Bajarin, T. (2014, May 19). Why the Maker Movement Is Important to America's Future. Time, Retrieved from http://time.com/104210/aker-faire-maker-movement
  3. Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. Mac Arthur foundation series on digital learning-Youth, identity, and digital media volume, 119-142.
  4. Byun, M. K., & Cho, M. H. (2016). Examining ways to support engineering students for choosing a project topic in interdisciplinary collaboration. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 19(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.18108/jeer.2016.19.1.37
  5. Byun, M. K., Jo, J. H., & Cho, M. H. (2015). The analysis of learner's motivation and satisfaction with 3D printing in science classroom. Journal of the Korean Association for in Science Education, 35(5), 877-884. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.5.0877
  6. Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015). Making the Maker: A Means-to-an-Ends approach to nurturing the Maker mindset in elementary-aged children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.08.002
  7. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. innovations, 7(3), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00135
  8. Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity. Praeger Publishers/ Geenwood Publishing Group.
  9. Gardner, H. (2008). 5 minds for the future. Harvard Business School Publishing.
  10. Gardner, H. (2011). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. Basic Books.
  11. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Educ, State University New York Press.
  12. Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.). (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. London: Routledge.
  13. Howland, J. L., Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  14. Hwang, S. J. (2014). Discussion of 'The method of entrepreneurship development through the invention education'. Creative invention Educational Conference, 2, 135-137.
  15. Hyun, H. J., & Kim, K. H. (2014). Design⋅technology convergence for DIO type of training simulation. Korea Institute of Science and Art Forum, 18, 735-746.
  16. Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (Eds.). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Routledge.
  17. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective.
  18. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (1), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477
  19. Kalil, T. (2010). Remarks on innovation, education, and the Maker movement. New York Hall of Science. Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/10/innovation-education-and-the-m.html
  20. Karakus, T. (2014). Practices and Potential of Activity Theory for Educational Technology Research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer New York, 151-160.
  21. Kim, S. H. (2016a). Let's prepare for the intelligence information society future education. Retrieved from http://news.donga.com/View?gid=7882322&ate=20160501
  22. Kim, J. S. (2016b). Elementary School Pre-service Teachers Perception and Educational Needs toward Invention Education. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education. 28(2), 189-206.
  23. Kim, J. Y. (2017, Nobember, 11). 'Nuri Conflict' is now an old saying ... Reflects all of the 1 year budget of the Seoul Education Office, http://www.segye.com/newsView/20171110004679
  24. Kim, S. P., Byun, C. G., & Ha, H. H. (2014). Creativity and Entrepreneurship : What is The Relationship between Creativity and Entrepreneurship. Korean Management Consulting Review, 14(3), 67-78.
  25. Kim, Y. I., Choi, Y. H., Jeon, I. G., Lee, W. C., & Kwack, S. M. (2005). A study on the objective system and contents standards for an invention education through a school subject. The Journal of Vocational Education Research, 24(3), 123-146.
  26. Kim, Y. J., & Nho, B. S. (2012). A study of entrepreneurship education effect on the self-leadership and entrepreneurship. Journal of Digital Convergence, 10(6), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDPM.2012.10.6.023
  27. Kim, Y. O. (1996). Qualitative Research Methods and Design for Education and Research. Seoul: Muneumsa.
  28. Lee, E. S. (2015). Research Trends and Issues of Invention Education in Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education : Focussing on Journals in Korea. Journal of Practical Arts Education, 31(3), 333-356.
  29. Lee, B. W., Shim, K. C., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Perception of Science Educators about Invention Education in Science Education. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 37(1), 17-24.
  30. Lee, K. N., Lee, B. W., & Park, K. M. (2013). Comparative analysis of similar studies for establishing identity of the invention education. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 42-62.
  31. Lee, J. H., Park, G. B., Jin, S. U., Ryu, J. Y., Lee, S. C., An, S. H., & Jin, B. U. (2012). Understanding Characteristics of the Gifted in Invention for Establishing the Concept of the Gifted in Invention. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(3), 551-573. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.3.551
  32. Lee, J. H., Park, G. B., Jin, S. U, Jun, M. L. (2014). Teachers' Perception on Differentiation of Gifted Education in Invention from Gifted Education in Science. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 24(4), 597-612. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2014.24.4.597
  33. Lee, J. H., Park, K. B. (2014). Conceptions Toward ICT in Students of Giftedness in Invention Classes. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(3), 551-573. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.3.551
  34. Lee, J. H., Yang, H. I., & Sun, J. Y. (2012). Korean science and technology innovation ODA strategy. Policy Research, 1-346.
  35. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the Maker Movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4.
  36. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing modern knowledge press.
  37. McCue, T. J. (2011). First public library to create a maker space. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2011/11/15/first-public-libraryto-create-a-maker-space
  38. Milne, L. (2013). Nurturing the designerly thinking and design capabilities of five-year-olds: Technology in the new entrant classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9182-4
  39. Ministry of education (2014). 2015 released general remarks' highlights of the integrated curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.moe.go.kr/web/106888/ko/board/view.do?bbsId=339&boardSeq=56875
  40. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2014). Endless imagining room operations manual. Retrieved from https://www.kofac.re.kr/?page_id=1677&uid=4277&mod=document
  41. Mun, D. Y. (2012). The Process of Inventive Idea Creation of Inventively Gifted Elementary School Students: A Case Study on the Six Thinking Hats. Journal of Korean practical arts education, 25(2), 63-83.
  42. Park, G. Y., & Choi, H. S. (2011). A Study of teaching-learning practices in education center for the talented in invention. The Journal of Vocational Education Research, 30(4), 281-300.
  43. Park, Y, S. (2016). The Period of Makers. Kyung-gi: Kyobo Book Centre.
  44. Park, Y. S., Glenn. J., & Gorden, T. (2014). The UN Future Report 2045, Kyung-gi: Kyobo Book Centre.
  45. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500306
  46. Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (Eds.). (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1). London: Routledge.
  47. Pink, D. H. (2006). Whole new mind : why right-brainers will rule the future. Seoul: The Korea Economic Daily.
  48. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Routledge.
  49. Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Elsevier.
  50. Seo, H, A., Cho, S. H., Kim, H. W., Jung, H. C., & Sohn, Y. A. (2002). Invention Education Content Standards Development. KIPO Research Reports.
  51. Seo, H. E., Jeong, H. C., Son, J. W., Lee, B. J., & Maeng, H. J. (2006). Development of content standards for invention education. Seoul:Korean Educational Development Institute, Daejeon: Korea Intellectual Property Office.
  52. Shin, D. H. (2014), Collaboration between the human and the computer, Seoul: Communication Books.
  53. Sim, J. H., Lee, Y. L., & Kim, H. K. (2015). Understanding STEM, STEAM Education, and Addressing the Issues Facing STEAM in the Korean Context. Journal of the Korean Association for in Science Education, 35(4), 709-723. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0709
  54. Sohn, S. J. (2013). Creative economy perspective intellectual property professionals demand outlook. Science and Technology Policy, 193, 72-88.
  55. Son, J. W. (2014). The method of Invention educational approaches in science education curriculum dimension when developed integrated curriculum. Korea Association for Gifted Children Alliance Conference, 2014(1), 103-110.
  56. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
  57. Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2014). Click here to print a maker movement supply chain: how invention and entrepreneurship will disrupt supply chain design. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(2), 99-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12045
  58. Winn, W. (2002). Research into practice: Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331-351. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016068530070
  59. Yoo, G. U., Jung, J. W., Kim, Y. S., & Kim, H. B. (2012). Understanding of qualitative research methods. Seoul: Bakyoungsa.
  60. Yuk, G. C. (2005). Groping of a New Evaluation Method using the Knowledge State Analysis in the Selective Examination of Scientifical Gifted, Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 15(1), 37-48.
  61. Yuk, G. C., Choi, S. N., Han, S. L., Park, S. T., Ryu, J. Y., Mang, D. S., Won, H. J., Kim, Y. S., Lee, J. M., Chun, G. K. (2011). The recommendations freedom optional multilevel selection models and observations for selected gifted invention. The new paradigm of gifted education: Meta-type development of invention gifted education, Korea Invention Promotion Association.

Cited by

  1. 텍스트 마이닝을 이용한 메이커 운동의 트렌드 분석 vol.18, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5392/jkca.2018.18.12.468
  2. 학교내 무한상상실을 활용한 메이커교육 프로그램 적용이 초등학생의 창의적 문제해결력과 자기주도적 학습력에 미치는 효과 vol.40, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2021.40.1.55