DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exploring the Exemplary STEAM Education in the U.S. as a Practical Educational Framework for Korea

  • Yakman, Georgette (Virginia Technology and Engineering Educators Association Past President & STEAM Consultant) ;
  • Lee, Hyonyong (Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2012.07.31
  • Accepted : 2012.08.23
  • Published : 2012.08.31

Abstract

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education in the U.S. has been identified as a significant national reform in K-16 education and curriculum in order to prepare students for the global economy of the 21st century. Korea has been facing very similar challenges to improve science, technology and mathematics education, in particular, the affective aspect of learning science and mathematics. Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) education has become a crucial issue in Korean education system. The major purpose of this exploratory study is to inform the exemplary framework of STEAM education in the U.S. for Korea and to provide descriptive and analytical accounts on STEAM teaching and learning as an innovative integrated convergence education. This study integrates the outcomes of research papers on STEM education and recent literature. It employs content analysis methodology qualitatively by analyzing and synthesizing the findings, conclusions, discussions, and recommendations of accumulated research works related to STEM/STEAM education. This study will help gain a stronger sense of the STEAM framework and will guide to develop the educational programs for Korea.

Keywords

STEM education;STEAM education;framework;Science education;Technology education;Engineering education;Arts education;Mathematics education

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF)

References

  1. Paulos, J. A. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: Basic Books Harper Collins.
  2. Petrina, S. (1998). Multidisciplinary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(2), 36.
  3. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1994). Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.
  4. Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become (1st ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles Merill.
  5. Ruggiero, V. R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum. New York: Harper & Row.
  6. Rutherford, F.J. & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  7. Salinger, G. L. (2005). The engineering of technology education. The Journal of Technology Studies.
  8. 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. Section IV: Issues in STEM Education.
  9. Sanders, M., Kwon, H., Park, K. & Lee, H. (2011). Integrative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education: Contemporary trends and issues. Secondary Education Research, 59(3), 729-762.
  10. Wicklein, R. C. S., John W. . (1995). Case Studies of Multidisciplinary Approaches to Integrating Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education, 6(2).
  11. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  12. Yakman, G, (2008). $ST{\Sigma}@M$ Education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education. Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology 2008 Annual Proceedings. Netherlands.
  13. Zuga, K. (1993). A role for alternative curriculum theories in technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 30(4), 19.
  14. Lee, H., & Park. K. (2010). Elementary School Students' Images of Scientists and Engineers, Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 16(4), 61-82. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.17055/jpaer.2010.16.4.61
  15. Marzano, R. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective Instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  16. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  17. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  18. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2010). The 2nd National Master Plan for Science and Technology Education. Seoul: MEST.
  19. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2011). The 2009 revised science curriculum. Seoul: MEST.
  20. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2012). 2012 national plan for STEAM education . Seoul: MEST.
  21. Minnis, M., & John-Steiner, V. (2005). The Challenge of Integration in Interdisciplinary Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2005(102), 45.
  22. Mishook, J. J., & Kornhaber, M. L. (2006). Arts Integration in an Era of Accountability. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(4), 3.
  23. Montessori, M. (1975). Dr. Montessori's Own Handbook (14th, 1st Schocken Edition ed.). New York: Schoecken.
  24. National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  25. National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  26. National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE]. (2004). Moving into the Future: National Standards for Physical Education (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  29. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  30. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
  31. OECD (2010). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.
  32. Featherstone, J. L. (1986). Forward. In B. Kimball (Ed.), Orators & philosophers: A history of the idea of liberal education. New York: Teacher College Press.
  33. Firlik, R. (1996). Can We Adapt the Philosophies and Practices of Reggio Emilia, Italy, for Use in American Schools? Early Childhood Education Journal, 23(4), 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02353340
  34. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
  35. Froebel. (1947). Froebel. In R. Ulich (Ed.), Three thousand years of educational wisdom: Selections from great documents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  36. Furth, H. G. (1970). Piaget for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
  37. Gardner, P. L. (1997). The Roots of Technology and Science: A Philosophical and Historical View. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2).
  38. Hersh, R. (1994). Fresh Breezes in the Philosophy of Mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics, education and philosophy: An international perspective Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
  39. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  40. Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  41. Hwang , C. (March 27, 2011). "한국 청소년 '공동체 의식 희박" Yonhap News. http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2011/03/26/0200000000AKR20110326064600004.HTML. Retrieved April 17th, 2011. (in Korean).
  42. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston VA: Author.
  43. KBS. (2011a). KBS World - Language. http://rki.kbs.co.kr/english/korea/aboutkorea/korea_aboutlanguage.htm. Accessed: April 20, 2011
  44. KBS. (2011b). KBS World Symbol. http://rki.kbs.co.kr/english/korea/aboutkorea/ korea_aboutsymbol.htm. Accessed: April 20, 2011
  45. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity[KOFAC]. (2011). STEAM Education. Seoul: KOFAC.
  46. 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.
  47. Laporte, J., & Sanders, M. (1993). The T/S/M integration project. The Technology Teacher, 52(6), 5.
  48. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  49. Lauda, D. P. (1980). Technology Education: A Concept in Transition. Paper presented at the Technology Education Symposium 80.
  50. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  51. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
  52. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE]. (2007). Preparing STEM Teachers: The Key to Global Competitiveness. Washington, DC: Author.
  53. Baek, Y., Park, H., Kim, Y., Noh, S., Park, JY, Lee, J., Jeong, J-S, Choi, Y., & Han, H. (2011). Steam education in Korea. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 11(4), 149-171. (in Korean).
  54. Baek, Y., Kim, Y., Noh, S., Park, H., Lee, J., Jeong, J-S, Choi, Y., Han, H., & Choi, J. (2012). Basic research for establishing the direction of STEAM education in Korea. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity.
  55. Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2000). Interaction: the relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary school curriculum. London: Engineering Council. p. 41
  56. Berger, E. H., & Pollman, M. J. (1996). Multiple Intelligences: Enabling Diverse Learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 23(4), 249. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02353348
  57. Bloom, B. S. (1974). An introduction to mastery learning theory. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Schools, society and mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  58. Choi, K. (2011). Lifelong learning Korea's strategy for standards education. http://www.iso.org/iso/bonus_korea_strategy_for_eduction Accessed: April 20, 2011.
  59. Chu, B. & Park, J. (1996). Moral education in Korea: Curriculum and teacher education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Georgia Council for the Social Studies, Atlanta, GA.
  60. Dakers, J. R. (2006). Towards a philosophy for technology education. Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  61. de Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the technology is applied science. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7-15.
  62. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
  63. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
  64. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Constructivism. In Psychology of learning for instruction. New York: Pearson.
  65. Driver, D., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 8.
  66. Ernest, P. (Ed.). (1994). Mathematics, Education and Philosophy: An international perspective. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
  67. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for tomorrow's world. Volume 1: Analysis. Paris: OECD.
  68. Onishi, N. (April 2, 2006). In a Wired South Korea, Robots Will Feel Right at Home http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/asia/02robot.html Accessed: April 20, 2011

Cited by

  1. A Study on Elementary Students' Perceptions of Science, Engineering, and Technology and on the Images of Scientists, Engineers, and Technicians vol.34, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.8.0719
  2. Hands-On Math and Art Exhibition Promoting Science Attitudes and Educational Plans vol.2017, pp.2090-4010, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9132791
  3. A Theoretical Framework for Developing an Intercultural STEAM Program for Australian and Korean Students to Enhance Science Teaching and Learning pp.1573-1774, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9922-y
  4. Developing critical and creative thinking skills through STEAM integration in chemistry learning vol.1156, pp.1742-6596, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1156/1/012033