Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

The Introduction of Design Thinking to Science Education and Exploration of Its Characterizations as a Method for Group Creativity Education

집단 창의성 교육을 위한 방안으로서 과학 교육에 디자인적 사고의 도입과 속성 탐색

  • Received : 2014.01.03
  • Accepted : 2014.04.03
  • Published : 2014.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Group creativity has recently been heightened as a core competence in the 21st century. Therefore, there is a need for introduction of concepts on design thinking emphasizing the collaboration and empathy to science education as an effective method for fostering group creativity. Understanding design thinking for effective introduction should be preceded, so we explore the characterizations of design thinking through the generic model overlay method, focus group interview, and critical incident technique analysis. The results reveal 4 cluster units of competency and 15 core competencies. The collaboration cluster consists of 5 competencies and they are as follows: organization of the team, communication, self-control, persuasiveness, and initiative competency. The integrative thinking cluster consists of 3 competencies and they are as follows: analytical, strategic, and intuitive thinking competency. The human-centeredness cluster consists of 3 competencies and they are as follows: user-orientation, relationship building, and interpersonal understanding competency. The multidisciplinary cluster consists of 4 competencies and they are as follows: achievement orientation, information seeking, curiosity, and flexibility competency. Findings are expected to provide the basic data for developing programs and establishing strategies in order to foster group creativity as well as introducing design thinking to science education effectively.

최근 미래 인재가 갖추어야 할 21세기 핵심 역량으로서 집단 창의성이 강조됨에 따라, 집단 창의성 계발 방안으로서 협업과 공감을 강조하는 디자인적 사고를 과학 교육에 도입하는 방안을 고려해 볼 필요가 있다. 그리고 디자인적 사고의 효과적인 도입과 전략 마련을 위하여 디자인적 사고에 대한 이해가 선행될 필요가 있다. 이에 이 연구에서는 일반모델 덧씌우기 방법, 초점집단면접, 중요사건기법 분석을 통해 디자인적 사고의 속성을 규명하였다. 연구 결과, 4개의 역량군과 15개의 핵심 역량을 추출할 수 있었다. 즉, '팀의 조직', '의사소통', '자기조절', '설득력', '주도성'의 5개 역량으로 구성된 협업 역량군, '분석적 사고력', '전략적 사고력', '직관적 사고력'의 3개 역량으로 구성된 통합적 사고 역량군, '사용자 지향', '관계형성', '대인이해'의 3개 역량으로 구성된 인간중심 역량군, '성취지향', '정보수집', '호기심', '유연성'의 4개 역량으로 구성된 다학제 역량군을 들 수 있다. 이 연구 결과는 국내 과학 교육에 디자인적 사고를 효과적으로 도입하고, 집단 창의성 계발을 위한 프로그램 개발이나 전략 마련 등을 위한 기초 자료로서 활용될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Brown, T. (2010). Change by design [Ko, S. Y.]. Paju: Gimyoungsa Press.
  2. Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination, and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x
  3. Choi, K., Cho, Y., & Cho, D. (1998). A study for the middle school science curriculum to enhance creative problem solving abilities: Focusing on the 6th national curriculum and classroom observations. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 18(2), 149-160.
  4. Dubois, D. D. (1993). Competency-based performance improvement: A strategy for organizational change. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
  5. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  6. Goldman, S., Carroll, M. P., Kabayadondo, Z., Cavagnaro, L. B., Royalty, A. W., Roth, B., Kwek, S. H., & Kim, J. (Eds.). (2012). Proceedings from Design Thinking Research, Understanding Innovation '12: Assessing d.Learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker.
  7. Ha, J. H., Lee, B. I., & Ryu, H. S. (2011). Study on the creativity of an individual and a group level, and the effects of rewards in a group level. Korean Society for Creativity Education, 11(1), 89-108.
  8. Hwang, S. G., Rim, S. H., Kim, I. P., & Kim, A. S. (2004). Improvement of a problem solving via adapting creative thinking techniques. Secondary Education Research, 52(1), 383-396.
  9. Jeong, J., & Cho, Y. (2012). Analysis of the studies of creativity education in Korea: Focusing on approaches toward creativity education. The Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 24(4), 659-682.
  10. Joo, I. J., Kim, D. G., & Kim, Y. S. (2009). Analysis of operation realities on workers' capabilities understanding. Policy Research of Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training(2009-18).
  11. Joo, Y. J., Chung, Y. L., & Pyo, J. Y. (2011). The effectiveness of creative problem solving(CPS) learning on student science interest, science process skills, and science achievement. Research of Curriculum Instruction, 15(3), 657-667.
  12. Kang, E. C., & Kim, S. Y. (2002). An analogy-using instructional design for facilitating science creativity. The Journal of Educational Research, 23(2), 1-22.
  13. Kang, H. K., & Choi, S. Y. (2002). Elementary school science instructional methods for nurturing creativity. The Bulletin of Science Education, 14, 1-16.
  14. Kang, S. J. (2004). A study on secondary school homeroom teachers' competences. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 237-264.
  15. Kang, S. J., Kim, E. H., & Yoon, J. (2012). Study on science-gifted students' competency and development of competency dictionary. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(2), 353-370. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.2.353
  16. Kim, J. M., Ju, D. J., Lee, J. H., Kil, D. H., Ju, H. M., & Lee, J. E. (2007). Developing competency model for rural extension workers using generic model overlay method. Journal of Agricultural Education and Human Resource Development, 39(2), 115-138.
  17. Kim, S. G. (2007). A Study on the service failure types and service recovery in the civil affairs administration counters: Exploratory analysis using the CIT. Journal of Local Government Studies, 11(4), 35-60.
  18. Kim, S. Y., Ha, J. H., Park, K. T., & Kang, S. J. (2008). The analysis of student-student verbal interactions on the problem-solving inquiry which was developed for creativity-increment of the gifted middle school students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 18(1), 1-21.
  19. Kim, Y. C., Jeon, H. S., & Park, K. S. (2002). The instructional program of creative problem-solving: Development and experimental analysis. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 40(1), 129-158.
  20. Kim, Y. M., & Lee, E. H. (2008). The design management competence of Korean firms: Focusing on its factors, firm characteristics, and determinants. Journal of the Korean Society of Design Culture, 14(3), 118-136.
  21. Kim, Y. S. (2012). Purple people. Seoul: Kyobo Book Centre Press.
  22. Ko, E. S., Lee, K. H., & Song, S. H. (2008). The role of images between visual thinking and analytic thinking. Journal of Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics School Mathematics, 10(1), 63-78.
  23. Korean Educational Development Institute (2011). The future of Korean education. Seoul: Hakjisa Press.
  24. Kwek, D. (2011). Innovation in the classroom: Design thinking for 21st century learning (Master's Thesis). Stanford University.
  25. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
  26. Lee, H. E., & Lee, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). Proceedings from Korean Society of Design Science '09: Study on the Emerging Abilities of Designers in the High Concept Era.
  27. Lee, J. G. (2007). Qualitative research methodology. Paju: Beopmunsa Press.
  28. Lee, J. Y., & Rhi, J. M. (Eds.). (2010). Proceedings from Korean Society of Design Science '10: A Comparative Study on the Meaning of Design Thinking: In a View of Herbert Simon's Design Thinking and IDEO's Design Thinking.
  29. Lee, S. S. (2012). New directions in educational innovation as a response to the networked society. Teacher Education Research, 51(2), 282-296. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.51.2.201208.282
  30. Lucia, A. D., & Lepsinger, R. (1999). The art and science of competency models: Pinpointing critical success factors in organizations. New York, NY: Pfeiffer Press.
  31. Malone, T. W. (2008): What is collective intelligence and what will we do about it? In M. Tovey (Ed.). Collective intelligence: Creating a prosperous world at peace, pages 1-4. Oakton, VA: Earth Intelligence Network.
  32. Martin, R. L. (2009). Design thinking [Lee, G. S.]. Seoul: Woongjin Wings Press.
  33. Park, C. Y., Seo, H. A., & Kim, S. N. (2002). Need analysis on administration and financial support system for cyber inservice teachers training programs of creativity-centered science education. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 19(3), 79-103.
  34. Park, I., & Kang, S. (2011). Science teachers' perceptions on scientific and creative problem solving. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 31(2), 314-327.
  35. Park, I., & Kang, S. (2012). The development of assessment tools to measure scientific creative problem solving ability for middle school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32(2), 210-235.
  36. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
  37. Rothwell, W. J., & Lindholm, J. E., (1999). Competency identification, modelling and assessment in the USA. International Journal of Training and Development, 3(2), 90-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2419.00069
  38. Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York, NY: Basic Books Press.
  39. Seo, H. A., Yoon, K. S., Kwon, D. K., & Song, B. H. (2004). What makes Korea-Israel science teachers inservice program for fostering learners' creativity effective? Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(2), 343-356.
  40. Seong, J. S. (2003). An analysis of variables affecting creative problem solving abilities in science. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 11(1), 219-237.
  41. Shalley, C., Zhou, J., & Oldham, R. G. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here. Journal of Management, 30(6), 933-958.
  42. Shin, S. K. (2009). Key conditions for effective interdisciplinary communication. Korean Speech and Discourse Analysis, 15, 251-275.
  43. Shuen, A. (2008). Web 2.0: A strategy guide. CA: O'Reilly Media Press.
  44. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
  45. Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (2003). The development and utilization of core competency model. Seoul: PSI Consulting Press.
  46. Torrance, E. P. (2000). Research review for the Torrance test of creative thinking: Figural and verbal forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
  47. Yoon, H., & Woo, A. J. (2011). The development and implementation of teaching-learning program for enhancement of scientific creativity. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 11(2), 115-138.
  48. Young, G. (2010). Design thinking and sustainability. Sydney: Zumio Press.

Cited by

  1. The Suggestion of Design Thinking Process and its Feasibility Study for Fostering Group Creativity of Elementary-Secondary School Students in Science Education vol.35, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0443
  2. 역량 중심의 과학 영재 교육을 위한 과학자의 핵심 역량 모델 개발 및 타당화 vol.24, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.9722/jgte.2014.24.4.509
  3. Meanings of ‘Creativity and Integration’ in Science Education and Comments on Science Classroom Culture vol.18, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2014.18.3.827
  4. A study on gap of space and mediating effect for design creativity -Focusing on the space case of NHN, Nexon Korea, Hyundai Card- vol.33, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.17246/jkdk.2015..33.012
  5. 대학생들의 융합형 문제 해결 활동에서 문제발견 및 과학기술 분야 활용 양상 분석 vol.36, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.6.0867
  6. Trends in International Researches of Biology/Science Education ‒ Focused on Science Competency Research ‒ vol.46, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2018.46.1.111
  7. STEAM 수업에서 나타난 초등학생의 창의적 설계 과정 질적 분석 vol.37, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2018.37.2.093
  8. A Critical Reflection on the Concept of Education Design vol.28, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.28.2.201806.213
  9. 메이커 역량 모델 개발 및 초·중등 교육 현장에서의 메이커 교육 방안 탐색 vol.38, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.5.649
  10. A Qualitative Study on Changes in the Self-Esteem of Midlife Adults in the Furniture Design Program from Community-Based Art Education: Lifelong Learning vol.34, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2021.05.34.2.167
  11. Sustainable Education: Using Social Networks in Education for Change vol.13, pp.18, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810368