Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

The Suggestion of Design Thinking Process and its Feasibility Study for Fostering Group Creativity of Elementary-Secondary School Students in Science Education

과학 교육에서 초·중등학생의 집단 창의성 함양을 위한 디자인적 사고 프로세스의 제안 및 타당성 검토 연구

  • Received : 2015.05.06
  • Accepted : 2015.05.21
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we suggested the design thinking process that was possible to be introduced in science education and also examined the validity of the process in terms of group creativity. To do this, the design thinking process applicable to science education was selected from a variety of design thinking processes developed abroad, and then the process was modified and supplemented. We created the education program based on the developed design thinking process and applied it to high school students. The results revealed that we could offer the design thinking process through the five stages: 'understanding knowledge', 'empathy', 'sharing perspective', 'generating idea', and 'prototype'. With the results of the application of the program, we could confirm the relationship building and information seeking attributes in the understanding knowledge stage and the user-orientation, relationship building, and interpersonal understanding attributes in the empathy stage. We could also find the organization of the team attribute in the sharing perspective stage and the analytical strategic thinking attributes in the generating idea stage. Finally, the communication and analytical strategic thinking attributes in the prototype stage were confirmed. All of the key attributes of the group creativity found from skilled professionals were not confirmed from the students. However, we could ascertain the possibilities that the students should experience the process of group creativity and learn the relevant values through the developed design thinking process.

이 연구에서는 우리나라의 과학 교육에 도입 가능한 디자인적 사고 프로세스를 제안하고, 집단 창의성의 발현 측면에서 프로세스의 타당성을 검토하였다. 이를 위해 국외에서 개발된 다양한 디자인적 사고 프로세스로부터 우리나라 과학 교육 상황에 적용 가능한 디자인적 사고 프로세스를 선정하고, 이를 수정 및 보완하였다. 그리고 개발된 디자인적 사고 프로세스를 바탕으로 교육 프로그램을 만들고, 이를 고등학교 학생들에게 적용하였다. 연구 결과, '관련 지식 이해', '공감', '관점 공유', '아이디어 생성', '프로토타입'의 다섯 단계로 디자인적 사고 프로세스를 제안할 수 있었다. 그리고 이를 과학 교육 현장에 적용한 결과, 관련 지식 이해 단계에서는 관계 형성과 정보 수집 요소를, 공감 단계에서는 사용자 지향, 관계 형성, 대인 이해 요소를 확인할 수 있었다. 관점 공유 단계에서는 팀의 조직 요소를, 아이디어 생성 단계에서는 분석적, 전략적 사고력 요소를 확인할 수 있었다. 마지막으로, 프로토타입 단계에서는 의사소통과 분석적, 전략적 사고력 요소를 확인할 수 있었다. 집단 창의성 과정에 능숙한 전문가들로부터 발견되는 집단 창의성의 핵심 속성을 학생들로부터 모두 확인할 수는 없었지만, 이 연구에서 개발된 프로세스를 통해 우리나라 학생들이 집단 창의성이 발현되는 과정을 경험하고, 관련 가치를 배울 수 있는 가능성이 있음을 확인할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Antil, L. A., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualization, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 419-454. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035003419
  2. Brown, T. (2010). Change by design [Ko, S. Y.]. Paju: Gimyoungsa Press.
  3. Burnette, C. (1996). Design-based education: 12, Unpublished materials. University of the Arts.
  4. 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
  5. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. New York: Elsevier Science Press.
  6. Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A. (2003). Cooperative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups. New York: Psychology Press.
  7. Goldman, S., Carroll, M. P., Kabayadondo, Z., Cavagnaro, L. B., Royalty, A. W., Roth, B., Kwek, S. H., & Kim, J. (2012). Assessing learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. Design Thinking Research, Understanding Innovation.
  8. 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.
  9. Helms, J. E. (1992). A race is a nice thing to have: A guide to being a white person or understanding the white persons in your life. Topeka, KS: Content Communications.
  10. IDEO (2011). Design thinking for educators toolkit from http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/DTtoolkit_v1_062711.pdf.
  11. Jeon, J. H. (2013). An exploration of current state of collective intelligence in engineering colleges. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 27(1), 1-34.
  12. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
  13. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8
  14. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/File/EXHIBITB.pdf.
  15. Joung, Y. J. (2014). Theoretical investigation on implications of community of inquiry for science education toward community of inquiry in science classroom. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0303
  16. Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2014). Creative confidence [Park, J. S.]. Seoul: Chungrim Press.
  17. 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 the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
  18. Kwek, D. (2011). Innovation in the classroom: Design thinking for 21st century learning. Stanford University Master Thesis.
  19. Lee, D. H., Yoon, J. H., & Kang, S. J. (2014). The introduction of design thinking to science education and exploration of its characterizations as a method for group creativity education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0093
  20. Lee, H. J., Choi, Y. H., & Ko, Y. J. (2014). Designing collective intelligence-based instructional models for teaching socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0523
  21. Lee, J. S., & Eune, J. H. (2012). A study of open collaboration creative thinking system based on design thinking. Journal of Digital Design, 12(3), 180-190.
  22. 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
  23. Lee, Y. N., & Lee, S. S. (2009). Conceptual design principles of collective intelligence. Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 213-239.
  24. Malone, T. W. (2008). What is collective intelligence and what will we do about it?. In Mark Tovey. Collective intelligence: Creating a prosperous world at peace(1-4). Oakton, Virginia: Earth Intelligence Network.
  25. Martin, R. L. (2009). Design thinking [Lee, G. S.]. Seoul: Woongjin Wings Press.
  26. Mesmer-Magnus, J., & DeChurch, L. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013773
  27. Mioduser, D., & Kipperman, D. (2002). Evaluation/modification cycles in junior high students' technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015256928387
  28. Munari, B. (2010). Da cosa nasce cosa [Yang, Y. W.]. Paju: Doosungbooks.
  29. Nam, J. Y., & Kim, H. M. (2013). A study on necessity of application of design process in secondary school art education for enhancing creative problem solving ability. Korea Science & Art Forum, 10, 65-76.
  30. Never, H., Finsterwald, M., & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130120084339
  31. Nijstad, B. A., & Paulus, P. B. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press.
  32. Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. NY: Basic Books Press.
  33. Seelig, T. (2012). In genius: A crash course on creativity [Kim, S. H.]. Seoul: Eldorado Press.
  34. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007
  35. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241-271. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002241
  36. van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: When and why does it work?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 218-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.10.003
  37. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students' helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 361-428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2104_2
  38. Welch, M. (1998). Students' use of three-dimensional modelling while designing and making a solution to a technological problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008802927817
  39. Wright, K. B. (2000). Social support satisfaction, on-line communication apprehension, and perceived life stress within computer-mediated support groups. Communication Research Reports, 17, 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090009388760
  40. Yang, M. K. (2011). Exploring the principles of collaborative learning for realization of collective intelligence. The Korean Journal of Educational, 23(2), 457-483.
  41. You, Y. M. (2008). Learning power. Seoul: WisdomHouse Press.

Cited by

  1. STEAM 수업에서 나타난 초등학생의 창의적 설계 과정 질적 분석 vol.37, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2018.37.2.093
  2. Design Thinking in Education: Perspectives, Opportunities and Challenges vol.1, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0022
  3. 디자인 사고 기반 메이커 교육 프로그램이 초등학생의 창의적 문제해결력에 미치는 영향 vol.23, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2019.23.1.73
  4. 아두이노를 활용한 디자인씽킹 기반의 중학생 메이커 교육 프로그램 개발 및 적용 vol.44, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.35140/kiiedu.2019.44.1.162
  5. 디자인씽킹을 적용한 가정과 교수·학습자료 개발 및 학습 경험 분석: 지속가능한 소비 단원을 중심으로 vol.32, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.19031/jkheea.2020.03.32.1.145
  6. 디자인씽킹 기법을 활용한 캡스톤디자인 수업이 대학생의 수업 만족도에 미치는 효과 분석 vol.42, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2020.42.4.394