Browse > Article

An Analysis of Middle school Technology Teachers' Stage of Concerns about Maker Education By Concerns-Based Adoption Model  

Kang, Sang-Hyun (Korea National University of Education graduate school)
Kim, Jinsoo (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
대한공업교육학회지 / v.44, no.2, 2019 , pp. 104-122 More about this Journal
Abstract
In the era of the fourth industrial revolution, maker education is drawing attention as a method of student-led education. At a time when interest in maker education is also growing in technology education, figuring out what stage of concern(SoC) a middle school technology teacher is critical to effective implementation. This study analyzed SoC in maker education by layer sampling among 400 middle school technology teachers using Concerns-based adoption model. SoC was then obtained by measuring the origin using the SoCQ and then presenting it as a SOCQ profile. Gender, training experience with two lower variables were analyzed using t verification, working cities, teaching experience with more than three lower variables were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Studies showed that SoC in maker education of middle school technology teachers showed the most similar characteristics to that of non-users. The difference in concern depending on gender was that male teachers were more concerned in maker education than female teachers. The difference in concern depending on the working city was that teachers working in the township were more concerned in the maker education than teachers working in the large city, and the difference in concern depending on the teaching career was higher among teachers with middle experience than those with low and high experience. There was also a higher stage of concern in maker education than in teachers without training experience. Therefore, it is necessary to provide middle school technology teachers with an introduction to the maker education and various information, teaching, learning and evaluation data to enhance overall concern and to support the use and evaluation of the maker education in the classroom by providing various teacher training and consulting on the maker education in the future. Further, through further study, we should conduct study that analyzes both Stage of Concern, Level of Use and Innovation Configuration, to put in the effort for effective settlement of maker education.
Keywords
Concerns-Based Adoption Model(CBAM); Stage of Concern; Maker Education; Technology Education;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 강인애, 김명기(2017). 메이커 활동(Maker Activity)의 초등학교 수업적용 가능성 및 교육적 가치 탐색. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 17(14), 487-515.
2 김경자(2003). 교육과정 개발 및 운영자로서의 초등교사, 교육과학연구, 34(1), 144-161.
3 김성인 외(2019). 아두이노를 활용한 디자인씽킹 기반의 중학생 메이커 교육 프로그램 개발 및 적용. 대한공업교육학회지, 44(1), 162-189.
4 류청산(2000). SPSS와 교육연구. 서울: 형설출판사.
5 김진옥(2018). 메이커 기반 STEAM 교육을 위한 수업 모형 개발. 한국교원대학교 대학원 박사학위논문. 미간행.
6 김혜나(2011). CBAM의 실행 측정 도구의 발전과정과 쟁점 분석. 부산대학교 대학원 석사학위논문. 미간행.
7 권낙원, 추광재, 박승렬(2006). 교육과정 실행 수준 결정 요인 탐색. 교육과정연구, 24(3), 87-106.
8 박승렬(2009). 교육과정 실행연구에서의 교사변인 논의의 가능성과 한계. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 9(1), 223-240.
9 이경진, 김경자(2005). '실행'을 중심으로 본 교육과정의 의미와 교사의 역할. 교과교육학연구, 13(4), 820-850.
10 한국교육개발원(2018). 교육통계분석자료집-유초중등교육통계편. 충북: 진천.
11 Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and making in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann, & C. Büching (Eds.), Fablabs: of machines, makers and inventors. Bieledfeld: Transcript Publishers.
12 Bullock, S., & Sator, A. (2015). Maker pedagogy and science teacher education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 61-87.
13 Fuller, F. F. (1970). Personalized education for teachers: An introduction for teacher educators. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
14 George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring Implementation in Schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.
15 Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.
16 Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.   DOI
17 Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2005). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes(2nd ed). Boston: Pearson. 양성관 외(역)(2011). 학교변화와 혁신: 패턴, 원리, 당면과제. 서울: 학지사.
18 Hord, S. M. et al. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development. 김경자(역)(1993). 교육과정 혁신. 서울: 교육과학사.