Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2015.25.1.37

A Study of the Key Factors and Expected Outcomes of Convergence Education using a Delphi Technique  

Cho, Eunbyul (Seoul National University)
Lee, Seon-Young (Seoul National University)
Shin, Jongho (Seoul National University)
Hong, Yoon-Jeong (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Gifted/Talented Education / v.25, no.1, 2015 , pp. 37-58 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of convergence education through the Delphi survey targeting 19 teaching professionals. The Delphi survey was completed three times, drawing key factors and expected outcomes which explain the characteristics of convergence education. The key factors of convergence education were classified as 'educational design', 'teachers' expertise' and 'educational environment'. Educational design focused on the qualitative characteristics of leaner's experience. Teachers' expertise was teacher's active and supportive roles in relationship with fellow teachers and learners. Educational environment was the psychological factors with which various subjects can realize convergence education. The expected outcomes were classified as 'learner's cognitive characteristics', 'leaner's affective characteristics', and 'teacher and educational system'. The expected outcomes of convergence education leads to psychological changes for learners to increase the advanced learning experiences and to pursue values of education itself. Compared to similar concepts, convergence education has some unique characteristics in which many of regular learners in educational settings and various topics are targeted. It also focuses on psychological factors of various subjects and qualitative natures of leaners' learning experience for the advanced learning. Especially, these results have significance in understanding the nature of convergence education, focusing on educational practices through teachers'perspectives.
Keywords
Convergence education; STEAM; Delphi technique; Perception of teachers;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 9  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 강현석 (2004). 교과별 지식이론을 통한 교과교육 이론화 방안의 서설적 연구. 교육과학연구, 35(2), 157-188.
2 국가과학기술위원회 (2008). 국가융합기술 발전 기본계획(2009-2013).
3 국립국어원 (2014). 표준국어대사전. http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/main.jsp (검색일: 2014. 9.10)
4 권난주, 안재홍 (2012). 융합 및 통합 과학교육 관련 국내 연구 동향 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(2), 265-278.   DOI
5 권성호, 강경희 (2008). 교양 교육에서의 융합적 교육과정으로의 접근 - 한양대 사례를 중심으로 -. 교양교육연구, 2(2), 7-24.
6 교육과학기술부 (2010). 창의인재와 선진과학기술로 여는 미래 대한민국. 2011년 업무보고서.
7 교육과학기술부 (2011). 융합인재교육(STEAM) 활성화 방안. 융합인재교육(STEAM) 수도권 설명회.
8 김도연, 배형준, 오헌석, 유상옥 (2013). 융합교육 시스템 구축 및 발전의 역동과 성공요인. 교육종합연구, 11(2), 297-335.
9 김성원, 정영란, 우애자, 이현주 (2012). 융합인재교육(STEAM)을 위한 이론적 모형의 제안. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(2), 388-401.   DOI
10 김진수 (2011a). STEAM 교육을 위한 큐빅모형. 한국기술교육학회지, 11(2), 124-139.
11 김진수 (2011b). 창의적인 과학기술인재 양성을 위한 과학기술-예술융합(STEAM) 교육 강화방안. 교육정책포럼. 215, 4-7.
12 김진수 (2012). STEAM 교육론. 경기도: 양서원.
13 노상우, 안동순 (2012). 학문융합 관점에서 본 현대교육의 이론적-실천적 변화 모색. 교육종합연구, 10(1), 67-88.
14 맹희주 (2013). 융합영재교육의 발전 과제와 연구 방향에 대한 논의. 영재교육연구, 23(6), 981-1001.   DOI
15 방담이, 강순희 (2012). 학문 통합적 과학 교육에 대한 초중등 교사들의 인식. 대한화학회지, 56(1), 115-127.   DOI
16 백윤수, 박현주, 김영민, 노석구, 박종윤, 이주연, 정진수, 최유현, 한혜숙 (2011). 우리나라 STEAM 교육의 방향. 학습자중심교과교육학회지, 11(4), 149-171.
17 손연아, 정시인, 권슬기, 김희원, 김동렬 (2012). STEAM 융합인재교육에 대비한 예비교사와 현직교사의 인식 분석. 인문사회과학연구, 3(1), 255-284.
18 신영준, 한선관 (2011). 초등학교 교사들의 융합인재교육(STEAM)에 대한 인식 연구. 초등과학교육, 30(4), 514-523.
19 양승지, 권난주 (2013). 국내 과학예술 융합교육 프로그램 개발현황 분석을 통한 현장 적용방안 탐색. 교육논총, 33(2), 149-160.
20 오헌석 (2012). 과학기술분야 융합연구자의 융합연구 입문과 과정에 관한 연구. 아시아교육연구, 13(4), 297-335.
21 이재분 외 (2012). 초․중등 영재학급 및 영재교육원의 융합인재교육(STEAM) 적용 방안연구. 서울: 한국교육개발원.
22 이종성 (2001). 델파이 방법. 서울: 교육과학사.
23 이효녕, 손동일, 권혁수, 박경숙, 한인기, 정현일, 이성수, 오희진, 남정철, 오영재, 방성혜, 서보현 (2012). 통합 STEM 교육에 대한 중등 교사의 인식과 요구. 한국과학교육학회지, 32(1), 30-45.   DOI
24 조순자, 김효남 (2013). STEAM 교육의 이론적 고찰을 통한 교육과정 구성요소 분석. 초등교과교육연구, 18, 19-39.
25 조향숙, 김훈, 허준영 (2012). 현장 적용 사례를 통한 융합인재교육(STEAM)의 이해. 한국과학창의재단.
26 태진미 (2014). 영재를 위한 융합교육(STEAM) 자료 개발 및 적용. 영재교육연구, 24(4), 703-728.   DOI
27 최유현, 노진아, 이봉우, 문대영, 이명훈, 장용철, 박기문, 손다미, 임윤진, 이은상 (2012). 창의적 융합인재양성을 위한 STEAM 교육과정 모형 개발. 한국기술교육학회지, 12(3), 63-87.
28 최태호, 박명옥 (2011). 융합형 영재교육의 가능성 모색. 영재교육연구, 21(3), 683-702.   DOI
29 태진미 (2011). 창의적 융합인재양성, 왜 예술교육에 주목하는가. 영재교육연구, 21(4), 1011-1032.   DOI
30 태진미 외 (2014). 영재융합교육자료(중등). 서울: 서울특별시과학전시관.
31 한국과학창의재단 (2011). 융합인재교육(STEAM) 활성화 방안. 융합인재교육(STEAM) 수도권 설명회 자료집.
32 Akins, A., & Akerson, V. L. (2002). Connecting science, social studies, and language arts: An interdisciplinary approach. Educational Action Research, 10, 479-497.
33 Aladwani, A. M., & Palvia, P. C. (2002). Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. Information & management, 39(6), 467-476.   DOI
34 Applebee, A. N., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007). Interdisciplinary curricula in middle and high school classrooms: Case studies of approaches to curriculum and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 1002-1039.   DOI
35 Caspell, S. (2007). Exploring the Influence of the ROC Integrated High School Program. Pathways: The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 19(3), 20-27.
36 Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Integrated curriculum. VA: Association for Sipervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
37 Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (1985). How to conduct surveys A Step-by-Step Guide. CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., Newbury.
38 Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575.   DOI
39 Goolad, J. (2000). Foreword. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 7-12). New York: Teachers College Press.
40 Klein, J. T. (2006). A platform for a shared discourse of interdisciplinary education, Journal of Social Science Education, 5(2), 10-18.
41 McGinn, C., Gagnon, M.-P., Shaw, N., Sicotte, C., Mathieu, L., Leduc, Y., Grenier, S., Duplantie, J., Abdeljelil, A. B., & Legare, F. (2012). Users' perspectives of key factors to implementing electronic health records in Canada: a Delphi study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12(1), 105-117.   DOI
42 Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 54-76.   DOI
43 Martino, J. P. (1972). Technological Forecasting for Decision Making. New York, NY: Elsevier Publishing.
44 Nissani, M. (1997). Ten cheers for interdisciplinary: The case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. The Social Science Journal, 34(2), 201-216.   DOI
45 Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29.   DOI
46 Park, M. (2008). Implementing curriculum integration: the experiences of Korean elementary teachers. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(3), 308-319.   DOI
47 Saklofske, D., Michaluk, B., & Randhawa, B. (1988). Teachers' efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychological Report, 63, 407-414.   DOI
48 Petrie, H. G. (1992). Interdisciplinary education: Are we faced with insurmountable opportunities? Review of Research in Education, 18, 299-333.
49 Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International journal of forecasting, 15(4), 353-375.   DOI
50 Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Expert opinions in forecasting: the role of the Delphi technique. In Principles of forecasting (pp. 125-144). Springer US.
51 Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers' pedagogical content beliefs matters for students' achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 344-355.   DOI
52 Yakman, G. (2010). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. Retrived September 10, 2014. from http://www.steamedu.com.
53 Yakman, G. (2011). Introducting Teaching STEAM as a Practical Educational Framework for Korea. STEAM 교육 국제 세미나 및 STEAM 교사연구회 오리엔테이션 자료집. (pp. 40-76). 서울: 한국과학창의재단.