Skip to Content
SustainabilitySustainability
  • Article
  • Open Access

11 August 2022

Developing Students’ Attitudes toward Convergence and Creative Problem Solving through Multidisciplinary Education in Korea

and
1
Department of Computer Education, Silla University, Busan 46958, Korea
2
Department of Computer Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongju-si 28173, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

Given the rapid speed at which digital transformation has progressed, social or scientific problems that are difficult to solve using knowledge gained from the existing segmented academic paradigm have emerged. To solve these problems, the need for talent convergence has increased, and Korea has begun to provide convergence education, starting with science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) education. Convergence education is defined as “education to cultivate knowledge that can solve problems creatively and comprehensively by raising interest and understanding of convergence knowledge, processes, and the nature of various fields related to science and technology”. However, STEAM education faces several difficulties. To overcome these limitations, science, mathematics, and informatics convergence education (SMICE) has been studied, but verifying the effectiveness of SMICE has been difficult. Consequently, this study analyzes the effects of SMICE on middle-school students’ attitudes toward convergence (ATC) and creative problem-solving (CPS) abilities. The subjects of the study were 50 middle-school students who received SMICE and general software (SW) education, and students’ subsequent changes in attitude are analyzed. The results show that students who received SMICE improved their ATC and CPS abilities. In particular, participants’ ATC and CPS scores were higher than those of students who received general SW education. Through this, a multidisciplinary education model is developed focusing on science, mathematics, and informatics, and proves the educational effect of the developed model when applied to classes.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Need for Multidisciplinary Education

With the development of science and technology, industries, society, and the shape of life have rapidly changed and, to a certain extent, this has never been observed before [1,2]. Although quality of life and convenience on average have increased, problems, such as global warming, unemployment, the gap between the rich and poor, and infectious diseases, have also worsened [2]. Since these problems involve social or natural phenomena, they are highly complex, and some studies on these problems have attempted to integrate solutions from different fields [3]. This is because solving such problems using traditional methods has been very difficult or impossible [4,5]. These phenomena have caused the development of basic science to be unable to keep up, blurring the boundaries between natural science and engineering and promoting convergence between the humanities and social sciences. As such, technoscience has risen in popularity and prevalence [4,6,7]. Thus, the convergence of different disciplines and fields is needed to solve problems; several disciplines must be integrated together, as the traditional academic sub-disciplinary paradigm has become obsolete and unable to address modern issues [3].
Accordingly, various countries have implemented education programs or curriculum changes to cultivate convergent literacy, which is the ability to solve problems creatively by converging knowledge from heterogeneous disciplines [7,8]. South Korea introduced convergence education into its curriculum to foster convergence talent [9,10]. Convergence education is not a recent concept; it has long been studied under the name of integrated education [8]. “Integration” means creating a new completeness that the object did not originally have by combining or connecting the object to be integrated. Therefore, integration in education means producing a new educational effect that subjects have not previously experienced based on the interrelationship of various subjects [11,12,13].
Jacobs (1989) found that when an integrated curriculum was applied, the ability to solve complex problems occurring in modern society could be cultivated, the interrelationship between subjects could be increased, and education using real-life topics was possible in class. Therefore, the application of an integrated curriculum in schools can increase students’ interests toward learning [11,14].
Inclusive education has been actively studied to understand the educational effect of an integrated curriculum [15]. Jacobs (1989) suggested a hierarchy of integration—fragmented, connected, nested, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and trans-disciplinary—according to the type of integration [14,16,17,18,19,20]. Ingram (1979) further studied the types of integration in an integrated curriculum, presenting qualitative and quantitative approaches as forms of structural integration. In an integrated curriculum, a quantitative approach involves creating a new totality by presenting and integrating several subjects or disciplines simultaneously. Meanwhile, a qualitative approach reorganizes subjects or disciplines by integrating them into common elements [21,22].

1.2. History of Multidisciplinary Education in Korea

As various types of integrated education curricula were studied and educational effects emerged, integrated curricula began to be introduced in Korea. The third curriculum in Korea (1973~1981) not only sought to conceptually integrate subjects and knowledge, but also focused on the integration between educational content and methods. The fourth curriculum (1981~1988) began to pursue the integration of knowledge and personal and social values. Accordingly, integrated curricula emerged, such as science, technology, and society (STS). This trend continued until the fifth, sixth, seventh, and 2007 revised curricula. Regarding the differences in the type of integration, the fourth curriculum integrated textbooks, while in the fifth and sixth curricula subjects were the center of integration. Such an integration was summation integration, where several subjects or textbooks were integrated simultaneously [21,22,23]. Efforts to foster an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary integration continued with the seventh curriculum [22,24]. However, teachers’ perceptions of the integrated curriculum was negative, and problems emerged with the curriculum and its realization. In the 2009 revised curriculum, STEAM education was actively introduced to foster convergence talents [25].

1.3. Limitations of STEAM Education in Korea

South Korea also introduced science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) education in “The Second Basic Plan for Developing and Supporting Science and Technology Talent” [1,9]. STEAM education was introduced not only to achieve convergent literacy, but also because of an unusual phenomenon in Korea (and other countries) called the PISA paradox. The PISA paradox occurs when students have a high academic achievement in international evaluations, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), yet their confidence and interest in science are very low [26]. To solve this problem, STEAM education was designed to cultivate students’ interests in, knowledge of, and attitudes regarding science by converging knowledge from various subjects and integrating creative design and an emotional touch [1,8].
In 2011, Korea introduced STEAM education focused on convergent literacy and creative problem-solving skills in elementary, middle, and high schools to foster creative and convergent talents [9]. In addition, Korea presented creative convergence talent as a human resource in its 2015 revised national curriculum, an adapted curriculum meant to revitalize convergence education [27]. Recently, to revitalize convergence education through the 2022 revised curriculum, the restructuring of subjects, new development of convergence elective subjects, and high-school credit system were introduced [28].
However, despite the worthy aims of STEAM education, there have been many difficulties with its implementation in schools. For example, Lim (2012) found that STEAM education focuses only on convergence without discussing the core concepts or practices that are the basis of convergence, so the integration of various subjects is random. It was found that, in practice, teaching convergence in STEAM involves each subject area of STEAM rather than teaching creativity through convergence [7,27,29]. Furthermore, it was revealed that since classes are centered on textbooks available in the school, textbooks have been developed to teach independent subjects rather than convergence. Thus, the convergence of the concepts or practices of various subjects in STEAM education cannot be truly achieved. Accordingly, convergence in STEAM education is not truly interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary; rather, it is multidisciplinary [15,29].
Sim et al. (2015) argued that the definition of convergence in STEAM education was too ambiguous, so convergence between subjects was not properly achieved. Their results showed that convergence education was conducted by focusing only on students’ interest levels and convergent thinking skills without properly presenting to them competencies or key concepts. Additionally, STEAM education could not be activated due to the gap between the purpose of STEAM education and academic achievement and the methods of evaluation in the curriculum. Lastly, Sim et al. (2015) pointed out that to provide STEAM education, a teacher who understands STEAM education and teaches by converging knowledge of various subjects is needed, but there is a lack of teachers with adequate experience [8].

1.4. Apperance of Science, Mathematics, and Informatics Convergence Education

Looking at the problem of STEAM education in Korea, it was not possible to focus on gaining wholeness through the convergence of subjects. Therefore, education was conducted in the form of presenting several subjects simultaneously, such as a quantitative approach in integrated education, which caused difficulties in effectively conducting education [1,8,21,25,30]. As a solution to these problems, convergence education through convergence between subjects with similar characteristics and competencies emerged [30,31].
Convergence education in its various forms has also been studied to solve associated problems in the school domain. Lee et al. (2018) proposed education through convergence between subjects with similar characteristics or competencies [32,33,34]. Prior studies have also determined that problem-solving processes in science, mathematics, and informatics subjects were similar, so research was conducted on education that converged science, mathematics, and informatics subjects [31]. Meanwhile, with the implementation of the Science, Mathematics, and Informatics Education Promotion Act in Korea in 2018, the foundation for science, mathematics, and informatics convergence education was established, and SMICE was introduced in schools [32]. Accordingly, Lee et al. (2018) developed a SMICE program for middle- and high-school students, and Kim and Lee (2021) analyzed the effects of the SMICE program on middle-school students’ computational thinking [32,33,34]. Although the effectiveness of SMICE has been verified through previous studies, there was a limitation in that only computational thinking ability, which is a core competency of the informatics subject, was measured. When analyzing the effects of convergence education, it is important to measure students’ competency in the converged subject, but it is also necessary to analyze the creative effects of education through convergence [32,35]. Therefore, SMICE’s effects on students should be verified based on its competencies and goals, and assessing students’ competency in only a specific subject can replicate the problems of existing convergence education.
Therefore, based on the previous studies, this study analyzes the educational effects of SMICE. The subjects of the study are middle-school students, and the core competencies resulting from SMICE and the educational effect through convergence are analyzed. The research subjects are divided into two groups, and the educational effect of SMICE is verified through different treatments for each group.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Creative Problem-Solving Ability

In the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference in CPSPI between the experimental group (M = 3.08, SD = 0.60) and the control group (M = 3.06, SD = 0.53) (t = 0.15, p = 0.88). Even after an examination of the detailed factors, there were no significant differences in problem-finding and analysis (t = −1.07, p = 0.29), generating ideas (t = −0.40, p = 0.69), execution plan (t = 0.35, p = 0.73), execution (t = 1.51, p = 0.14), and persuasion and community (t = 0.20, p = 0.84). Since the study subjects were taught under the same curriculum in one school, there was no significant difference in CPSPI.
In relation to the changes based on the treatment, the control group showed an improved CPSPI in the post-test (M = 3.37, SD = 0.51) compared to the pre-test (M = 3.06, SD = 0.53). In addition, the difference in CPSPI between the pre- and post-tests was statistically significant (t = −2.46, p = 0.02). In the detailed factors, significant improvements were found in execution (t = −2.57, p = 0.02) and persuasion and communication (t = −2.09, p = 0.05). Thus, it was confirmed that middle-school students who received general SW education improved their CPSPI by focusing on execution as well as persuasion and communication.
In the experimental group, the CPSPI of the post-test (M = 3.77, SD = 0.62) was improved over the pre-test (M = 3.08, SD = 0.60), and the difference was statistically significant (t = −3.21, p < 0.01). Significant post-test improvements were also shown in problem-finding and analysis (t = −3.49, p < 0.01), generating ideas (t = −2.87, p = 0.01), execution (t = −2.78, p = 0.01), and persuasion and communication (t = −2.68, p = 0.01). However, in the execution plan, the post-test results (M = 3.85, SD = 0.87) showed improvement over the pre-test results (M = 3.22, SD = 0.88), but there was no statistically significant difference (t = −2.01, p = 0.06).
The post hoc test showed that the CPSPI of the experimental group (M = 3.77, SD = 0.62) was higher than that of the control group (M = 3.37, SD = 0.51). Additionally, there was a statistically significant difference in CPSPI between the experimental and control groups (t = 2.47, p = 0.02). Therefore, it was confirmed that the CPSPI of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group. In relation to each factor, only problem-finding and analysis (t = 2.71, p < 0.01) as well as execution (t = 2.55, p = 0.01) showed significant improvement. Regarding other factors, the experimental group showed higher post-test scores than the control group, but there was no significant difference (as observed in Figure 2).
Figure 2. Changes in CPSPI according to treatment.
In summary, there was no difference in CPSPI between the experimental and control groups in the pre-test, but both groups showed improvements in CPSPI after treatment. Accordingly, the result of the post-test was that the experimental group had a higher CPSPI than the control group, and the problem-finding and analysis as well as execution factors in the CPSPI of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group. Persuasion and communication improved in both groups, but no significant difference was found in the post-test. Therefore, there was no difference in effect according to treatment. “Generating ideas” improved only in the experimental group, but no significant difference was found in the post-test. Therefore, the treatment yielded no significant improvement. In both groups, the execution plan did not show any significant improvement.
Therefore, it was confirmed that general SW education also influenced the improvement of CPSPI in middle-school students. However, SMICE was more effective in developing CPSPI among middle-school students than general SW education. In particular, SMICE improved middle-school students’ problem analysis, decomposition, problem definition, abstraction (problem-finding and analysis), and idea or algorithm (execution) programming abilities [46,55]. Thus, it was confirmed that SMICE was effective in the development of CPSPI for middle-school students.
However, it should be noted that there was no significant difference between “generating ideas” and “persuasion and communication”, and that there was no change in the “execution plan”. An execution plan is a factor related to an algorithm because an execution plan is a process of evaluating, improving, and writing an idea in detail. However, there was no significant improvement following either general SW education or the over-correction convergence education program. Informatics in the Korean middle-school curriculum includes an understanding and expression of algorithms in problem-finding and programming. In addition, for the treatment, the content was written in the designed flowchart so that the algorithm worked properly. The content confirmed that there is a limit to the development of algorithm competency among middle-school students and that improvement is necessary to enhance their algorithm competency [32,46,55].

3.2. Attitude toward Convergence

In terms of ATC, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental (M = 3.09, SD = 0.65) and the control (M = 3.23, SD = 0.49) groups in the pre-test (t = 0.93, p = 0.36). There was no significant difference in knowledge (t = −1.33, p = 0.19), personal relevance (t = −1.38, p = 0.17), social relevance (t = 0.88, p = 0.38), interest (t = 0.03, p = 0.97), and self-efficacy (t = 0.04, p = 0.97). Thus, it was confirmed that there was no significant difference in the ATC of middle-school students before treatment.
Looking at the change according to treatment, the post-test (M = 3.12, SD = 0.48) decreased in the control group compared to the pre-test (M = 3.23, SD = 0.49). However, the difference between the pre- and post-tests was not statistically significant (t = 0.84, p = 0.41). The increase/decrease in the detailed factors was different for each factor. However, the difference between the pre- and post-tests for all factors was not statistically significant. Therefore, it was confirmed that there was no change in attitudes toward convergence among middle-school students who received general SW education.
In the experimental group, ATC improved in the post-test (M = 3.63, SD = 0.71) compared to the pre-test (M = 3.09, SD = 0.65), and the difference between the pre-test and the post-test was statistically significant (t = −2.48, p = 0.02). In addition, in knowledge (t = −3.18, p < 0.01), personal relevance (t = −2.26, p = 0.03), and social relevance (t = −2.19, p = 0.04), the post-test values were better than in the pre-test. The difference between the pre- and post-tests was found to be significant. Therefore, it was confirmed that middle-school students who received SMICE improved their convergence attitude, focusing on knowledge, personal relevance, and social relevance. However, no significant change was observed in interest (t = −1.26, p = 0.22) or self-efficacy (t = −1.71, p = 0.10).
In the post hoc test, the experimental group (M = 3.63, SD = 0.71) had a higher ATC than the control group (M = 3.12, SD = 0.48), and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (t = 3.00, p < 0.01). Regarding all factors in ATC (knowledge (t = 2.39, p = 0.02), personal relevance (t = 2.14, p = 0.04), social relevance (t = 2.75, p = 0.01), interest (t = 2.52, p = 0.02), and self-efficacy (t = 2.25, p = 0.03)), the experimental group showed higher values than the control group, and the difference between the two groups was also significant. From this, it can be confirmed that the improvement in ATC in the experimental group was significant. Therefore, it can be confirmed that SMICE affects the development of middle-school students’ ATC. However, although interest and self-efficacy improved in the experimental group, there was no significant difference. Therefore, there is a limit to interpreting the difference in interest and self-efficacy in the post-test as the effect of SMICE (as observed in Figure 3).
Figure 3. Changes in ATC according to treatment.
The test tool for ATC measures knowledge and relevance (cognitive factor), interest (emotional factor), and self-efficacy (behavioral factor) in relation to convergence. The study’s results confirm that SMICE only improves cognitive factors related to fusion. To solve problems through convergence, students need to change their attitudes and practices based on their knowledge of convergence [61]. In this study, attitude change was made based on the knowledge of convergence, but it was found that it did not affect students’ self-efficacy or interest in practice.
According to Oh et al. (2012), convergence researchers cultivate meta-knowledge about convergence based on their own knowledge of convergence [62,63]. To cultivate meta-knowledge of convergence, it was necessary to understand the necessity and relevance of convergence and its effects according to the context and situation emphasized by PISA [26,60]. Therefore, it was necessary to understand the individual and social relevance of convergence. In this study, SMICE was shown to be effective in improving both personal and social relevance. Therefore, it was confirmed that the problems outlined in the literature could be solved, and the educational effect appeared to show that science, mathematics, and informatics are subjects that can converge [8,29]. It was further shown that the type and theme of SMICE were suitable for convergence education.
However, there was no significant change in interest in convergence (emotional factor). Murayama et al. (2013) found that intelligence is an important factor for instantaneous achievement, but not an important factor for long-term academic achievement [64]. They also found that motivation is an important factor in long-term academic achievement. In this study, it was confirmed that SMICE was effective in achieving the short-term achievement of convergence. However, to cultivate convergence literacy in the long run, it is necessary to improve students’ interest in convergence. In addition, self-efficacy is required for students to practice actions based on knowledge of convergence [58,60]. However, there was no development of self-efficacy regarding convergence in this study. SMICE formed a problem-solving phase based on students’ capabilities in the three subjects, but there was a limit to improving efficacy expectations regarding convergence [58,60,65].
The study revealed the direction of convergence education. In previous studies, convergence education focused on presenting the contents of several subjects [8,29,36,37,38,39]. However, in this study, convergence education was designed based on subject competency. Applying convergence education in this direction to middle-school students in Korea resulted in improved CPS and ATC. Thus, it is necessary to consider a qualitative approach to integrated curriculum, such as competency-oriented convergence, rather than theme-oriented or subject-centered convergence, which have been widely studied in existing convergence education [11,19,21,33].
SMICE is a specialized form of education in Korea. Korea introduced STEAM education into the national curriculum to promote convergence education by combining subjects and coding (e.g., SMICE) [8,29,32,33]. Recently, as the importance of artificial intelligence (AI) education has increased, policies regarding AI convergence education have being actively implemented. Although teachers agree on the importance of AI, they have been unable to determine a clear direction for teaching AI education and supporting AI convergence education. In this study, a method for converging coding with other subjects was presented [7,51]. Further research is needed to explore ways to conduct convergence education involving AI in information subjects.

4. Conclusions

Since 2011, Korea has been actively conducting convergence education, led by STEAM education, to nurture convergence talent. However, convergence education cannot be activated effectively due to the difficulties encountered in schools. Previous studies have indicated that the problem with convergence education in Korea is that it focuses on “convergence”. For example, choosing a subject to teach, such as ordering a salad at a salad shop, and presenting the contents of several subjects is considered convergence. Since the contents of various subjects are presented, many contents can be learned, but no wholeness (educational effect) through the convergence of subjects could be expected. This is equivalent to the quantitative approach in an integrated curriculum. In order to solve this problem, there has been a movement to introduce theme-centered convergence education. However, even in theme-centered education, the contents of various subjects related to the theme are presented. Therefore, it takes the same form as the existing quantitative approach to integrated curriculum.
Convergence education does not present several subjects. However, it is necessary to converge subjects to produce an educational effect, similar to the qualitative approach of an integrated curriculum. Therefore, this study pursued the convergence of science, mathematics, and informatics subjects based on the qualitative approach. Accordingly, competencies related to science, mathematics, and informatics subjects were analyzed, and problem-solving ability was determined using the competencies of the three subjects as common competencies. Themes for developing common competencies were derived, and educational programs were developed. It is meaningful that the convergence education was centered on competency rather than on the form in which the contents of various subjects were presented, as in existing convergence education. This represents a qualitative approach to integrated curriculum, and it is different from the convergence approach to education that is prevalent in Korea.
Middle-school students who received SMICE improved their CPS, and middle-school students who received general SW education also improved their CPS. Therefore, there was a difference in the development of CPS according to teaching–learning, even if the same programming task and the same amount of time were given. The SMICE program developed in this study was effective in developing the CPS of middle-school students. Furthermore, it was confirmed that SMICE effectively influenced the development of CPS, which is a focal competency of SMICE.
Convergence yielded new effects or synergistic cooperation by converging heterogeneous disciplines to solve social phenomena or natural problems that cannot be solved by academic sub-disciplines. In this study, it was expected that new educational effects would emerge through the convergence of science, mathematics, and informatics subjects. Therefore, the change in ATC was examined as the effect of creativity that would appear through subject convergence. The results show that there is no change in ATC following general SW education, but middle-school students who received SMICE improved their ATC. This confirmed that SMICE was effective in improving middle-school students’ ATC. Thus, when education that combines science, mathematics, and informatics subjects was conducted, middle-school students better understood the knowledge and the relevance of convergence.
In this study, the educational effect of SMICE was verified, but the following limitations existed. The first was the research subject. The SMICE program was developed for middle- and high-school students. However, this study was only conducted on middle-school students. Therefore, it is also important to conduct a study on high-school students to analyze the effects of SMICE.
The next limitation was the type of SMICE. In this study, “curling games using friction force”, “moving of particles”, “time-speed graph”, and “calculate the area of a fan-shaped figure” were developed in a modular form and were used for treatment. For each topic, “curling games using friction force” and “calculate the area of a fan-shaped figure” fell under CSK, and “moving of particles” and “time-speed graph” fell under PSRL. Therefore, CACFS-related modules were not used in the treatment and the types were not the same for each theme. SMICE programs were developed to foster problem-solving skills, but there are differences in the difficulty or activities in the steps for each type. Therefore, the effects of SMICE may vary depending on the subject used in the study. In this study, online and offline classes were conducted simultaneously due to COVID-19. Therefore, themes were selected and used for treatment. In future work, it is necessary to analyze in depth the effects of the types of SMICE.
In addition, those who acquired general SW education were set up as the control group to analyze the effects of SMICE. SMICE was developed to overcome the limitations of existing convergence education programs. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the differences between general convergence education and SMICE and derive the educational effects according to the type of convergence in education. However, there are many types of convergence, and it is difficult to develop and apply educational programs on the same theme and with the same educational objectives. Therefore, in this study, the task of developing a program corresponding to the same theme was conducted, but there was a difference in the process of performing the task (experimental group: convergence vs. control group: rote skill and application in programming). Therefore, it is necessary to study ways to clarify the difference between existing convergence education and SMICE.
In this study, ATC was used as a test tool to examine the educational effects of SMICE. Previous studies have found that ATC and convergence attitudes are different, and it is necessary to cultivate a convergent attitude while having a convergence attitude. This means that the convergent attitude is a higher competency than ATC. The study confirmed that SMICE is effective in improving ATC. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the effect of SMICE on convergence attitudes.
Finally, this study confirmed that SMICE was effective in improving CPS and ATC, but not all factors under CPS and ATC showed significant improvement. However, there was a limitation in that the experiment was difficult to conduct due to the unprecedented situation of COVID-19. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it is necessary to improve SMICE programs for middle-school students and verify their educational effects.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.-W.K. and Y.L.; methodology, S.-W.K. and Y.L.; validation, S.-W.K. and Y.L.; formal analysis, S.-W.K. and Y.L.; investigation, S.-W.K.; resources, S.-W.K. and Y.L.; data curation, S.-W.K. and Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.-W.K. and Y.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.L.; visualization, S.-W.K.; supervision, Y.L.; project administration, Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baek, Y.S.; Park, H.J.; Kim, Y.; Noh, S.; Park, J.Y.; Lee, J.; Han, H. STEAM Education in Korea. J. Learn. Cent. Curric. Instr. 2011, 11, 149–171. [Google Scholar]
  2. Xu, M.; David, J.M.; Kim, S.H. The fourth industrial revolution: Opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Financ. Res. 2018, 9, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Apobela, S.W.; Larson, E.; Bakken, S.; Carrasquillo, O.; Formicola, A.; Giled, S.A.; Haas, J.; Gebbie, K.M. Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Serv. Res. 2007, 42, 329–346. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hong, S.W. Science with a Human Face: Science Culture in the Age of Fusion; SNU Press: Seoul, Korea, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  5. Collins, H.; Evans, R.; Gorman, M. Trading zones and interactional expertise. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 2007, 38, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kim, S.W.; Lee, Y. An investigation of teachers’ perception on STEAM education teachers’ training program according to school level. Indian J. Public Health 2018, 9, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kim, S.W.; Lee, Y. The analysis on research trends in programming based STEAM education in Korea. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2016, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sim, J.; Lee, Y.; Kim, H.K. Understanding STEM, STEAM education, and addressing the issues facing STEAM in the Korean context. J. Korean Assoc. Sci. Educ. 2015, 35, 709–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Park, H.J.; Kim, Y.; Noh, S.G.; Lee, Y.; Jeong, J.S.; Choi, Y.H.; Han, H.; Baek, Y. Components of 4C-STEAM Education and a Checklist for the Instructional Design. J. Learn. Cent. Curric. Instr. 2012, 12, 533–557. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kim, J.A. Cubic Model for STEAM Education. Korean J. Technol. Educ. 2011, 11, 124–139. [Google Scholar]
  11. Drake, S.M. Planning Integrated Curriculum: The Call to Adventure; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1993; 66p. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fogarty, R. Ten Ways to Integrate Curriculum. Educ. Leadersh. 1991, 49, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
  13. Drake, S.M.; Reid, J.L. Integrated curriculum as an effective way to teach 21st century capabilities. Asia Pac. J. Educ. Res. 2018, 1, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jacobs, H.H. Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  15. Drake, S.M.; Burns, R.C. Meeting Standards through Integrated Curriculum; ASCD: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  16. Drake, S.M. Creating Standards-Based Integrated Curriculum: Aligning Curriculum, Content, Assessment, and Instruction, 2nd ed.; Corwin Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Malik, A.S.; Malik, R.H. Twelve tips for developing an integrated curriculum. Med. Teach. 2011, 33, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Harden, R.M. The integration ladder: A tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med. Educ. 2000, 34, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  19. Gresnigt, R.; Taconis, R.; van Keulen, H.; Gravemeijer, K.; Baartman, L. Promoting science and technology in primary education: A review of integrated curricula. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2014, 50, 47–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Van Boxtel, C. Vakintegratie in de Mensen Maatschappijvakken [Integration in the Humanities]; Ipskamp: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ingram, J.B. Curriculum Integration and Lifelong Education; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, K.; Kim, K. Exploring the Meanings and Practicability of Korea STEAM Education. J. Elem. Educ. 2012, 25, 55–81. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee, H.N.; Oh, Y.J.; Kwon, H.; Park, K.; Han, I.K.; Jung, H.; Lee, S.; Oh, H.; Nam, J.C.; Son, D.I.; et al. Elementary School Teachers’ Perceptions on Integrated Education and Integrative STEM Education. Korean J. Teach. Educ. 2011, 27, 117–139. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kim, J. Multi-Layered perspectives revealed in integrated curriculum interpretation and practices. J. Curric. Stud. 2014, 32, 187–214. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jung, J.; Jeon, J.; Lee, H.Y. Domestic and International Experts’ Perception of Policy and Direction on STEAM Education. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 39, 358–375. [Google Scholar]
  26. Shin, S.; Ha, M.; Lee, J.K.; Park, H.; Chung, D.H.; Lim, J.K. The development and validation of instrument for measuring high school students’ attitude toward convergence. J. Korean Assoc. Sci. Educ. 2014, 34, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Campbell, T.; Lee, H.; Kwon, H.; Park, K. Student motivation and interests as proxies for forming STEM identities. J. Korean Assoc. Sci. Educ. 2012, 32, 532–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, W. The Main Contents of the 2022 Revised Curriculum Plan and the Reform Plan of the Teacher Training System, and the Tasks of the Classical Chinese Subject. Han Character Class. Writ. Lang. Educ. 2021, 50, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lim, Y. Problems and Ways to Improve Korean STEAM Education based on Integrated Curriculum. J. Elem. Educ. 2012, 25, 53–80. [Google Scholar]
  30. Chin, C.; Brown, D.E. Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. J. Res. Sci. Teach. Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 109–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nam, Y.; Yoon, J.; Han, K.; Jeong, J. SEM-CT: Comparison of Problem Solving Processes in Science (S), Engineering (E), Mathematic (M), and Computational Thinking (CT). J. Korean Assoc. Comput. Educ. 2019, 22, 37–54. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, S.W.; Lee, Y. Effects of Science, Mathematics, and Informatics Convergence Education Program on Middle School Student’s Computational Thinking. J. Korean Assoc. Comput. Educ. 2021, 24, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee, Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, J.; Paik, S.; Yoon, J.; Lee, K.; Jung, U.; Jeon, S.; Seo, U.; Kim, S.W.; et al. SW Mathematics·Science Convergence Type Teaching and Learning Material Development·Dissemination. 2018. Available online: https://www.kofac.re.kr (accessed on 3 February 2022).
  34. Lee, Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, J.; Paik, S.; Yoon, J.; Lee, K.; Hong, E. SW, Mathematics and Science Convergence Project for Creative Thinking; Emotionbooks: Seoul, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. Jung, U.; Lee, Y. Content Analysis on the Curriculum Achievement Standards in the Software‧Mathematics‧Science Convergence Teaching and Learning Material. J. Korean Assoc. Comput. Educ. 2018, 21, 11–23. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim, S.W.; Park, H.Y.; Kim, Y.S. Development and Application of STEAM Educational Program for Scientifically Gifted Middle School Students-Making a 3D Camera. Biol. Educ. 2016, 44, 633–645. [Google Scholar]
  37. Han, H. The Analysis of Research Trends on STEAM Instructional Program and the Development of Mathematics-Centered STEAM Instructional Program. Commun. Math. Educ. 2013, 27, 523–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Bae, S.A. Effect of Technology-Based STEAM Education on Attitude toward Technology of Middle School Students. J. Korean Inst. Ind. Educ. 2011, 36, 47–64. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jeon, S.; Lee, Y. Art based STEAM Education Program using EPL. J. Korea Soc. Comput. Inf. 2014, 19, 149–158. [Google Scholar]
  40. So, K. Issues in the general guideline draft for the 2015 National Curriculum: Remaining tasks for subject matter curriculum development. J. Curric. Stud. 2015, 33, 195–214. [Google Scholar]
  41. Polya, G. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method, 2nd ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  42. Peter, E.E. Critical thinking: Essence for teaching mathematics and mathematics problem solving skills. Afr. J. Math. Comput. Sci. Res. 2012, 5, 39–43. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rozencwajg, P. Metacognitive factors in scientific problem-solving strategies. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2003, 18, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lederman, N.G.; Lederman, J.S.; Antink, A. Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 2013, 1, 138–147. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wing, J.M. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 2006, 49, 33–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, S.W.; Lee, Y. Computational Thinking of Middle School Students in Korea. J. Korea Soc. Comput. Inf. 2020, 25, 229–241. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim, S.W.; Lee, Y. Development of a software education curriculum for secondary schools. J. Korea Soc. Comput. Inf. 2016, 21, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  48. Sung, J.S.; Kim, H. Analysis on the International Comparison of Computer Education in Schools. J. Korean Assoc. Comput. Educ. 2015, 18, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, E. Perspectives and Challenges of Informatics Education: Suggestions for the Informatics Curriculum Revision. J. Korean Assoc. Comput. Educ. 2018, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ministry of Education. Software Education Operating Guide. Available online: https://moe.go.kr/main.do?s=moe (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  51. Lee, E.A. Comparative Analysis of Contents Related to Artificial Intelligence in National and International K-12 Curriculum. J. Korean Assoc. Comput. Educ. 2020, 23, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yun, H.J.; Cho, J. Changes to the Middle School Informatics Curriculum-From the 6th to 2015 Revised National Curriculum. Korean J. Teach. Educ. 2021, 37, 245–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ministry of Education. 2015 Revised Curriculum Manual. Available online: http://ncic.re.kr/mobile.index2.do (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  54. Ministry of Education. 2015 Revised Curriculum Creative Experience Activity Manual. Available online: http://ncic.re.kr/mobile.index2.do (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  55. Lee, H.; Pyo, J.M.; Choe, I. Development and Validity of Creative Problem Solving Profile Inventory (CPSPI). J. Gift. Talent. Educ. 2014, 24, 733–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ha, M.; Lee, J.K. Exploring variables related to students’ understanding of the convergence of basic and applied sciences. J. Korean Assoc. Sci. Educ. 2012, 32, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ha, M.; Lee, J.K. The item response, generalizability, and structural validity for the translation of science motivation ques-tionnaire II (SMQ II). J. Learn. Cent. Curric. Instr. 2013, 13, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rosenberg, M.J.; Hovland, C.I. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In Attitude, Organization and Change; Hovland, C.I., Rosenberg, M.J., Eds.; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1960; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  59. Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovation, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  60. Stuckey, M.; Hofstein, A.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Eliks, I. The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2013, 49, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Messick, S. Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 1995, 14, 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Oh, H.; Bae, H.J.; Kim, D.Y. Interdisciplinary researchers: How did they cross the boundaries and do interdisciplinary research? Asian J. Educ. 2012, 13, 297–335. [Google Scholar]
  63. Oh, H.; Kim, H.J.; Bae, H.J.; Seo, D.I.; Kim, H. What drives convergence? J. Res. Educ. 2012, 43, 51–82. [Google Scholar]
  64. Murayama, K.; Pekrun, R.; Lichtenfeld, S.; Vom Hofe, R. Predicting long-term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: The unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child Dev. 2013, 84, 1475–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.