แนวทางพัฒนากิจกรรมสตีมศึกษาระดับปฐมวัย : กรณีศึกษาโรงเรียนอนุบาลเอกชน

Nattawoot Junsopa; Rungrujtanan Bunyaraksh

Authors

Nattawoot Junsopa Faculty of Education, Dhonburi Rajabhat University
Rungrujtanan Bunyaraksh Head of School, Bunyarak Kindergarten School

Keywords:

STEAM Education, Early Childhood Education, Educational Innovation Implementation, Parental Engagement

Abstract

STEAM education, which integrates Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics, is increasingly vital for developing future-ready skills in early childhood. This qualitative case study aimed to: (1) Investigate the challenges in implementing STEAM activities; and (2) Explore development guidelines for STEAM activities at Bunyarak Kindergarten during its first year of implementation. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 15 key informants, comprising homeroom teachers, activity teachers, and parents, selected through purposive criterion sampling and interviewed until data saturation was reached. Content analysis and thematic analysis were applied. Three implementation challenges were identified: (1) Misalignment between activity processes and allocated time; (2) Insufficient knowledge and understanding among teachers and parents, as this was a first-time initiative; and (3) Communication gaps and shifting stakeholder roles. Three development guidelines emerged: (1) Restructuring activities to be concise and developmentally appropriate; (2) Enhancing teacher capacity by providing adequate preparation time and professional support; and (3) Strengthening proactive school-family communication to build shared understanding of goals and roles. This study contributes new knowledge that first-year STEAM implementation barriers are systemic rather than content-related, residing in the ecosystem surrounding the activities, namely teacher competency, time structures, and parent communication. These three dimensions form a self-reinforcing cycle where teachers who lack understanding cannot communicate effectively with parents, which, in turn, amplifies teachers' workload. Addressing these challenges, therefore, requires simultaneous, coordinated intervention across all three dimensions rather than piecemeal solutions.

References

กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ. (2566, 9 กุมภาพันธ์). ‘คุณหญิงกัลยา’ ชูประเด็นบูรณาการ STEAM education ในเวทีการประชุมสภาซีเมค ครั้งที่ 52 ที่ฟิลิปปินส์. สำนักงานปลัดกระทรวงศึกษาธิการ. https://ops.moe.go.th/seamec-52/

แคทลียา จักขุจันทร์. (2565). สะเต็มศึกษากับการส่งเสริมทักษะในศตวรรษที่ 21 สำหรับเด็กระดับปฐมวัย. นิตยสาร สสวท., 50(237), 10-16.

มูลนิธิโรงเรียนสตาร์ฟิชคันทรีโฮม. (2564). กระบวนการเรียนรู้พัฒนาทักษะศตวรรษที่ 21 : STEAM design process.

ซีโนพับลิชชิ่ง แอนด์ แพคเกจจิ้ง.

สำนักงานสภานโยบายการอุดมศึกษา วิทยาศาสตร์ วิจัยและนวัตกรรมแห่งชาติ. (2564, 15 กันยายน). มารู้จักทักษะ STEM มีติดตัวทำไม? สำคัญแค่ไหนต่อการพัฒนาประเทศ?. https://www.nxpo.or.th/th/8880/

สุภัค โอฬาพิริยกุล. (2562). STEAM education: นวัตกรรมการศึกษาบูรณาการสู่การจัดการเรียนรู้. วารสารวิจัยและพัฒนาหลักสูตร, 9(1), 1-16.

หทัยภัทร ไกรวรรณ. (2559). การจัดประสบการณ์การเรียนรู้แบบสตีมศึกษาที่มีต่อความสามารถในการแก้ปัญหาอย่างสร้างสรรค์ของเด็กปฐมวัย [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต ไม่ได้ตีพิมพ์]. มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for enhancing engineering & technology education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogies (iJEP), 5(2), 37–47.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0

ElSayary, A. (2021). Transdisciplinary STEAM curriculum design and authentic assessment in online learning: A model of cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(3), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.86

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Westview Press.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. (FMHI Publication No. 231)

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Malone, K. L., Tiarani, V., Irving, K. E., Kajfez, R., Lin, H., Giasi, T., & Edmiston, B. W. (2018). Engineering design challenges in early childhood education: Effects on student cognition and interest. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 11.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Pushor, D. (2007). Parent engagement: Creating a shared world. Ontario Education Research Symposium.

Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM Education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education. STE@M Education Model. https://www.academia.edu/8113795/

Yakman, G. (2010). STEAM: A framework for teaching across the disciplines. Virginia Polytechnic and State University.