학습전략의 실제 사용정도와 효과성정도 판단의 차이에 대한 주요 원인 분석
Analysis of the Main Causes of the Difference Between the Degree of Use and Effectiveness Judgment of Learning Strategies
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
이 연구의 목적은 학습전략을 실제 사용하는 정도에 비해 그 효과성정도에 대한 판단은 매우 높게 또는 낮게 하는 착각 현상을 확인하고, 그 주요 원인을 분석하기 위한 것이다. 교직과목 수강생 143명을 대상으로 1차 설문에서 10점 리커트 척도를 이용하여 10개 학습전략별 사용정도와 효과성정도의 판단을 하게 하고, 일주일 후 2차 설문에서 두 판단의 차이가 ‘+3점 이상’인 경우와 ‘–3점 이하’인 경우에 대해 10가지 원인 중에서 가장 대표적인 한 가지를 선택하게 했다. 학습전략별로 두 가지 착각 현상의 실태를 확인한 결과, 학습전략별로 83.2% ~ 49.7%의 참여자가 착각을 경험하고 있으며, 10개 학습전략 전체의 경우, 어떤 형태로든 평균 70% 정도 착각을 경험하고 있음을 확인했다. 특히 10개 전략 중에서 대표적인 ‘하’ 전략인 ‘강조/밑줄긋기’, ‘반복읽기’, ‘요약’은 ‘+3점 이상’이 ‘–3점 이하’보다 더 많은 경우로서, 가장 많이 사용하지만 그에 상응하는 만큼 효과성정도는 높지 않다고 판단하는 것으로 확인되었다. 그런 착각에 대한 주요 원인을 분석한 결과, 유용성 ‘상, 중’ 전략은 ‘지식과 정보의 부족’과 ‘시간 및 노력 필요’가 주요 원인으로 확인되었다. 특히 ‘하’ 전략에서 ‘+3점 이상’으로 착각하는 경우는 ‘습관적 사용’이, ‘–3점 이하’로 착각하는 경우는 ‘지각적 착각’이 주요 원인으로 확인되었다.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the illusion that the degree of utility is very high or low in proportion to the degree of use of learning strategies, and to analyze the main causes. One hundred forty three students were asked to use a 10-point Likert scale in the first survey to determine the degree of use and utility of each 10 learning strategies, and a week later, one of the most representative causes was selected for the difference between the two. The '+3 points or more' refers to an illusion in which the degree of utility is judged to be very lower than the degree of use, and the '–3 points or less' refers to an illusion in which the degree of utility is judged to be very higher than the degree of use. The difference in '±2 points' means that there are no illusions. As a result of checking the status of two types of illusions for each learning strategy, it was confirmed that up to 83.2% to 49.7% of participants for each learning strategy experienced an illusion, and an average of 70% of all 10 strategies experienced an illusion in some form. Among the 10 strategies, representative 'low utility' strategies, 'highlighting/underlining', 'rereading', and 'summarization' are the most commonly used strategies for '+3 points or more' than for '–3 points or less', but the degree of utility is not high as correspondingly. As a result of analyzing the main causes of such illusion, the utility 'high and moderate' strategy was identified as the main causes of illusion, 'lack of knowledge and information' and 'needed time and effort'. In particular, in the 'low utility' strategy, the main cause was confirmed as 'habitual use' and 'perceptual illusion' as 'less than three points'.
참고문헌 (26)
- 강이철, "시험치기 학습전략의 이론적 근거와 활용 실태", 사고개발, 13(4), pp.41~66 (2017), 대한사고개발학회
- 석보영, "학습전략 판단에서의 역량착각 현상에 대한 혼합연구", 박사, pp.2020
- 석보영, "학습판단에 반영된 역량의 착각 현상 분석", 사고개발, 15(2), pp.27~48 (2019), 대한사고개발학회[DOI]
- 석보영, "학습전략의 효과성 판단에서 역량의 착각 원인 분석", 사고개발, 15(3), pp.73~95 (2019), 대한사고개발학회[DOI]
- 석보영, "성취목표 지향유형과 학습전략의 효과성 판단이 학습전략의 사용에 미치는 효과", 사고개발, 16(2), pp.1~29 (2020), 대한사고개발학회[DOI]
- 짠티항, "베트남 대학생의 학습역량 착각현상 분석", 사고개발, 17(3), pp.105~129 (2021), 대한사고개발학회
- Agarwal, P. K., "Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms", Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), pp.1409~1453 (2021)
- Biwer, F., "Fostering effective learning strategies in higher education – A mixed-methods study", Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(2), pp.186~203 (2020)
- Bjork, R. A., "Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance, interaction of theory and application", pp.435~459 (1999), MIT Press
- Bjork, R. A., "Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions", Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), pp.417~444 (2013)
- Blasiman, R. N., "The what, how much, and when of study strategies: Comparing intended versus actual study behaviour", Memory, 25(6), pp.784~792 (2017)
- Dunlosky, J., "Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology", Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), pp.4~58 (2013)
- Estes, W. K., "Statistical theory of spontaneous recovery and regression", Psychological Review, 62(3), pp.145~154 (1955)
- Hull, C. L., "The problem of intervening variables in molar behavior theory", Psychological Review, 50(3), pp.273~291 (1943)
- Kahneman, D., "생각에 관한 생각" (2018), 김영사
- Karpicke, J. D., "Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning", Journal of Experimental Psychology : General, 138(4), pp.469~486 (2009)
- Koriat, A., "Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study", Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, pp.187~194 (2005)
- Kuhn, D., "The importance of learning about knowing: Creating a foundation for development of intellectual values", Child Development Perspectives, 3(2), pp.112~117 (2009)
- Kuhn, D., "Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction", pp.135~159 (2010), Guilford Press
- Morehead, K., "Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies", Memory, 24(2), pp.257~271 (2015)
- Nokes, J. D., "Adolescent literacy research and practice", pp.162~182 (2004), Guilford Press
- Pan, S. C., "Oxford handbook of memory: Applications (vol. 2)", Oxford University Press
- Simons, D. J., "What people believe about how memory works: A representative survey of the U. S. population", Plos One, 6(8) (2011)
- Starr, E. J., "The ability to distinguish between comprehension and memory: Failing to succeed", Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), pp.761~771 (2000)
- Winters, F. I., "Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis", Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), pp.429~444 (2008)
- Yue, C. L., "Highlighting and its relation to distributed study and students’ metacognitive beliefs", Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), pp.69~78 (2015)