뇌기반 과학 학습의 효과성에 대한 메타 분석
A Meta-analysis of the Effect in Brain-based Science Learning
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this study, we analyzed the effect of brain-based science learning. Based on the research results from 2001 to April 2018, we used 827 research articles that can be read in the original text as the primary analysis target when the search terms were ‘brain based learning science’, ‘brain based education science’ and ‘brain based learning science’. Then, we set PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) which is the criterion for selecting the final analysis target. Based on PICOS, 27 research articles were selected as the final analysis target. A total of 81 effect sizes were calculated from 27 research articles. To reduce the threat of internal validity when calculating multiple effect sizes in the same research article, meta-analysis was conducted using ‘shifting unit of analysis’. In this study, the effect size was calculated by the Hedge’s g, which represents the standardized mean difference. The main results of this study are as follows. First, the effect of brain-based science learning are moderate(g=0.78, U3=78.23). When analyzed by dependent variables, there was no statistically significant difference in the average effect size between dependent variables. However, when science knowledge was used as a dependent variable, the effect size of the research tended to be the largest(g=0.59, U3=72.24), Second, as a result of the meta-ANOVA, there was a statistically significant difference in the average effect size between experimental designs (Q=4.50, df=1, p<0.05). The average effect size value obtained from a single group pre-post test design was greater than value of others. Third, the average effect size values vary statistically significantly depending on whether the target audience for gifted children(Q=7.866, df=1, p<0.05). The brain-based science learning for gifted students was more effective. Fourth, the average effect size values by publication type showed no statistically significant differences(Q=5.14, df=2, p>0.05). Based on the findings, the research will discuss ways and directions to effectively improve brain-based science learning.
Abstract
In this study, we analyzed the effect of brain-based science learning. Based on the research results from 2001 to April 2018, we used 827 research articles that can be read in the original text as the primary analysis target when the search terms were ‘brain based learning science’, ‘brain based education science’ and ‘brain based learning science’. Then, we set PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) which is the criterion for selecting the final analysis target. Based on PICOS, 27 research articles were selected as the final analysis target. A total of 81 effect sizes were calculated from 27 research articles. To reduce the threat of internal validity when calculating multiple effect sizes in the same research article, meta-analysis was conducted using ‘shifting unit of analysis’. In this study, the effect size was calculated by the Hedge’s g, which represents the standardized mean difference. The main results of this study are as follows. First, the effect of brain-based science learning are moderate(g=0.78, U3=78.23). When analyzed by dependent variables, there was no statistically significant difference in the average effect size between dependent variables. However, when science knowledge was used as a dependent variable, the effect size of the research tended to be the largest(g=0.59, U3=72.24), Second, as a result of the meta-ANOVA, there was a statistically significant difference in the average effect size between experimental designs (Q=4.50, df=1, p<0.05). The average effect size value obtained from a single group pre-post test design was greater than value of others. Third, the average effect size values vary statistically significantly depending on whether the target audience for gifted children(Q=7.866, df=1, p<0.05). The brain-based science learning for gifted students was more effective. Fourth, the average effect size values by publication type showed no statistically significant differences(Q=5.14, df=2, p>0.05). Based on the findings, the research will discuss ways and directions to effectively improve brain-based science learning.
참고문헌 (50)
- 21st Century Skills and Competences for new Millennium Learners in OECD Countries, "Ananiadou, K.", OECD Publishing, ~, pp.OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41 (2009)
- Becker, B. J., "Synthesizing standardized mean change measures", British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41(2), pp.257~278 (1988)
- "Effect size" (2000)[URL]
- Bernard, R., "Effect size calculation for meta-analysis", Presented at the 2009 Campbell Colloquium in Oslo (2009)
- Borenstein, M., "Introduction to Meta-analysis" (2011), John Wiley & Sons
- 조주연, "뇌기반교육 관련 국내연구 동향 분석 및 해석", 초등교육연구, 29(1), pp.99~123 (2016), 한국초등교육학회
- Cohen, J., "Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences" (1988), Academic Press
- Cooper, H. M., "Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews (Vol. 2)" (1998), Sage
- Corbin, B., "Unleashing the Potential of the Teenage Brain: Ten Powerful Ideas" (2007), Corwin Press
- Dimitrov, D. M., "Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of cha", Work, 20(2), pp.159~165 (2003)
- Durston, S., "Anatomical MRI of the developing human brain : what have we learned?", Journal of the American Academy of Child &Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(9), pp.1012~1020 (2001)
- Duval, S., "A nonparametric"trim and fill"method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis", Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), pp.89~98 (2000)
- Edwards, P., "Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews : Accuracy and reliability of screening records", Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), pp.1635~1640 (2002)
- Glass, G. V., "Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research", Educational Researcher, 5(10), pp.3~8 (1976)
- Glass, G. V., "Metaanalysis in Social Research" (1981), Sage Publications
- Global Futures Studies Association, "Future Education in the Era of the 4th Industrial Revolution" (2017), Gwangmungak
- Haier, R. J., "Structural brain variation and general intelligence", Neuroimage, 23(1), pp.425~433 (2004)
- Hedges, L., "Statistical Methods for Meta Analysis. San Diego" (1985), Academic Press
- Higgins J., "Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews Of Interventions Version 5.1. 0. The Cochrane Collaboration", Confidence Intervals, ~ (2011)
- Huttenlocher, P. R., "Regional differences in synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex", Journal of Comparative Neurology, 387(2), pp.167~178 (1997)
- Hwang, S., (2014), Hakjisa
- Jenkins, L., "The 10 Most Important Work Skills in 2020" (2015), B2C
- Jensen, E., "Introduction to Brain-compatible Learning" (2007), Corwin Press
- 정진현, "지식기반사회에 있어서 초등의 뇌 기반 창의적 공학기술 - 디자인 융합교육 프로그램 개발 및 효과", 한국실과교육학회지, 29(3), pp.167~185 (2016), 한국실과교육학회
- 신문승, "초등학교 창의성교육 프로그램의 효과에 관한 메타분석", 초등교육연구, 22(3), pp.113~135 (2009), 한국초등교육학회
- Kim, H., "National assessment system development of science-related affective domain", Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 18(3), pp.357~369 (1998)
- 김일식, "뇌교육 프로그램 효과성에 대한 메타분석", 통합교육과정연구, 10(3), pp.1~24 (2016), 한국통합교육과정학회
- Kim, J., "Research Methods in English Education" (2012), Kyoungmunsa
- 김지영, "통합교육의 효과에 대한 메타분석", 한국과학교육학회지, 35(3), pp.403~417 (2015), 한국과학교육학회[DOI]
- Kim, S., "Development of convergence-based instructional model for cultivating core competencies-keynote talk", Studies in Mathematical Education, 2014(1), pp.7~34 (2014)
- Kraemer, H. C., "Correlation coefficients in medical research : From product moment correlation to the odds ratio", Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 15(6), pp.525~545 (2006)
- Kwon, J., "The development of an instrument for the measurement of science process skills of the Korean elementary and middle school students", Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 14(3), pp.251~264 (1994)
- 권귀염, "제4차 산업혁명 시대의 교육과유아교사의 역할", 학습자중심교과교육연구, 18(4), pp.47~72 (2018), 학습자중심교과교육학회[DOI]
- Landis, J. R., "An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers", Biometrics, pp.363~374 (1977)
- 이선영, "제4차 산업혁명 시대의 교육심리학", 한국교육학연구, 23(1), pp.231~260 (2017), 안암교육학회[DOI]
- Liberati, A., "The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration", PLoS Medicine, 6(7), pp.e1000100~ (2009)
- 임채성, "뇌기반 진화적 과학 교수학습 모형의 개발", 한국과학교육학회지, 29(8), pp.990~1010 (2009), 한국과학교육학회
- 임채성, "과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용", 초등과학교육, 33(2), pp.242~257 (2014), 한국초등과학교육학회[DOI]
- Littell, J. H., "Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis" (2008), Oxford University Press
- Moher, D., "Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials : The QUOROM statement", Oncology Research and Treatment, 23(6), pp.597~602 (2000)
- Oh, S., "Meta-analysis : Theory and Practice" (2002), Konkuk University Press
- Oliver, M., "Towards an understanding of neuroscience for science educators", Studies in Science Education, 47(2), pp.211~235 (2011)
- "Park, Y.", Gyobomungo, ~ (2017)
- Rosenthal, R., "The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results", Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), pp.638~ (1979)
- Schwab, K., "The Fourth Industrial Revolution" (2017), Crown Business
- Seong, T., "Research Methodology" (2014), Hakjisa
- Shin, D., "Fourth industrial revolution and brain-based learning", Education Review, 39, pp.386~421 (2017)
- Song, F., "Publication and related biases: A review", Health Technology Assessment, 4(10) (2000)
- World Economic Forum, "New Vision of Education:Unlocking the Potential of Technology" (2015), World Economic Forum
- 양수영, "뇌 과학 연구 결과에 기초한 예비교사교육의 교수-학습 전략 적용 및 효과에 대한 메타분석", 유아교육연구, 36(3), pp.23~48 (2016), 한국유아교육학회[DOI]