본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

컴퓨터 기반 협력 스크립트에서 협력모형의 제공 유형이 협력부하와 학습성과에 미치는 영향

The Effects of the Types of Collaboration Model on Collaboration Load and Outcomes in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

김동식|정효정
한국교육공학회 (Korean Society Of Educational Technology)|2010.09|교육공학연구 (Journal of Educational Technology)|제26권 제3호|pp. 105-124

1

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

인지부하Cognitive LoadCSCLCollaboration Model협력 스크립트협력부하컴퓨터 기반 협력 학습해결된 예협력모형Collaborative ScriptWOECollaboration Load
주제분류교육학

초록

본 연구의 목적은 컴퓨터 기반 협력 스크립트에서 협력모형의 제공 유형이 협력부하와 협력성과에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지를 검증하기 위한 것이다. 이 연구의 독립변수는 협력모형의 제공 유형을 설명활동 여부와 그 유형에 따라 ‘협력모형 제공’, ‘협력모형 제공 및 자기설명 유도’, ‘협력모형 제공 및 상호설명 유도’의 세 유형으로 구분하였다. 각 집단별 표집인원은 17명이었으며 총 51명의 대학생이 실험에 참여하였다. 종속변수는 협력부하(내재적 협력부하, 학습환경 관련 외생적 부하, 상호작용 관련 외생적 부하, 본유적 부하)와 내용영역 지식수준이었다. 협력부하는 자기보고식 설문을 통하여 측정하였으며, 효과 검증 결과 상호작용 관련 외생적 협력부하와 본유적 협력부하에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 나타났다. 구체적으로 ‘협력모형 제공 및 상호설명 유도’ 집단의 상호작용 관련 외생적 협력부하 발생 수준은 다른 집단에 비하여 유의하게 낮았으며, 본유적 협력부하는 높게 나타났다. 또한 협력성과에 유의한 차이가 있는지 검증하고자 내용영역 지식수준 검사를 실시한 결과 ‘협력모형 제공 및 상호설명 유도’ 집단이 다른 두 집단에 비하여 통계적으로 유의한 수준으로 높은 점수를 얻었다. 이 연구를 통하여 협력모형 제공 시 ‘상호설명’ 활동이 협력부하와 학습성과에 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 확인할 수 있었다.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impacts of collaboration model types on collaboration load and collaboration outcomes. The major research questions were identified from related studies: What is the impact of the different types of collaboration model on collaboration load and collaboration outcome? 51 undergraduates were sampled, and three different groups were divided by the types of collaboration model, the presence or absence of explanation activities and the types of the activities. Each group was provided with only collaboration model(CM group), a collaboration model/ the stimulated clues to do self-explanation(CMSE group), and a collaboration model/ the stimulated clues to explanation to peers(CMOE group). The major research findings were as follows: First, significant differences among the groups were found in the measures of interaction-related extraneous load and germane load. The CMOE group scored lower than the others in interaction-related extraneous load, and there was a statistically significant difference between the CMOE and the CM group. In other dependent measure, germane load variable, the CMOE group’s score was higher than the others, which was confirmed at one way ANOVA, and Tukey’s post hoc test result showed that there was only statistically significant difference between the CMOE group and the CM group. Second, there were statistically significant differences in level of individual domain knowledge. In analyzing their domain knowledge, the CMOE group got statistically significantly higher scores than the other two groups.

참고문헌 (48)

  1. 김동식, "vanMerriënboer의 교수설계이론" (2010), 아카데미프레스
  2. 권숙진, "CSCL에서 협력적 지식구축을 지원하는 컴퓨터 기반 협력 스크립트 효과 분석", 박사, pp.2008
  3. 심현애, "초보 학습자들의 복합적 과제 학습에서 지원정보 제시 시기와 연습문제 제시 순서화의 효과", 박사, pp.2008
  4. Aleven, V., "An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor", Cognitive Science, 26(2), pp.147~179 (2002)
  5. Baddeley, A., "Working memory and language: an overview", Journal of communication disorders, 36(3), pp.189~208 (2003)
  6. Carell, A., "Negotiation-tools in CSCL-scenarios: do they have a valid use?", Proceeding of the 9th International conference on Computer supported collaborative learning, pp.557~566 (2009)
  7. Carmien, S., "The interplay of internal and external scripts. in: Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning", pp.303~326 (2007), Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
  8. Clark, R., "E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning" (2007), Pfeiffer & Co.
  9. Dillenbourg, P., "Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. in: Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL", pp.61~91 (2002), Open Universiteit Nederland
  10. Dillenbourg, P., "Collaboration load. in: Handling complexity in learning environments: theory and research", pp.141~165 (2006), Elsevier
  11. Dillenbourg, P., "Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning", Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), pp.1~13 (2007)
  12. Fischer, F., "Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives" (2007), Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
  13. Gerjets, P., "Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations?", Learning and Instruction, 16(2), pp.104~121 (2006)
  14. Gerjets, P., "Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior", Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), pp.360~370 (2009)
  15. Guzdial, M., "When collaboration doesn’t work", Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, pp.125~130 (2002)
  16. Hilbert, T., "Learning from worked-out examples: The transition from instructional explanations to self-explanation prompts", pp.184~192 (2004), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning
  17. Janssen, J., "Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches", Educational psychology review, 22(2), pp.139~154 (2010)
  18. Jackson, S., "Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale", Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 18, pp.17~35 (1996)
  19. Jonassen, D., "Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving", Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), pp.35~51 (2001)
  20. Kirschner, P., "External representations of argumentation", International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 14(1), pp.121~141 (2004)
  21. Kirschner, P., "Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching", Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp.75~86 (2006)
  22. Kirschner, F., "A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks", Educational psychology review, 21(1), pp.31~42 (2009)
  23. Kollar, I., "Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based science learning at schools. in: Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 Years", pp.331~340 (2005), Lawrence Erlbaum
  24. Kollar, I., "Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning", Learning and Instruction, 17(6), pp.708~721 (2007)
  25. Mayer, R., "Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning", Educational Psychologist, 38(1), pp.43~52 (2003)
  26. Nelson, B., "Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: reflection on design practice", Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5), pp.619~641 (2008)
  27. O'Donnell, A. M., "Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. in: Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning", pp.120~141 (1992), Cambridge University Press
  28. Paas, F., "Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture", Instructional Science, 32(1), pp.1~8 (2004)
  29. Ploetzner, R., "Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. in: Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches", pp.103~121 (1999)
  30. Renkl, A., "Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences", Cognitive Science, 21(1), pp.1~29 (1997)
  31. Renkl, A., "From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning", The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), pp.293~315 (2002)
  32. Roy, M., "The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. in: Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning", pp.271~286 (2005)
  33. Rummel, N., "Instructional support for collaboration in desktop videoconference settings. in: Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication", pp.59~88 (2005)
  34. Rummel, N., "Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings", Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), pp.201~241 (2005)
  35. Rummel, N., "Learning to collaborate: an instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings", The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), pp.201~241 (2005)
  36. Rummel, N., "Can People Learn Computer-Mediated Collaboration by Following A Script? in: Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning", pp.39~55 (2007)
  37. Rummel, N., "Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model", International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), pp.69~92 (2009)
  38. Siegler, R., "Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. in: Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning", pp.31~58 (2002), Cambridge University Press
  39. Stout, R., "Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established", Human Factors, 41(1), pp.61~ (1999)
  40. Sweller, J., "Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries", Educational Psychologist, 42(2), pp.115~121 (2007)
  41. Sweller, J., "Consequences of history-cued and means-end strategies in problem solving", The American Journal of Psychology, 95(3), pp.455~483 (1982)
  42. Van Bruggen, J., "External representations of argumentation", International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 14(1), pp.121~141 (2004)
  43. Van der Pol, J., "The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts", International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), pp.339~357 (2006)
  44. Van Merrienboer, J., "Ten steps to complex learning: L. Erlbaum Associates" (2007)
  45. Webb, N., "Peer interaction and learning in small groups", International journal of Educational research, 13(1), pp.21~39 (1989)
  46. Wecker, C., "Fading scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of distributed monitoring. in: Mice, minds and sociecty. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007, Vol. 8, Part 2", pp.763~771 (2007), International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  47. Weinberger, A., "Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction", 박사, pp.2003
  48. Wong, R., "The effects of self-explanation training on students' problem solving in high-school mathematics", Learning and Instruction, 12(2), pp.233~262 (2002)

관련 논문AI추천

CSCL에서 완성하기 과제의 소거 수준과 자신에게 설명하기 활동의 제공 방식이 협력부하 및 협력학습성과에 미치는 영향김동식, 이효진한국교육공학회 · 교육공학연구2013 · 제29권 제3호CSCL 환경에서 협력학습 지원 도구의 유형이 협력적 지식 구축에 미치는 영향김동식, 한정선한국교육정보미디어학회 · 교육정보미디어연구2009 · 제15권 제4호비구조화 복잡과제 학습에서 협력학습 방식이 인지부하 및 학습성과에 미치는 효과양유정한국교육공학회 · 교육공학연구2013 · 제29권 제4호블렌디드 협력학습에서 스캐폴딩, 메타인지 및 협력성향이 협력부하와 지식공유에 미치는 효과김회수, 이순덕한국교육정보미디어학회 · 교육정보미디어연구2016 · 제22권 제4호컴퓨터 기반 협력학습에서 공유정신모형 형성을 위한 사전훈련 유형의 효과김동식, 정효정한국교육공학회 · 교육공학연구2010 · 제26권 제4호협력 스크립트를 활용한 CSCL에서 발생하는 문제와 개선안의 효과에 관한 연구김동식, 정효정한국교육정보미디어학회 · 교육정보미디어연구2011 · 제17권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

대학 프로젝트 수업 환경에서 분업화, 상호작용, 공유정신모형이 팀 수행성과와 개인 학습에 미치는 영향조일현pp. 1-20숙련된 교사의 수업설계 활동에 토대한 수업설계모형 개발박기용pp. 21-52웹기반 협력학습에서 학습자특성과 학습자 간 상호작용이 학습성과에 미치는 영향강명희, 엄소연, 이정민pp. 53-79컴퓨터 기반 평가와 지필 기반 평가 간 점수 비교: 성별과 학습능력에 따른 차이분석을 중심으로정한호pp. 81-104텍스트 중심의 읽기자료에서 화면배치유형과 동기 메시지가 인지부하에 미치는 영향임태형, 류지헌pp. 125-157
원문 보기