• 검색어에 아래의 연산자를 사용하시면 더 정확한 검색결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.
  • 검색연산자
검색연산자 기능 검색시 예
() 우선순위가 가장 높은 연산자 예1) (나노 (기계 | machine))
공백 두 개의 검색어(식)을 모두 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (나노 기계)
예2) 나노 장영실
| 두 개의 검색어(식) 중 하나 이상 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (줄기세포 | 면역)
예2) 줄기세포 | 장영실
! NOT 이후에 있는 검색어가 포함된 문서는 제외 예1) (황금 !백금)
예2) !image
* 검색어의 *란에 0개 이상의 임의의 문자가 포함된 문서 검색 예) semi*
"" 따옴표 내의 구문과 완전히 일치하는 문서만 검색 예) "Transform and Quantization"
쳇봇 이모티콘
ScienceON 챗봇입니다.
궁금한 것은 저에게 물어봐주세요.

논문 상세정보

과학 수업에서 스마트 기기를 활용한 소집단 학습의 효과

The Effects of Small Group Learning Using Smart Devices in Science Classes


이 연구는 스마트 기기를 활용한 소집단 학습이 학생들의 학업 성취도, 학습 동기, 과학 수업에 대한 태도, 스마트 기기를 활용한 소집단 학습에 대한 인식 측면에 미치는 영향에 관하여 조사하고자 하였다. 서울시에 소재한 남녀 공학 고등학교 2학년 4개 학급(133명)을 통제 집단과 처치 집단으로 무선 배치하였다. 스마트 기기를 활용한 소집단 학습 전략은 협력적 활동지 작성을 강조하였다. 수업 처치는 '산과 염기'와 '중화반응'에 대하여 6차시 동안 실시하였다. 수업 처치 후, 학업 성취도 검사, 학습 동기 검사, 과학 수업에 대한 태도 검사, 스마트 기기를 활용한 소집단 학습에 대한 인식 검사를 실시하였다. 이원 공변량 분석 결과, 학업 성취도 검사 점수에서 사전 화학 성취도와의 상호작용 효과가 유의미하게 나타났다. 스마트 기기를 활용한 소집단 학습에서 하위 수준 학생들이 상위 수준의 학생들에게 도움을 받을 기회가 많아져서 성취도가 유의미하게 향상되었을 수 있다. 학습 동기, 과학 수업에 대한 태도에서 처치 집단의 교정 평균이 통제 집단에 비하여 유의미하게 높았다. 스마트 기기를 활용한 소집단 학습에 대한 학생들의 인식도 긍정적인 것으로 나타났다. 이 연구에 대한 교육적 함의를 논의하였다.


The purpose of this study is to investigate the influences of small group learning using smart devices in science classes on students' achievement, learning motivation, attitude toward science lessons, and perception of small group learning using smart devices. Four 11th-grade classes (N=133) at a coed high school in Seoul were randomly assigned to a control group and a treatment group. The intervention of small group learning using smart devices emphasized collaborative writing on activity sheet. The students were taught about acid, base, and neutralization reaction for six class periods. After the instructions, an achievement test, the learning motivation test, the attitude toward science lessons test, and a questionnaire on the perception of small group learning using smart devices were administered. Two-way ANCOVA results revealed that there was a statistically significant interaction effect by their previous chemistry achievement in the achievement test scores. Only low-level students in small group learning using smart devices significantly improved their achievement probably by having the opportunities to get help from high-level students. The adjusted means of the treatment group were significantly higher than those of the control group in learning motivation and attitude toward science lessons. Students' perceptions of small group learning using smart devices tended to be positive. Educational implications of this study are discussed.

참고문헌 (46)

  1. Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 159-174. 
  2. An, W-H. (2004). Education statistics for thesis. Goyang: Korean studies information. 
  3. Bae, J., Kim, J., Kim, E., & So, K. H. (2015). The effect of elementary free inquiry lessons utilizing flipped learning with smart devices on the elementary students' digital literacy, 21st century skills and scientific attitude. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 34(4), 476-485. 
  4. Chang, B. Y. (2012). Smartphone-based chemistry instrumentation: Digitization of colorimetric measurements. Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society, 33(2), 549-552. 
  5. Cho, H-H., & Choi, K. (2002). Science education; Constructivist perspectives. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(4), 820-836. 
  6. Cook, V. (2012). Learning everywhere, all the time. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(3), 48-51. 
  7. Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA) Handbook. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. 
  8. Gilbert, J. (2007). Knowledge, the disciplines, and learning in the digital age. Educational Research of Policy and Practice, 6, 115-122. 
  9. Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2011). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. New York: Springer. 
  10. Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21-38. 
  11. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computerbased cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27-40. 
  12. Jarvela, S., Naykki, P., Laru, J., & Luokkanen, T. (2007). Structuring and regulating collaborative learning in higher education with wireless networks and mobile tools. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 71-79. 
  13. Jung, H. M. (2006). Writing education & collaborative learning. Seoul: Sam-in. 
  14. Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2000). Effect of concept learning strategy emphasizing social consensus during discussion. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(2), 250-261. 
  15. Keller, J. M., & Subhiyah, R. (1993). Manual for the course interest survey (CIS). Tallahassee, FL. 
  16. Kirschner, P. A., Strijibos, J., Krejins, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66. 
  17. Kim, H. J., & Leem, J. H. (2013). Development of collaborative problem solving model based on smart classroom in elementary school. Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 17(2), 67-72. 
  18. Kumar, N., Belhumeur, P. N., Biswas, A., Jacobs, D. W., Kress, W. J., Lopez, I. C., & Soares Joao V. B. (2012). Leafsnap: A computer vision system for automatic plant species identification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7577, 502-516. 
  19. Kwak, Y., Kim, C. J., Lee, Y. R., & Jeong, D. S. (2006). Investigation on elementary and secondary students' interest in science. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 27(3), 260-268. 
  20. Lee, I., Leem, J., Sung, E., & Jin, S. (2006). A study on the development of collaborative learning model and behavioral elements in e-Learning environment. Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 9(2), 27-36. 
  21. Lee, J., Koo, Y. M., Shin, K., Kim, D., Kye, B., & Jung, S. W. (2012). A Study on development of smart education operation program for creative problem solving, Korea Education & Research Information Service, RM 2012-30. 
  22. Leem, J., & Kim, S. (2013). Effects of individual learning and collaborative learning on academic achievement, self-directed learning skills and social efficacy in smart learning. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 19(1), 1-24. 
  23. Lim, G. (2011). Research on developing instructional design models for enhancing smart learning. Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 14(2), 33-45. 
  24. Lim, H., Choi, K., & Noh, T. (1999). The effects of cooperative and individualistic learning strategies by the level of achievement. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(1), 137-145. 
  25. Lin, Y-T., Chang, C-H., Hou, H-T., & Wu, K-C. (2015). Exploring the effects of employing Google Docs in collaborative concept mapping on achievement, concept representation, and attitudes. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 1-20. 
  26. Liu, T-C., Peng, H., Wu, W-H., & Lin, M-S. (2009). The effects of mobile natural-science learning based on the 5E learning cycle: A case Study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 344-358. 
  27. Noh, T., Cha, J., Jeon, K., Jeong, T., Han, J., & Choi, Y. (1999). The effects of grouping method in cooperative learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 19(3), 400-408. 
  28. Noh, T., Lim, H., Cha, J., Noh, S-G., & Kwon, E-J. (1997). The instructional influences of cooperative learning strategies: Applying the LT model to middle school physical science course. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 17(2), 139-148. 
  29. Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 The revised curriculum. Ministry of Education report 2015-74. 
  30. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2011). Strategy for driving SMART education. The report of strategy committee for national information (2011. 6. 29.). 
  31. Park, S-K. (2013). An analysis of middle school students' perceptions and learning satisfaction in SMART learning-based science instruction. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 34(7), 727-737. 
  32. Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M L. L., Terwel, J., & Eden, P. (2009). Effects on participation of an experimental CSCL programme to support elaboration: Do all students benefit? Computers & Education, 52(1), 113-125. 
  33. Reilly, M., & Shen, H. (2011). Shared note-taking: A smartphone-based approach to increased student engagement in lectures. The 11th International Workshop on Collaborative Editing Systems in conjunction with ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 
  34. Renzi, S., & Klobas, J. (2000). Steps toward computer supported collaborative learning for large classes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 317-328. 
  35. Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2008). The role of mobile devices in facilitating collaborative inquiry in SITU. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(3), 1-21. 
  36. Ross, J. A., & Smyth, E. (1995). Differentiating cooperative learning to meet the needs of gifted learners: A case for transformational leadership. Journal for the Education of the Gifted December, 19(1), 63-82. 
  37. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-224. 
  38. Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2003). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen & P. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 605-620). Mahan: LEA. 
  39. Shih, J. L., Chuang, C. W., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). An inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhancing social science learning effectiveness. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 50-62. 
  40. Shon, M. (1999). Cooperative learning approach to CAI. International Journal of Educational Technology. 1(1), 159-178. 
  41. Singhanayok C., & Hooper, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students' achievement, option selections, and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 17-36. 
  42. Thomchick, E. (1997). The use of collaborative learning in logistic classes, Journal of Business Logistics, 18(2), 191-205. 
  43. Walsh, E., & Cho, I. (2012). Using evernote as an electronic lab notebook in a translational science laboratory. Journal of Laboratory Automation, 20(10), 1-6. 
  44. Williams, A. J., & Pence, H. E. (2011). Smart phones, a powerful tool in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(6), 683-686. 
  45. Yang, C., Jo, M., & Noh, T. (2015). Investigation of teaching practices using smart technologies and science teachers' opinion on their application in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(5), 829-840. 
  46. Yun J., Ahn, I., & Noh, T. (2015). The effects of individualized learning adapted to students' conceptions using smart devices in science instruction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 325-331. 

이 논문을 인용한 문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문을 인용한 문헌 없음

DOI 인용 스타일