The Effects of Assigning Cognitive Roles in Small-Group Discussion for Science Concept Learning

(1)

Printed in the Republic of Korea

*^† ^‡^§

†

‡

§

(2000. 8. 24 )

The Effects of Assigning Cognitive Roles in Small-Group Discussion for Science Concept Learning

Taehee Noh*, Sukjin Kang^†, Sujin Han, Jaeyoung Han, Kyungmoon Jeon^‡, and Eulsun Seung^§

Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-748, Korea

†Center for Educational Research, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-748, Korea

‡Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation, Seoul 110-230, Korea

§Dang-Gok High School, Seoul 151-821, Korea (Received August 24, 2000)

. !"# $% &' ( ) *+, -./0

1234 5678 9&, :; <=) >? @A3BC. D 1E F 62G -78 HG, IJ, K, @ LM 123 9&, :; <= !"# $% N(CR) O :; <=3& P Q !"# $% N(NSR) 9RS M6 TS3BC. N UV W, N (XY, Z[Y, \]

9', $% 9' ^A? TS3BC. Z _`a bc d, N (XY e Af (X

g 3 Fh) ]i NSR "#Z CR "#jC e k)l3m noC. ^AY kA ]p (Z qrsC. \] 9' $% 9' ^A e "# t k)l RZ uvC.

: , !"# $%, 9&, :;

ABSTRACT. This study investigated the effects of assigning cognitive roles, a method that may promote verbal interaction in knowledge-building processes, in small-group discussion for science concept learning.

Two classes (62 students) of 7th-graders respectively received a concept learning instruction through small- group discussion with assigned cognitive roles (CR) asking to explain and contradict one’s idea and to syn- thesize and conciliate group’s idea, and a concept learning instruction through small-group discussion with no specific assigned roles (NSR), for 9 class periods. After the instructions, the tests of achievement, conceptions, the perceptions on science learning environments, and the perceptions toward small-group discussion were admin- istered. ANCOVA results revealed that low-achievers in the NSR group performed significantly better than those in the CR group. Similar tendency was also found in the scores of the conceptions test. Two groups did not differ significantly in the perceptions on science learning environments and toward small-group discussion.

Keywords: concept learning, small-group discussion, cognitive role

(2)

!"# $%Q FhZ *+, -./0 w3=

Ax,78 )l? (3Yy z{3 |,9

5}ZC. !"# $% qrq Fh) HG

~_, , ATZq ) 2 ) -./0Q

(XY 7,^1,2 O ,

Q # 478 8 - ,0;

4 +{i8, !"# $% w

,9 ) D(Z @ C.³q !"#

LM 34 [ K d% K{

]pZq #,9 Kq 5 ) z78 9 ¡

=) ¢£ ¤Z -./0 5[3 !hY ¥

C.⁴ ) 4 ¦ 9&,

Z ¢§b[& d? ¨©3,⁵¡=) ¢£Q -./0) ¢£ (XY) ¢£78 Z+2C.²

*+, -./0 12Sª4 [ H) «¬

@ LM w !"# $% f SY ®¯

Y, &' ( >,9 -./0 k°Q =f

<±3B `²},9 5'78 $%Z 2¯³ ]i Y ´µvC.⁶

!"# $% ( ) M ¡= ~ ¶ 2) ²2 [ &' ( * +, -./0 1234 56Z ¦3C. ·M

!"# LM L(34 56 78 :; <=3¸q "# @; ¹ ~6 3BC.⁴ D !"# ( 9m O :;

<=3 5}Q º~ [d»Zq N (XY p-

>,9 ¹78 jvC.^4,7 q @z, 4y , ¼ K , ½º ) f°,9 K,(managerial) :;Q ¾+2 ~? ¯3 ¿

# bÀ3Á Â78Ã, R ,9

123¸q !"# LM) -.((mutuality)Zq £

((equality) ±Sª& ÄC.^3,8(_,9 !"#

$% O 9&,(cognitive) :;Z Å

Á,^8-109&, :;Q 9Z ÆÇ ¹ C [È C

<À É+ Ê Ë ÌÍÎ, ÏÐZq HG34 ) * +, -./0 kY3, &' ( ¦,9 )l ) G¼, ®&') ,0, ) ) f A0

12C.⁹ q <b) FhZ Ñ,78 9

&, :; ¯3& Ä38, Ò,9 :; <

=[ Ó78Ã bÀ[È ; LM &S3 56

¦3C.⁴

ÔÎ, !"# $% w

!"# ( ) -./0 1234

9&, :; <= N (XY, Z[Y,

\] 9', $% 9' lV

>? @A3BC. Õ, O( ÔÖ N U V >? ×Ìj4 [ N UV Fh) Af (X g AZ) -./0 >? @A3BC.

 . S ! = D

) 1E F 62G -78 TS3BC. Dt A

(, £Z kA 2Ø ®3=(MS=

186.98, F=.81, p=.371), 9&, :; <=(CR) "

# :; <=3& PQ(NSR) "#78 Ù® ÚV 3BC.

 . N UV Zf Dt A (, 

£Z kA3Yy @ 4~5GÛ78 !"# (3 BC. Af ^A8 \] 9' ^A?

TS3BC. N UV D 1E ‘µ½) O(’

# D, -Ü `, Y, 0[ <b 3= 9RS

ÝÞ TS3BC. ß "# Æß ®¯ ¹¹)

f ¬jà3= ,03BC. á St NQ â«, âã, äå, ( æ , 0 #8 (v7, <b) LMZ !"# # 8 2¯v C. äå # !"# $% TS3BÁ, CR

"#Q ¾+2 9&, :; ÔÎ !"# $% 2¯

3Yy kY I, NSR "# O :; <

=3& PoC. ( æ #) fÒ Ø $%

Q Fh) çI $% ¾8 2¯3B7, A

Ñ| 0 K3¸q ,è,9 $% kY3 é {3 :; À3BC.

N UV Zf 8 N 5} êKëì Zí & 078 3RS) TS3BC.

CR "#) êKëìZí 9&, :;

¯3 5} ¶³ 0 îïSðC. A N UV Zf CÖ Ø -78 N 3B7

, Z? ¡3 A) Ï)? w3=

2¯ 5' jà3BC. N UV ñò W N ( XY, Z[Y, \] 9', $%

9' ^A? TS3BC.

(3)

 . 9&, :;Q $% ½,78 L(

Sª4 ~ ¶ ¯M78 (3BC. Brown

Palincsar⁹ ·M,9 !"# º~ [d - A

? bÀ3 ¯[È ; 9&, f -4Sª4 [, T¯ (executive), x)% (skeptic), (educator), 4y (record keeper), @ (conciliator) ) :;

~63BC. ®¯ ^6,9? $8 !"

# $% ¦ 9&, :; ® W, Z? (3= Fhm <=3BC. ¾+2 :; Fh Z bG Z[; Yy óô õö÷? Yø

âS 2 :;ù8 ~_3BC. !"# $%

( m <= 9&, :; ú :;) Ò,9 L MQ Table 1 ¤C.

H 1Zq H 2) ` T¯ æ x)%

8 ûZ üQ H &&3 ²¸q -ý) H IJ3 ²¸? Ñ|3Yy 3BC. K $

% ¾)þm ÿX3= ¬4y3 :;

¯3BC. !"# $% FhZ 34 [ K d% Y3{ ]pQ 8) [? ^

$3 «; 4x? !Sª8,⁴ @ m ß

H _3m «¬@3 $%Z Ax,

78 Ñf3¸q ~ Ù 8 2¯& PY y e^3 :; <=3BC.

9&, :;Q á St 8 ¯3Yy 3B7, :; ¯ +{3 FZ ]i CÖ FZ Y¾Yy 3BC. Fhm 9&, :; ¯

@34 3= ú :;) LM Y8 ~/3=

< 3, $% LM&Y ú :;) LM æ âS 2 ~S3BC.

 . N (XY ^A& Z | b

ÔÎ 10º) 5& ®C° º78 (3BC.

A 29 fº 2978<÷ 6 rY

? ^² o7, Cronbach α8 , ûY

.50BC. ^A& 7º) ® W HG° º

78, -Ü `, Y, 0[ b g) HG ~S3Yy (vC.¹¹ ^A&Y

A 29 fº 2978<÷ 6 rY

? ^² o7, Cronbach α .57ZvC.

\] 9' ^A& CLES) F 9'°(Constructivist Learning Environment Survey- student perceived form)¹²D ‘9, ,(’ ‘F t) ·-’ : - Yy :3=

A03BC. ú :Q 6ºÛZ, , ûY ú ú .82 .898 j+ C.¹²Af ^A Cronbach α úú .81 .60, AW ^A úú .87

.63ZvC. $% 9' ^A !"# $%

Fh) 9' @A34 3= $%) >

®¯ ^6,13-15? $8 º Ñ3BC. 13 º78 (³ Z ^A& fº 397 8<÷ 6 rY? ^² o7, Cronbach α

.88ZvC.

 . N (XY ^A e Dt  A fÒ (, _`978 3 Dt A (,

`978 3 Z _`a bc(2-way ANCOVA)

TS3BC. ^A 3e e78 e3B

Á,¹⁶ê ÙQ 0e, Zk 2Z u¸q ê

Z îï³ <b, Z[ 1e, <b, Z[ 2e,

, Z[ 3e Ú3BC. ^A) eQ 2 9) úú e W ¿VY? 3 RZ?

^$3 I3B7, ,78 e t ¿VY 93% ³ W 19) ÆÇ e

TS3BC. \] 9' ^A e

Table 1. Cognitive roles assigned to group members

Role Activity

Suppoter for hypothesis 1 •Explaining hypothesis 1

•Contradicting hypothesis 2

Suppoter for hypothesis 2 •Explaining hypothesis 2

•Contradicting hypothesis 1

Summarizer •Summarizing and synthesizing

•Recoding group worksheet

Conciliator •Conciliating the views of two hypotheses

•Focusing on the topic discussed

(4)

Af \] 9' ^A e? _`

978, Dt A (, `978 3 Z _`a bc TS3BC. $% 9' ^A

Af \] 9' ^A D ‘Ft) ·-’

:) e? _`978, Dt A (,

`978 3 Z _`a bc TS3BC.

 . `9 9 N (XY, , \] 9', $

% 9' ^A e _`978 A0 Dt

A fÒ (,, Af \] 9' e

h t) -? Table 2 ~S3BC. ` 9 _`9 AZ) -Q Æß .01 g k)l 3=, Z _`a bc) 4 ±3BC.

!" #$% &'( )*. N UV æ Af (X

g ÔÖ N (XY ^A e(10e e)) £

 £Q Table 3 ¤C. NSR "#) 

£Z CR "#) £jC no7(MS=5.69, F=5.11, p=.028), N UV Af (X g AZ

k)l -./0 > vC(MS=13.46, F=12.08, p=.001, Fig. 1). # >? ^²34 [ ¿ _`

a bc TS d, Af (X g - "#

"# t RZ uv&(MS=1.23, F=1.21, p=.279), 3 "# w,78 k)l RZ vC

(MS=16.68, F=13.24, p=.001).

!"# $% H ` , K , @ ) 9&, :; <=3

¹Z ê{ 3 Fh) (XY <,9 p

lV ¹78 qrsC. Z d !"# $

% ¦ ¯M bÀ3= ~S3 ¹78 ) l ~ ¶ -./0 kÑ; u SA

C. i®, 4x) _(ZÎ

ã {3= :; 8 <=3BÁ, Z¹Z

Fhm ê{ 9&,9 <À78 /0

( Fú[ C. 9&, <ÀQ O -, 78 N »Z Q Fhm D º~

78,¹⁷ $% HG, IJ, K, @ ) ¯MhZ 3 FhZ bÀ34

Table 2. Correlation coefficients among the variables Pretest Posttest

Prior achievement

Personal relevance

Students’

negotiation

Achievement .802** .067 .129

Conceptions .668** .185 .273*

Personal relevance .195 .582** .360**

Students’ negotiation .060 .320* .436**

Perceptions toward small-group discussion .021 .479** .340**

*p<.05,**p<.01

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the achievement test scores

CR Group (n=32) NSR Group (n=30)

M SD Adj. M M SD Adj. M

High 7.18 1.19 6.22 7.18 1.29 5.88

Low 3.93 1.83 5.01 5.39 1.26 6.57

Total 5.66 2.22 5.77 6.40 1.55 6.29

Fig. 1. Achievement test scores by the prior achievement level

(5)

½,9 ¥3 ¹78 Fú; C.

q !"# $% Fh) ~ ¶ -./0 - (,9 bc SY ®¯ ¹⁸

9&, :; ¯ (X g ÔÖ Où ]pZ qrq& PoC. ÔÎ, 9&, :; <= 3 Fhm lV <À [ d% K4 [

!,9 ¦3C.

+, -% &'( )*. N UV æ Af (X

g ÔÖ ^A e(21e e)) £

£Q Table 4 ¤C. N (XY kA3m CR "#) 3 FhZ NSR "#) 3 Fhj C £Z o7q, N UV Af (X g t) -./0 > uvC(MS=30.47, F=3.19, p=.079).

Õ, NSR "#) £Z CR "#jC no7q,

N UV ÔÖ ú "#) e RZ w,78 k)l3& PoC(MS=8.97, F=.94, p=.336). ", -Ü

`, Y, 0[ b g) Z[Y

N UV p lV& Ä3B7, !"# $%

9&, :; <=; ]i 3 Fh) <2Z

qrq ]pZ vC.

*! !. /0 1 23% 4 5% &'( )*.

N UV ÔÖ \] 9' $%

 9' ^A e) £ £Q Table 5

¤C. ß "#) \] 9' ^A e kA3B7, $% 9' ^A e

NSR "#Z CR "# «[ no&, Z _`a b c d RZ w,78 k)l3& PoC(Table 6). ", 9&, :; <= ), ã Fh) 9' k)l3m p-Sª& Ä ¹78 qrsC.

ý, N (XYq Z[Y ã CR "# 3 Fh) e #+& ]pZ qrs$ ¹ % K, \]Zq $% 9' -¬

3 Fh) £Z ¸) kAC.

!"# $%

&' ( ) *+, -./0 1234 Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the conceptions test scores

High 12.000 3.98 10.450 11.880 3.18 09.80

Low 6.13 3.74 7.86 8.15 2.34 10.05

Total 9.25 4.83 9.46 10.270 3.37 10.06

Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the test scores for the perceptions on science learning environment and toward small-group discussion

Personal relevance (30)

High 19.00 4.85 18.82 19.65 3.61 18.68

Low 18.16 3.29 18.49 17.62 4.59 18.42

Total 18.63 4.20 18.76 18.77 4.12 18.64

Students’ negotiation (30)

High 19.00 2.98 19.12 20.41 3.24 19.72

Low 19.08 2.93 19.57 19.69 4.79 19.77

Total 19.03 2.91 19.35 20.10 3.93 19.78

Perceptions toward small-group discussion (65)

High 43.53 9.49 43.73 48.00 7.25 46.84

Low 45.69 6.76 46.53 46.85 6.22 46.97

Total 44.47 8.35 44.99 47.50 6.73 46.98

(6)

5678 9&, :; <=) >? @A3BC.

N (XY 9&, :; <= ]i :;Z u &jC (X g 3 Fh) e k)l3 m oC. Z[YY Z kA ]p(Z qrsC. Z d A0 9&, :;Z 3 Fhm 9&, <ÀZ v (

~6C. q ), : -¬3 F h) 9'Z kA$ eZq ®¯ ¹⁸ (X g ÔÖ ~ ¶ -./0 bc d, -¬3 FhZ À3 :;) ½Zq RZ uv$ e Q 9&, :; <= 3 Fhm lV p

!W ) ¦( ~6C.

!"# $% bc ®¯ ) d (_, 9 !"# $% '(m 9&, (é) :;

Z qrq,^8-10 Z :; 9 ,78 <=3 ¹ Z > ¹78 jvC.⁹ q d

, !"# $% Fhm # 9&, :;

<=3 ¹78 )l kY3& Ä3 BC. ÔÎ, i® 9&, :; ¯Z M Yy¹⁹Fhm ÿX, )H,9 «, ) e^

) 9&, 4 *¶S+ W :; <=3

56 {; ¦ C.²⁰

ý, $% ,R? ~S3¸q :; <=3

!"# LM) Ò,78 GS3& P ]i

Fh) -./0Z & P ¹ZÎ ¾z Y &,^10,21I8 :;Z Fhm <À ¾

-. ¿7ª Ñ( M4? /3 S0 C [Y ¥C.¹ ÔÎ, !"# $%

:; <= ÔÖ Fh) 12 ,,3m @

3¸q ÆÇ @ hZ <ÀuZ ¡=; Yy 9&

, :; 3 56Z äå+È C. Õ, !

"# $% ¦ LMh 9&, :;8 ~S3B

]i 3 Fh) <2Z ß´3Á, 3 FhZ <À 45 9 Ò,78 674 [ 9&, :; <= !"# $%

(,9 ? w[ !"# $%) 89Í:

bcZ Z;+<È ; ¹ZC.

Z ÏºQ 2000EY _M «

& )[ ¯³ d2.

! " #

1. Ross, J. A.; Raphael, D. Journal of Curriculum Studies 1990, 22, 149.

2. Cohen, E. G. Review of Educational Research 1994, 64, 1.

3. Lumpe, A. T. School Science and Mathematics 1995, 95, 302.

4. Heller, P.; Hollabaugh, M. American Journal of Phys- ics 1992, 60, 637.

5. Alexopoulou, E.; Driver, R. Journal of Research in Sci- ence Teaching 1996, 33, 1099.

6.; ; ;

2000, 21, 279.

7. Yager, S.; Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. Journal of Social Psychology 1985, 129, 389.

8. Lumpe, A. T.; Staver, J. R. Journal of Research in Sci- ence Teaching 1995, 32, 71.

9. Brown, A. L.; Palincsar, A. S. In Knowing, Learning, and Instruction; Resnick, L. B., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1989 p 393-451.

10. Hogan, K. International Journal of Science Education 1999, 21, 855.

11.; 2000, 20, 250.

12. Taylor, P. C.; Fraser, B. J.; Fisher, D. L. International Journal of Educational Research 1997, 27, 293.

13. Dillon, J. T. Using discussion in classroom; Open Uni- versity Press: Buckingham, UK, 1994.

14. Arends, R. I. Learning to teach; 3rd Ed.; McGraw-Hill:

New-York, 1994.

15. ; -; 2nd Ed.; :

, 1999.

Table 6. Two-way ANCOVA results of the test scores for the perceptions on science learning environment and toward small-group discussion

Source of variance MS F p

Personal relevance

Treatment .17 .01 .907

Level 1.19 .10 .754

Treatment×Level .02 .00 .967

Students’ negotiation

Treatment 2.23 .21 .645

Level .88 .08 .772

Treatment×Level .59 .06 .812

Perceptions toward small-group discussion

Treatment 44.35 .82 .368

Level 30.37 .56 .456

Treatment×Level 25.81 .48 .491

(7)

16. ; ; ; ;

 1997, 17, 179.

17. O’Donnell, A. M.; Dansereau, D. F. In Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning; Hertz-Lazarowitz, R.; Miller, N., Eds.; Cam- bridge University Press: New York, 1992; p 120-141.

18.; ; , 2000, 20,

353.

19. Good, T. L.; Reys, B. J.; Grouws, D. A; & Mulryan, C.

M. Educational Leadership 1990, 47, 56.

20. Gillies, R. M.; Ashman, A. F. Journal Educational Psy- chology 1998, 90, 746.

21. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. International Journal of Educational Research 1989, 13, 113.

The Effects of Assigning Cognitive Roles in Small-Group Discussion for Science Concept Learning     

   

  

The Effects of Assigning Cognitive Roles in Small-Group Discussion for Science Concept Learning

The Effects of Assigning Cognitive Roles in Small-Group Discussion for Science Concept Learning