via Small Group Discussion Effect of Grouping Considering Students’ Teamwork Skills in Science Concept Learning
7
0
0
전체 글
(2) *. †. .
(3) (2000. 8. 1 ) †. Effect of Grouping Considering Students’ Teamwork Skills in Science Concept Learning via Small Group Discussion Taehee Noh*, Heeyeon Lim, and Sukjin Kang† Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea † Center for Educational Research, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea (Received August 1, 2000). . !"(#/$#)$ %&' () $*+,. , -. /0, '12 34, 1 56 /0 7 89 : ; <=>?. @ A9 BC D, E+, F* () * 9GH 4 IJ=>?. $ KDL MN O , () P Q !" RS T'8 G$U VW?. , -. /0 X '%Y' ZB' [ B\ %&] $# , =\ %&] # ^? _`abc /0= >?. '12 34 T'8 G$U de=f gh?. 1 56 /0 P O , 3i7 56 jk; Qbc /0= %$ # ^? $# l mh?. ABSTRACT. In this study, the effects of grouping method (homogeneous/ heterogeneous) considering students' teamwork skills on their conceptual understanding, perceptions of science learning environments, communication anxiety, communication ability, and perceptions toward small group discussions were compared. Students were taught concerning changes of states, density, and dissolution for 9 class periods. The ANCOVA results indicated that there was no significant difference in the conceptions test scores. In the subcategory of ‘students’ negotiation’ of the perceptions of science learning environments test, high teamwork skill students perceived more positively in the heterogeneous group, but low teamwork skill students in the homogeneous group. No significant differences were found in the communication anxiety. More students in the heterogeneous group perceived unequal participation as a disadvantage of the small group discussions than those in the homogeneous group..
(4) .n o (/a/ f0 p= /f a [' ,q * rs' ta ['u &] ,$ Kd' vC(modes of coexistence) ; fw*x y [z ?. {, %&' d () 1. ] | (/a qQ$ }~S c' TF bc tabc KT qQ$c U9U d Xx =, ,+ %&' d (). a ()bc = H+^? %& B ? !0bc 4= `$x ? $?. RS, %&$ ,*x ]. 76.
(5)
(6) . a ()$ d () ?, ` B a ()$ l a U = Q$?. ta [' ,6 H= X , vC 1 56/, $ %Y' a/ 56 2 '8' ta ZB `$ c $* !0 t; K= $?. /fa [' 56$ (/a/ /f ¡I= u¢$ ? Q [£¤}¥ ¦§, ta [' qQ ¨ (/' '8U ta/ ` 2* v c %&' f0 § ` 1 56] ©a/ 1$?. ª ] «a/ (/'
(7) $ }~S c' ¬ f~ c e$, 1 ' ® M\ &' ta '8 ZB ` ¯ °w 8±?. ta
(8) ' v ` ¡I= M\; = \* *x = / X' = c 1 !" & ²?. ³J '=§, 2^? 4$ ; $´W , %& ] ?µ ¶*U de ²· /`=, `¸ ¹^? '8' ºZbc 56 IJ= ?. , | »$ /f » ¼ § #a/ $ TF=, ?µ »$ $#a/ $ a
(9) =?. $#a/ 2* %&] s ½¾ °¬ (zone of proximal development) = c 1 ' t/fa/ $ r ¿ ² $?. À, /fa / Á }~S ta /+ 1 ' BÂÃF X ¬ ÄÅ=, ta Æ$ ½% ?§ %&' /f \ Ç $?. BarnesÈ Todd : a/ BÂà F \* É'; 2= », .Ê Ë7 ? ÌÍ », qQ Dv= F= », +Î K=u = Ï· 7' ta $ ©=? [z=>?. , @ ta Z' ÐÑ U ÒbcÓ %& 56 © ÔÕ Ö [x ? [z+ W?. × % &' /f »$ Ø+ 7' /fa / <* ta / !"' : abc ÙÚff g] `$?. RS, X 1Û %& B bc Ka/ 1 X bc [z 2. 3. 4. 2. 5. 6,7. 2001, Vol. 45, No. 1. 77. ' ¼§ #a/ 1 $#a / 1 Ü, 1 56 2 ( ) , !" R : ; => ?. ' a/ £Ý ?· Þ?. 1. 1 !"$ () $*+ 89 :. ; ?. 2. 1 !"$ , -. /0, '12 34, 1 56 /0 7 89 : ; ?. 3. 1 !" Ñ $' BÂÃF : ; ?. 8. . H 1e 1( ku X' 1Û % 63 Bbc =>?. @ A9 $ß XY a à M\ U T 3à ³` Ü, , , -. /0, '12 34 P 7 H=>?. P Q ái Ñbc %& Bâ=\c M Ü, ¼§ #a 1 $#a 1 =>?. ¨ 1 ' /] 4bc, $#a 1 B\ % =\ %$ ¨¨ 2ã äyWb, #a 1 ' .å $ B\/ %æbc =ç =\/ %æbc =>?. 3( à #a 1 $#a 1 è³ é9=k à R 2=>?. À, ,u' ?µ »$ () , /fa ¼§ $#a/ $ : a$c, êë 1 ] XY a Ñbc ¨ 1 ' ái QU T*f+ì $#abc =>?. U c @ !0 íî*# ²+ì workshop H=>b, êë @] B$ }ï à , Ü @ A9; IJ=>?. ê ë , @] uU jq Ü, È' É'; 2* @ `' 8<Q ^ð=>?. , 3GH ñ± òÍóô$õ 2* %&$ c @ a ö ²+ì =>?. @ A9 X 1Û. ' ‘÷#' ’ X BC D, E+, F* () * 9GH 4 IJ=>b, àøc 2ù3 t @ jq=k @ A9U úûc IJ 3.
(10) !" #$%. 78.
(11) C 7 $ (½ () Pf; F=>?. () Pf BC D, E+, F* 3Q æQ' 7 ( bc $´ ²?. () Pf' a +(Cronbach α) .74>?. %&$ : abc IJ= © f~ ² `+; ¼`= \ P O'Neil 7' Teamwork Skills Questionnaire ; F=>?. $ Pf ' :. a/ \ q aö(adaptability), (coordination), ' O`(decision making), / qú(interpersonal), f+»(leadership), '12(communication) 7 6(' =\ [ =k 23 bc ²?. + ú (Cronbach α) .91$W?.. , -. /0 P Taylor 7' 10. 8. Constructivist Learning Environment Survey-student. X ‘%Y' ZB’ ‘(/a a
(12) ’ [; F=>?. %Y' ZB [' + .89c ^Wb, Cronbach α ß P .71, Ü P .77$W?. ( /a a
(13) [' + ú(Cronbach α) .70 ù.82c ^Wb, Cronbach α ß P .70, Ü P .84>?. '12 34 P McCroskey 7' PRCA-24 perceived form11. Fig. 1. Procedure of instruction.. f Ô/=>?. @ A9U üý Ü, (), , -. /0, '12 34, 1 56 /0 P 7' Ü P; H=>?..
(14) . () , aF 1 56] ³ J ' () , ßþ aF=>?. $ ßþ] ½= ÿ+² 56 bc %& $' ta
(15) ' v p=+ì ², @] <, n ¼, , () e p, öF' |c IJ?(Fig. 1). ú' 1 56] U Ff(ì 1) H 2Uf U' zâ Q É'; bc 56 f; à = ' '¶ O`= !0bc $´ ?. 2Uf U X = a/ () s ç=>b, f = < P ³J ; bc Uz m$ ºý ò() sç=k =>?. () e p ú H ß à 56] ' '¶ ½Ý= $ ⦠56 2* à ß
(16) '= !0b c IJW?. a¢a/ 56 T+â = ¬ ÄÅ Á, !a/ $ `¸ H=f gh?. . %&' () $*+; = \* 9. 9. 11,12. 11,12. (Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24). ; F=>?. PRCA-24' + ú(Cronbach α) .93ù.95c ^Wb, Cronbach α ß P .87, Ü P .90 $W?. 1 56 %&' /0 = \* 1 56' zQ Q =+ì =>?. . () $*+; <= \* XY . a KD/bc, û D/b c = $ KDL MN(2-way ANCOVA) H =>?. () P' Q] ³J sç=k u 2/$ Q Ü 9+; = G$; P5= ` ¦=>?. QuY 9+U 93% + ¾ Ü, u 1/$ êë Q H=>?. , -. /0, '12 34] ¨ P' ß P Q; KD/bc, û D/bc = $ KDL MN H=k MN= >?. 13. 13. 9. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.
(17)
(18) . 79. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the conceptions test scores Level High Low Total. Homogeneous group (n=31). Heterogeneous group (n=32). Total. M. SD. Adj. M. M. SD. Adj. M. M. SD. Adj. M. 10.93 17.53 19.07. 4.53 4.99 5.01. 10.44 17.80 18.96. 13.31 14.94 19.13. 3.84 2.95 5.43. 10.13 18.33 19.23. 12.20 16.27 19.10. 4.28 4.27 5.19. 10.41 18.06 19.10. . 1 !" Ñ R Ü () P Q' á i ` ái] Table 1, $ KDL MN O. Table 2È Þ?. # $# ' () P Q' ` ái] 21Q æQ ¨¨ 8.96. 9.23bc, () $*+ 1 !" R T'8 G$U de=f gh?. × B\ %&] =\ %& <* 1 !" qúV$ () $*+U h?(p<.05). %& ' QÈ XY a(r=.55, p<.01) QÈ () P Q $ (r=.58, p<.01)' T'8 Bq] /fa M ta ' © [z ³J &. ¾Í, $ %&' /fa » q $ ² U H ?. ! " #$ . , -. /0 P Q' ái ` á i $ KDL MN O ; ¨¨ Table 3 Table 4 H=>?. ‘%Y' ZB’ ‘(/a a
(19) ’ [ 1 !" R G$ de=f g h?. {, , -. /0] 56' 1 !" '* ¾Sff g bc º?. À, %Y' ZB [ $ KDL MN O , 1 !" Ñ $ T'8 BÂ ÃF : U º?(p<.01). Ü P bc KDL MN H O , Bâ=\ ê 1 !" RS T' 8 G$U ²W?(Fig. 2). B\ % ' .å $# ' ái$ # <* T' 8= hb(SS=65.06, F=4.30, p<.05), =\ %' .å # ' ái$ $# <* T '8= h?(SS=153.94, F=11.80, p<.01). 5,6,7. 2001, Vol. 45, No. 1. Table 2. Two-way ANCOVA results on the conceptions test scores Source of variance Covariate Treatment Level Treatment Level. SS. df. F. p. 425.55 425.20 251.91 252.15. 1 1 1 1. 41.69 25.02 55.09 25.21. .000 .888 .028* .648. *. p<.05.. Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the perceptions of science learning environmnet test scores Level. Homogeneous group (n=31) M. SD. Heterogeneous group (n=32). Adj. M. M. SD. Adj. M. Student negotiation High 19.57 4.15 Low 20.29 3.06 Total 19.97 3.54. 19.67 20.35 20.19. 23.19 15.31 19.25. 3.53 4.22 5.54. 22.66 15.68 19.03. Personal relevance High 20.79 4.71 Low 17.06 5.17 Total 18.74 5.23. 20.46 17.47 18.86. 22.50 16.69 19.59. 2.92 3.86 4.48. 21.54 17.55 19.47. Table 4. Two-way ANCOVA results on the perceptions of science learning environment test scores Source of variance. SS. df. F. p. Student negotiation Covariate Treatment Level Treatment×Level. 20.11 10.82 136.95 195.75. 1 1 1 1. 1.45 .78 9.85 14.07. .234 .381 .003** .000**. Personal relevance Covariate Treatment Level Treatment×Level. 55.24 5.25 130.37 3.65. 1 1 1 1. 3.17 .30 7.48 .21. .080 .585 .008** .649. **. p<.01..
(20) !" #$%. 80. Table 6. Two-way ANCOVA results on the communication anxiety test scores Source of variance Covariate Treatment Level Treatment Level. Fig. 2. Scores of students’ negotiation by the level of their teamwork skills.. $È Þ] O ¼§ $#a/ 1 .å $ ý %& ] 1 56 a¢abc jk=fæ, $ %&] 1 56 1 ¿ U H ?. {, øc [I * B\ %&] & Zabc BÂÃF ybcÓ êë &' 56 jk; wBH b c B=>?. × B\ %&] (/abc 1 56 a¢abc jk=>fæ, f & 56 jkH ç 1 56 : abc = ¬ J=f ! b c " ²?.. SS. df. F. p. 4253.59 1138.19 1179.31 1238.63. 1 1 1 1. 36.77 .3.33 1.55 2.06. .000 .568 .218 .156. %&' () . 1 !" R '12 34 P' ái ` ái $ KDL MN O ; ¨¨ Table 5 È Table 6 H=>?. # $# ' ` ái] ¨¨ 62.85È 64.65c, $# $ # ^? '12 34$ ?1 ] .w$ ²W b G$ T'8=f gh?. Ñ RS+ '12 34 P Q T'8 G$U VW?. À, # ' .å Ñ R '12 34$ T b, $# Ñ$ #] %&' 34$ B abc ¯ .w$ ²W?. × $ G$ 2úa bc T'8=f gh?. &*+ ,- " #$ . 1 5 6 %&' /0 P O ; Table 7 . Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the communicationn anxiety test scores Level High Low Total. Homogeneous group (n=31). Heterogeneous group (n=32). Total. M. SD. Adj. M. M. SD. Adj. M. M. SD. Adj. M. 74.71 63.24 63.90. 15.82 13.82 14.52. 63.29 62.71 62.85. 55.75 71.44 63.59. 19.92 14.56 14.62. 60.81 68.33 64.65. 59.93 67.21 63.75. 13.56 14.56 14.45. 61.94 65.22 63.75. Table 7. Students' perceptions toward small group discussions Advantages. Homogeneous (%). Heterogeneous (%). Development of communication ability Development of reasoning ability. 15(35.7) 10(23.8). 14(26.4) 18(34.0). 4(19.5). 6(11.3). 13(31.0) 0(10.0). 13(24.5) 2(13.8). 42(.100). 53(.100). Group cohesiveness Others None Total. Disadvantages Unequal participation in discussion Difficulties in understanding contents Bored with frequent discussion Conflict with other group members Others None Total. Homogeneous (%). Heterogeneous (%). 13(30.2) 19(42.2) 7(16.3) 6(13.3) 6(14.0) 4(18.9) 5(11.6) 8(18.6) 4(19.3). 7(15.6) 6(13.3) 3(16.7). 43(.100) 45(.100) Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.
(21)
(22) . H=>?. %&] '12 » ½Ý»' wB$ & '
(23) 7 1 56' zQbc H=>?. $# ' .å, # <* » ' wB * _`abc /0= <$$ h, $ $# ' B\ %&$ 1 56 a¢abc jkybcÓ %¨= »$ ½¾ ? %& U $ ²?. %&] 1 56' Uz ¯ Qbc ' 56 jkU 3i7=? Q H=>b, , F $*' Î$ 'è (] 56 f)Î, '¶ *+ Ä, 7 H= %+ ²W ?. 56 jkU i7=f !=? '¶] # <* $# <$$ h, $ 1 56 H $# ' 1 U ½% U $ ²· -H ?..
(24) ta X !"$ 1 56 2 ( ) , 89 : ; =>?. () $*+ 1 !" R G$ de=f ghb, B\ %&' Q =\ %& <* T'8= h?. {, ¼§' $#a/ $ ê' () $*; wBH $S È ¾Í ß' : a/ 1 56 jk; ^z=f != bc º?. $× O ` ta $ 1 56 2 () , ¡I= ,u X' = U 4 ?. {, 1 56 -. K= lS+ ' ta Ñ RS : U ¾S# ²· H ?. RS, 1 56' :. ; IH \* 1 56 u (³ Á }~S, <. %&' ta wBH \ !4 U $ ´x $?.. , -. /0 X %Y' ZB [ B\ %' .å $# ^? _`abc /0=>b, =\ %' .å $# / Babc `a/ /0 U f bc º?. , '12 34 + 2úabc T'8=f gfæ, = 2001, Vol. 45, No. 1. 81. \ %&' .å B\ %& <* $# Babc 34 m$ %0 .w$ ²W?. $× O &] $ #] %&' .å Ba bc $ ý %& 56 ' 12 ÿÍa/ Ä %0ç, 56 ` 1 ¿ U $ ²· '8 ?. {, /fa ¼§ $#a/ ] %& s ½¾ ° ¬ ' T+=k , : a$fæ , Þ] ,u' ta/ =k 1 .å, $#a/ ^? # a/ $ %&' `'a _`a/ °w 81 U H ?. , `'a £Ý' ¾ X ¼§$c, $; \ = ' !4bc 1 56 H ta ¼§ ' #a/ !" ©U ²?. ¼§ #a/ $ $#a/ <* %&' `' a wB : a U 4=>?. %& $' 2a BÂÃF] 1 ' ` 3 = ©a/ 1$c, 1 ' B ÃF §EÕ MN=k !"$ 1 56 89 °w abc ©U ²?. , $ ' ? ta ] 1 56 89 °w$ ?; ²bc, 1 ß' : a/ 56 T+ ² ta `'a !" ©U ²?. À, $ /fa M ta $S È ¾Í %&' /fa » T'8 Bq$ ²W4 O ; , ' * ^? ÿ5a/ U $´x $?. 4. 14. 15,16. 1. Duit, R. Constructivism in education; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: Hillsdale, 1995; p 287. 2. Alexopoulou, E.; Driver, R. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1996, 33, 1099. 3. Noddings, N. Elementary School Journal 1989, 89, 607. 4. Lumpe, A. T. School Science and Mathematics 1995, 95, 302..
(25) !" #$%. 82. 5. Barnes, D.; Todd, F. Communication and learning in small groups; Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, 1977. 6. Cohen, E. G. Review of Educational Research 1994, 64, 1. 7. Eichinger, D. C.; Anderson, C. W.; Palincsar, A.; David, Y. An illustration of the roles of content knowledge: Scientific argument and social norms in collaborative problem solving; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Chicago, 1991. 8. O’Neil, H. F.; Lee, C. Y.; Wang, S.; Mulkey, J. Final report for analysis of teamwork skills questionnaire; Statistics Canada: Canada, 1999. 9. ; 2000, 20, 250. 10. ; ; ; ; 1997, 17, 179..
(26) . 11. Taylor, P. C.; Fraser, B. J.; Fisher, D. L. International Journal of Educational Research 1997, 27, 293. 12. Taylor, P. C.; Dawson, V.; Fraser, B. J. Classroom learning environments under transformation: A constructivist perspective; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: San Fransisco, 1995. 13. McCroskey, J. C.; Beatty, M. J.; Kearney, P.; Plax, T. G. Communication Quarterly 1985, 33, 165. 14. ; ; ; ; ; : , 1996; p 177. 15. : ; , 1998. 16. Webb, N. M. Review of Educational Research 1982, 52, 421.. . !"
(27)
(28) # $ %&'. 1. ! ". Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.
(29)
관련 문서
The study carried out small group cooperative learning as an experimental group and lecture-type learning as a control group for 12 weeks and compared
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of shadowing using English movies on listening and speaking skills, learning interest, and attitudes
Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of clinical practice satisfaction on professional self-concept among dental hygiene students.. Methods:
The Effects of Culture Learning Through American TV Dramas on English Listening, Vocabulary Skills and Interest of Korean Elementary
Integrative STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics) education: Contemporary trends and issues.. The concept of creativity: Prospects
Jeollanam-do on the S Haunted gangjingun 94 people targeted aid students in the experimental group after the concept of evolution, evolution acceptance,
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of peer-mentoring on the achievement and learning attitudes of middle school students toward
외국의 경우 직업기초능력과 유사한 의미로 쓰인 영문명으로는 basic skills, common learning outcomes, common skills, core competences, core skills,
