(1)Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2003, Vol

전체 글

(1)Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2003, Vol. 47, No. 6 Printed in the Republic of Korea. . .

(2) *

(3). (2002. 11. 5 ). The Effects of Reward Methods in Cooperative Learning Taehee Noh*, Seonae Yoon, Jaeyoung Han, and Chiyoung Lee Department of Chemistry Education, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-748, Korea Received November 5, 2002). . .

(4) , !, " #$ % &. ', ()* % &' +, -./01. 2 34 5 16 6178 9:/ * ‘;< = >? @’, ‘AB C’, ‘@ DE FG?’ HI /J 14K2 L "8 M2/01. N ?O P ?O QR A/01.

(5) S, T N ?O UH, /T N P ?O UH . 5 VW XY Z > [\ ]^_1. ?O UH` . ! 5 aU5 bc, " #$ % &' 5 ?O, dJ , <E -e fg/\ [h1.. : , ,

(6) , , ABSTRACT. In this study, the effects of two types of reward methods in cooperative learning were investigated upon students’ achievement, learning motivation, perceptions of learning environment and perceptions of reward methods. Seventh graders (N=61) were selected from a co-ed middle school in Seoul, and were taught about ‘three states of matter’, ‘motion of molecules’ and ‘change of state and thermal energy’ for 14 class hours. Reward methods were classified into task-oriented reward and performance-oriented reward. The results revealed that high-level students performed better in the task-oriented reward group, and low-level students performed better in the performance-reward group for the ‘application’ subcategory of the achievement test. The scores of attention and relevance in learning motivation and task orientation, involvement, and order and organization in perceptions of learning environment test were significantly higher in the task-oriented reward group than those in the performance-oriented reward group. Keywords: Reward Methods, Cooperative Learning, Achievement, Learning Motivation, Perceptions of Learning Environment. . C4 ? K 3;<? )Q RS4 T*U 24* V: 12* WX? YZD.2 E[ 12. ! " #$ %& . * 345 ? \ K ]BC ^_4 . ' ()* +,- . /0 12* 345 ,. & ,- ? `<Q aD.3 b ,-. 67* 89 , :* 3;<, * =, ,- .. HI. 2 >? @ABC D.1 E F 12* 345 ' . eJ fE \# gh, 67 D& ,-. * GE HIJ# K LM NO* P+C,. ? i g D jk#! 12* l.L mn 625. & H cS `E C d& .

(7)

(8) . 626. . m& oBC $#$ %D.4,5 TpqT 4 ,- ' rC +,-K4 s 67*BC t" & uv w. . ± H& ¶" +· ¸¹ F. x y #zD. {[m, |. x . 1 ² R 61º? BC t" ³D. F $. 54 ' RSE +,- ? ) . ` . *E \`(MS=1.60, F=0.00, p=0.947) 2. 6,7. .2 }~D& |. , ! BC t*. »? ¼2 y, »7C . TX ,-(task). ? Q & PBC ;<i L E %D.8 E. . TX ,-(performance)BC ½µ ³D.. [ h y E(goal-theory)' . ¾ »4 F $` . * ¿À? «BC . C kw? "D. E .

(9) « U K ,-? H_ ³BÁ, H_ Â ,. ! . TX*(task-oriented) o. . -4 R & Table 1. D.. TX*(performance-oriented) oBC H_ & o.. . Ãµ E( Ä . E, ? & .24 L x. Å` t" s, 2 " ] C . w? & . TX . |. xw? . Æ0ÇÈEÉ ? t" ³. EF+. D. Ê, Ãµ `L ËÌQT Í H. ,- .2 xw? & . TX ' 1. }Ä :Î ÏÐ? t" ³D. ÃµC& ‘Ñ. & TX BC H_i %D.. 9,10. 2* +,- 4 y \ BC . 4 Ò LT Ó’, ‘_} ’, ‘Ó ÔJÄ ÕÖ. 4 E #& * 3;<? ". T’ -c y 14 " ] Â ,-7C . oBC D.. ? /0 ? t" ³D. `& × ". . TX H& T ', . D¯ »? BC ? ³$, . RS? BC . TX . H}& ,-7C 2~3Ø ? k y ÃµL. TX ? |., \4Y E& ¡¢z. ÙÚC #&T Û ³D. ÃµL ÜÝ s,. T£ ~*BC . TX ,-4 wL ¤'.

(10) , , , . XE %zD.9 4 ¥& ,- . 67 . Å` t" ³D.. ? H&4,11 E¦§Bm, . TX ..

(11) . Ãµ E(4 . * ¿? «. TX ? H& ¨4 E¦TT ©. BC U K 2ºÞ 7? $ß! y 4 1I4 +. D. ª,

(12) « ¬ \94. ,-? H ³D. T& à? K ‘E RÂ. l.L /T®C,12 . TX . TX . Q }’, táE %& ¥& tá |.Ä |. Q. BC E / ¥ }4

(13). â? Í & ‘ã kä : Í }’, tá. « ¬¯ EL mn° L E %D. {[®C. E å& ¥& I` <. }æ Qâ & ‘. ± H& F 1 ² .

(14) «. ã Í }’, ½ <? 20Q & ‘Icç0 C. ¬¯ 4 l. I` ³. è4 y 20Q }’, ½ <? REm C. D. H4 H~* & D´. D.. G *<Q & ‘ã é}’ >4 4-Ù .2. 1. . TX TX BC . BC H ³D. T& Ic ê¾L ë % Í. ? /0 E RS4

(15) Yµ&. I7C 2^Þ mì rzBÁ, 12* 45 .. l. I`D.. 345 ? ^y KQ13 1^£ í !. 2. . TX TX BC . ³$,. T Ic ê¾4 4î? ï Í eI ³D.. ? /0 E RS4 , , Yµ. Table 1. Numbers of the subjects. & l. I`D. 3. RS4

(16) , , 4 V: . RS4

(17) « `E 3;< l.L %&T I`D.. High Low Total. Task 15 13 28. Performance 18 15 33. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.

(18) . 627. Ê, Ic! 67* 89 ? ^y KQ IM,. & Dß! I w r& o Q ! RÂý¢. h}, Í}, }æk0}4 4LT ði? ^y y. q?’, ‘¼Rã I w r

(19) « Q !. E C Í. RÂý¢q?’, ‘E( 67*BC w rz? gD. ³D.. . TX ,-& FP"# & +,- . * =1,14 F 12* 345. I w ©? g ^ ÕOô. ³ ¢q?’4. h y 0 Ä =BC H ³D.. ? L"ñ& ò WX? Yµ& 10LT ?. . H4 Ô

(20) , , . ¼7 y(ó: C }Òô õº Qr, êö IcE . y

(21) « . y , ði ÷t >) t ø !" ³D. E. ¬¯ l. K y Ec Ô _â. [ Í y `L × " RS4 . (ANCOVA)? t" ³D. )Ù _â? KQ ± L2. ? kä y ` wÅ ; s, E xC. ? Åè |.,

(22) 4 T *<' Ô ?. +,- .2 ùúû? 2~3 " ü . £ T y ( s ?. ¥& Ô?17 . ³D. Ê, RS4 T ‘ã é}’. s Ô _â? t" ³D. Ê, . FOBC L w ùúû < ³D. E. F y ' ÔBC Ô ? £ T . Q TX ,-& 2~3 " ü uv. y ê )Ù Mann-Whitney U test `<. t" $ IcS4 uv w ýþ I w. y _â ³D. {0$, F . TX ' Ô4 l. ÅE \4Y T ¡. !" & ? t" ³D. .

(23) Å`T& < Wð. Wð. `( (p=0.305)? I` s Ô _â(ANOVA). BC mÿ Ec _ ¬ H ³D. <. t" ³BÁ, Å`. Wð' Ãµ ‘Ñ4 Ò LT Ó’, ‘. Q& χ2 Å? t" ³D.

(24) 4 ¥& . Ó ÔJ’, ‘Ó ÔJÄ ÕÖT’, ‘_} ’, ‘’,. *?, ' ÂÂ4. ‘~4 . ^ù kÙ’, ‘~4 Ä ^ù kÙ’. `( Å` ÔBC `< ³BÁ, HÚ ÔBC. EÁ, h & " y H ³D. . F $` . *? `< ³D. êö )Ù _â. Wð' Bloom4 _ ¬ T 6h,. & SPSS )Ù !ñT `< ³D.. EQ 7h, *< 7hBC H ³D.

(25) Å`. . T& . (hL 3. f ` 1BC^ ] : n Å ©$, Å` t" s H *

(26) (Cronbach’s α)& 0.84³D.. .

(27) « . Å`T& Keller4 ARCS E ¨. ¬¯

(28) Å`4 ¿ 2 ¿? Table 2. y 6 Course Interest Survey15 `< ³D. E. " ³D. Ec Ô _â |. T. EQ Wð. K. & ¾ ,- rl. 3;< l.L mn. r y ÂÂ 8~9hÞ 34h 5-Ù4 0. mT ©Bm(T: rl. MS=0.04, F=0.13, p=0.715,. C H ³D. E H4

(29) (Cronbach’s. 3;< l. MS=0.07, F=0.21, p=0.650; EQ: rl. α)& `( Å`. . MS=1.81, F=0.74, p=0.392, 3;< l. MS=2.52,. Å`T& r4,F, k , }

(30) , £4. K r7C 0.81, 0.86, 0.55,. 0.78, `s Å` 0.81, 0.86, 0.62, 0.86EzD. Å`T& +± Classroom. F=1.04, p=0.313), *< Wð 3;< l.L m n"D(Table 3, Fig. 1). -# Å |.& ,. Environment Scale16 F y , ZJ , `4 T. K ,- ê¾ \4Y EL åzD(K: MS=1.39,. c , . TX , Ä I r y ÂÂ. F=2.86, p=0.101,. K: MS=0.90, F=2.85, p=0.104). b,. 4hÞ 20h? 5-Ù 0 C H ³D. E. K RS' . TX ,-,. H4

(31) (Cronbach’s α)& `( Å`. ' TX ,- *BC *< Wð w. K r7C 0.74, 0.46, 0.57, 0.33, 0.83, `s Å`. L ¤' X? mn$D. . TX ,-. 0.69, 0.72, 0.70, 0.48, 0.77EzD.. & T4 ‘ã é}’ ^_E I w ò W. Å`T& ‘E( . 2003, Vol. 47, No. 6. X? Yµ®C, K RSE. K RS. K RS! õº?.

(32)

(33) . 628. Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the achievement test scores. Knowledge High Low Total Comprehension High Low Total Application High Low Total. M. Task SD. Adj. M. M. Performance SD. Adj. M. 5.27 2.92 4.18. 0.70 0.86 1.42. 4.77 3.41 4.17. 4.94 2.93 4.03. 1.39 1.87 1.90. 4.44 3.45 4.04. 5.87 3.77 4.89. 1.19 1.48 1.69. 5.44 4.18 4.89. 5.11 3.80 4.52. 1.91 1.78 1.94. 4.68 4.25 4.52. 6.33 3.85 5.18. 0.90 1.69 1.81. 5.68 4.48 5.17. 5.39 4.60 5.03. 1.75 1.96 1.86. 4.73 5.28 5.04. Table 3. Two-way ANCOVA results on application subtest scores. <? REm C G *<Q & ‘ã. Source of variance SS Application Treatment 0.01 Treatment×Level 2.26. é}’4 <E R. C )* kE %´?. df. MS. F. p. 1 1. 0.01 2.26. 0.02 5.52. 0.884 0.022. &ç! oBC ë %D.. p<0.05.. ª, }

(34) . £& ¾ ,- rl. 3;< l.L mnmT ©D(}

(35) : rl. MS=0.00, F=0.00, p=0.951, 3;< l. MS=0.54, F=3.45, p=0.068; £: rl. MS=0.32, F=1.57, p=0.215, 3;< l. MS=0.38, F=1.83, p=0.182). {[m, ¾ ,- ê¾ + r4 2 ¿E 3wD ¤' XE %(Table 4), RS4 & ~ C 12* ªEzD. E& E \ l.*BC ;<, gh oBC D.8

(36) "# $ %& .

(37) « ¬¯ Å`4 K Wð7 ¿ Ê& 2 ¿? Table 6 ". Fig. 1. Application subtest scores by achievement level.. Á h Q| & .2 l%* E & 2 E¦ oBC RÂi %D. . ! . Å`4 ¿ . ³D. ± H *< ¾ ' ~C 12*BC ;< oBC mn" D. Ä I r& D+ ^2* XE %z&, E& ? )Q "-.$ þ£ t _KL I #z? L i %D.8 ZJ. K r F r4. , `4 Tc , Ä I 4 Ec Ô _â. ,F. k rl.L mn"D(Table 5). b, .. . TX 4 Ec Ô _â |.Ä y 4. TX ,-4 RSE TX ,-. Mann-Whitney U test |. ÂÂ Table 7. Table 8. y ,F? E. " ³D. y , . TX , Ä I . 2 ¿? Table 4 " ³D.. Á, <E }

(38). 4 R. kE %D$ RÂ $ %zD. . TX. & rl.L mn"BÁ, êö r . TX. ,-' F4 ? L B®C RSE. ,-E TX ,- y wL ¤. I7 w ' KQ ( ,F ! #:, ½. ©D. b, . TX ,-4 RS' F } Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.

(39) . 629. Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the learning motivation. Attention High Low Total Relevance High Low Total Confidence High Low Total Satisfaction High Low Total. M. Task SD. Adj. M. M. 3.63 4.25 3.92. 0.60 0.58 0.66. 3.71 4.04 3.85. 3.42 3.68 3.54. 0.68 0.64 0.67. 3.62 3.62 3.61. 3.91 4.23 4.06. 0.55 0.55 0.56. 3.95 4.09 4.01. 3.65 3.76 3.70. 0.72 0.55 0.64. 3.69 3.83 3.75. 3.57 3.88 3.71. 0.49 0.50 0.51. 3.53 3.90 3.71. 3.74 3.69 3.72. 0.46 0.44 0.45. 3.73 3.72 3.72. 3.96 4.25 4.09. 0.62 0.57 0.60. 3.79 4.23 4.00. 3.70 3.84 3.76. 0.65 0.58 0.61. 3.80 3.92 3.85. Table 5. ANCOVA results on attention and relevance subtest scores Source of variance Attention Treatment Treatment×Level Relevance Treatment Treatment×Level. SS. df. MS. F. p. 0.99 0.43. 1 1. 0.99 0.43. 5.61 2.42. 0.021* 0.126. Performance SD. Adj. M. gh K RS' `L }

(40) S4 ? L KQ kO? LD$ &3 L E %D. ' ( $ %& . . I w ^y RS4 I` |.. 1.00 0.00. 1 1. 1.00 0.00. 7.14 0.00. 0.010* 0.979. *p<0.05.. ‘E( 67*BC w rz? gD I w. ©? g ^ ÕOô. ³ ¢q?’4 h. ¾ ,- EL mn"D(χ2=9.66, p=0.047). b, TX ,- RS y . TX , - RSE I wC Q ^ ÕOô. ³D. $ 45 ³&, .2 L wL I w ï6 ¥ RS4 0E L & oB.

(41) S4 E I w W#®C, TX . C RÂi %D. ª, ‘E( .& Dß! I w. ,-4 RS y */*BC y y. r& o Q ! RÂý¢q?’, ‘¼Rã. . Q| KQ 0 ®C, _KL. I w r

(42) « Q ! RÂý¢q?’4 h. D+ 21#$ I*E$ RÂi %D.. Q& \4Y EL mnmT ©Bm, .. Ê, `4 Tc 3;< l.L mn"&. TX ,-4 RSE TX ,-4. K ,- ê¾. RSD I w y 12*BC RÂ Á, . \4Y EL åzD(K: MS=0.40, F=2.20, p=0.148,. «E D$ RÂ & X? ë %D(Table 9).. (Fig. 2), -# Å |.& ,. K: MS=0.30, F=0.78, p=0.385). b, K RS' . TX ,-,. K RS' TX . . ,- `L RS! kOE D$ RÂ & XE %zD. K RS'. K RS y. ± H& F . . 2rÄ ' * =? E `< &,18 .. E RS4

(43) , , . TX ' RS4 ? L y ? r. {0$ Yµ& l. 2003, Vol. 47, No. 6.

(44)

(45) . 630. Table 6. Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the perceptions of learning environment. Affiliation High Low Total Teacher support High Low Total Task orientation High Low Total Order and organization High Low Total Involvement High Low Total. M. Task SD. Adj. M. M. Performance SD. Adj. M. 3.53 3.92 3.71. 0.61 0.65 0.65. 3.47 3.59 3.50. 2.97 3.27 3.11. 0.65 0.95 0.80. 3.21 3.43 3.32. 4.22 4.00 4.12. 0.47 0.75 0.61. 4.11 3.87 3.91. 3.65 4.05 3.83. 0.58 0.54 0.59. 3.81 4.13 3.96. 3.78 4.08 3.92. 0.34 0.59 0.49. -. 3.40 3.65 3.52. 0.60 0.65 0.59. -. 2.42 3.29 2.82. 0.52 0.92 0.85. 2.54 3.21 2.85. 2.42 2.70 2.55. 0.49 0.78 0.64. 2.44 2.64 2.52. 3.73 3.92 3.82. 0.48 0.72 0.60. -. 3.10 3.18 3.14. 0.51 0.95 0.73. -. Table 7. ANCOVA/ANOVA results on affiliation, teacher support, task orientation, and order & organization subtest scores Source of variance Affiliation Treatment Treatment×Level Teacher support Treatment Treatment×Level Task orientation Treatment Treatment×Level Order and organization Treatment Treatment×Level *. SS. df. MS. F. p. 0.44 0.04. 1 1. 0.44 0.04. 0.97 0.08. 0.330 0.781. 0.00 1.20. 1 1. 0.44 0.04. 0.01 0.905 4.44 0.040*. 2.45 0.01. 1 1. 2.45 0.01. 7.92 0.007** 0.03 0.872. 1.71 0.81. *. 1.71 0.81. 1 1. 5.84 0.019 2.77 0.102. **. p<0.05, p<0.01.. Fig. 2. Teacher support subtest scores by achievement level.. . I` ³D. H |.,

(46) 4 *< Wð 3;< l.L %z&, K }& . TX ,. K }& TX *< W. ð wL ¤' XE mn"D.

(47) « ¬¯ \94 l.L » .& m. Table 8. Results of Mann-Whitney U Test in involvement Mean rank U Z p Task Performance Involvement 38.45 24.68 235.500 -3.039 0.002** **. p<0.01.. nmT $ $» .£ mnÝ w?12 $7i g, 4 l.& .4 ¬ Dß! mn° %´? "` Á { c y O %& HL PHD. 24* Wð& F k . r4,F, Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.

(48) . 631. Table 9. Results of perceptions of reward methods Question. Group. What do you think about grading each group instead of evaluating each of you? What do you think about grading method?. Did you study harder in your group than before?. Task Performance Task Performance. Task Performance. Likert Scale(number/%) very bad 1(3.5) 1(3.0) very unfair 0(0.0) 0(0.0) I never studied much harder 1(3.5) 1(3.0). bad. normal. good. very good. 6(21.4) 10(30.3) unfair 2( 7.1) 2( 6.1) I didnt study harder 0( 0.0) 8(24.2). 6(21.4) 11(33.3) normal 8(28.6) 13(39.3). 9(32.1) 6(18.1) fair 11(39.3) 14(42.4) I studied harder 16(57.1) 13(39.4). 6(21.4) 5(15.1) very fair 7(25.0) 4(12.1) I studied much harder 6(21.4) 3( 9.0). neither 5(17.9) 8(24.2). F y , . TX , Ä. ¬¯ 4 l. D¡& H E. I {0$ . ¦9E i oED. Ê, ± H& 2* _. ¬¯ EL mn"D. Ä . â£E t"#zT£, ¬¯ RS4. 4 D¯. 3;< F? Gô K y O %& 2 * . K Wð )Ù*BC. \4Y T& ©T£, (*BC . TX ,. HL #E i oED.. -4 RS4 wL ¤! mn"D. b, . TX ? i ¥, RSE .2 8 ,F. . y y L ¤¡T$, ? 12*BC RÂ & > 24* Wð l. L9: %D. ¬ uv w >4 |. x D&. .2 ùúû. ? & oE R S4 +,- ? ;" %´? "`D. +,- .2 xw? & . TX E 12* +,- 4 y \ BC . 4 E #& * 3;<? " oBC ,< =Ä E j^ T*U24* W ð l.L %zD. ¬, fM RS4 .2? L & . TX ? */ *BC <i >PL %D. ª, . TX & RS4 * ? L &, E[ * =' 4 .2 }*BC ?#& o' ¡¢D.19 b, . TX ,-4 ¥ E ,-£ # T* Wð l.L @AE mnmT ©? L E %D. {[®C RS4 = X BC{C ? . TX . ã & ] y HQ ë >PL %D. Ê ¸ R' y R y . TX* XE D$ $#®C,20 RS 4 `(

(49) « E 7Em X > 2003, Vol. 47, No. 6. 1. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. Circles of Learning Cooperation in the Classroom; Interaction Book Company: Minesota, 1993. 2. Slavin, R. E. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice; A Simon & Schuster Company: Massachesetts, 1995. 3.

(50) ;

(51) , 2000. 4.

(52) ! ;

(53) , 1997. 5. Yager, S.; Johnson, D. W.; & Johnson, R. T. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1985, 10, 127. 6. ; ; ; ; "# $% & 2000, 20, 43. 7. Watson, S. B.; Marshal, J. E. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1995, 32, 291. 8. ! '(

(54) : $' ) * +,- ./0;

(55) , 1998. 9. Klein, J. D.; Others. Effects of cooperative learning and type of reward on performance and continuing motivation; Paper presented at the convention of the association for educational communications and technology, New Orleans, 1993. 10. Maehr, M. L.; Midgley, C. Educational Psychologist.

(56) 632.

(57) . 1991, 26, 399. 11. "; # $%12 1999, 11, 1. 12. $ 3"

(58) 4;

(59) , 1994. 13. ; %&; !; "# $% & 1998, 18, 61. 14. $; ' 56$%7 8"

(60) 9 :; ()*+ : , 1998. 15. Kel1er, J. M.; Subhiyah, R. Course Interest Survey; Florida State University, 1993.. 16. Fraser, B. J.; & Fisher, D. L. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1986, 23, 387. 17. ,-. ;<= >?@A B) C0: /DEF G H

(61) 7 8" SPSS for Windows 100% C 0; / : , 1998. 18. Nattiv, A. Elementary School Journal 1994, 94, 285. 19. 0#; 12

(62) 9 :; / : , 1999. 20. ; "# $% & 1997, 17, 415.. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society.

(63)