Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Influences of Grouping Method on Science Achievement and Self-efficacy in Middle School Science Instruction Using Reciprocal Peer Tutoring Strategy

상호동료교수 전략을 활용한 중학교 과학 수업에서 소집단 구성 방법이 과학 성취도 및 자아효능감에 미치는 영향

  • Published : 2007.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigated the influences of reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) strategy on middle school students' science achievement, self-efficacy, perception of instruction by grouping method and science achievement level. Eighth graders from a middle school in Seoul were assigned to comparison, homogeneous RPT, and heterogeneous RPT groups. The students were taught about 'separation of mixtures' for 8 class hours. After the instructions, a science achievement test consisting of three subtests (knowledge, understanding, and application), a self-efficacy test, and a questionnaire about the perception of instruction were administered. The analysis of the results revealed that the scores of heterogeneous RPT group, regardless of the students prior science achievement level, were significantly higher than those of the other groups in the knowledge and understanding subtests, and the self-efficacy test. The scores of homogeneous RPT group were significantly higher than those of the comparison group in the knowledge subtest but not in the understanding subtest and the self-efficacy test. The low-level students in heterogeneous RPT group performed better in the science achievement test and the application subtest than those in the other groups. The high-level students in RPT groups performed better in the science achievement test than those in comparison group. However, there was no significant difference for the application subtest scores of the high-level students of the three groups. Most students in RPT groups perceived positively on the instructions. The students in heterogeneous RPT group and low-level students especially showed more positive perception of the instruction than those in homogeneous RPT group and high-level students.

이 연구는 소집단 구성 방법 및 학생들의 과학 성취 수준에 따라 상호동료교수(RPT) 전략이 중학생들의 과학 성취도, 자아효능감, 수업에 대한 인식에 미치는 효과를 조사하였다. 서울시에 있는 중학교 2학년 학생 88명을 비교 집단, 동질 RPT 집단, 이질 RPT 집단으로 배치한 후, '혼합물의 분리' 단원에 대하여 8차시 동안 수엽을 실시하였다. 수업 처치 후, 세 하위 영역(지식, 이해, 적용)으로 구성된 과학 성취도, 자아효능감과 수업에 대한 인식 검사를 실시하였다. 연구 결과, 사전 과학 성취 수준에 관계없이 이질 RPT 집단의 지식과 이해 및 자아효능감 점수가 다른 집단의 점수들보다 높았고, 이들 점수 차이가 통계적으로 유의미하였다. 동질 RPT 집단의 지식 영역 점수는 비교 집단보다 유의미한 점수 차이로 높았으나, 이해 영역과 자아효능감에서는 비교 집단과 유의미한 점수차이가 없었다. 과학 성취도와 적용 영역에서는 하위 학생들의 경우 이질 RPT 집단의 점수가 다른 집단보다 높았고, 이들 점수 차이가 유의미하였다. 상위 학생들의 경우에는 RPT 집단의 과학 성취도 점수가 비교 집단보다 유의미한 점수 차이로 높았으나, 적용 영역에서는 세 집단 간 점수 차이가 유의마하지 않았다. RPT 집단의 학생들은 대체로 수업에 대해 긍정적으로 인식하고 있었고, 특히 동질 RPT 집단보다 이질 RPT 집단의 학생들이, 상위 학생들보다 하위 학생들이 수업에 대해 좀 더 긍정적이었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 노태희, 김소연, 김경순 (2005). 중학교 과학 수업에서 학생들의 구조화된 상호작용을 유도하기 위한 상호 동료교수 전략의 효과 .한국과학교육학회지, 25(4), 465-471
  2. 노태희, 차정호, 전경문, 정태호, 한재영, 최용남 (1999). 개념 학습에 적용한 협동학습 전략에서 소집단 구성 방법의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 19(3), 400-408
  3. 박병렬, 김범기 (2002). 과학 실험 수업에서 소집단 구성 방법이 중학생들의 탐구 능력 향상에 미치는 효과. 청람과학교육연구논총, 12(1), 1-15
  4. 손영, 김성일 (2005). 또래교수 집단구성 방식이 학업성취도와 교과흥미에 미치는 영향. 교육심리연구, 19(3), 595-613
  5. 윤초희 (2003). 또래 간 상호작용이 아동의 추론에 마치는 영향. 교육심리연구, 17(2), 289-314
  6. 이주연, 김희백 (2002). 중학교 과학에서 소집단 구성을 달리한 협동 학습의 학습자 수준에 따른 효과. 한국생물교육학회지, 30(4), 353-362
  7. 정운성 (2002). 협동학습의 이해와 실천. 교육과학사
  8. Bowers, C. A, Pharmer, J. A, & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305-327 https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100303
  9. Cohen, P. A, Kulik, J. A, & Kulik, C-L. C (1982). Educational outcomes of peer tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-248 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019002237
  10. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
  11. Cohen, E. G. (1998). Making cooperative learning equitable. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 18-21
  12. Fantuzzo, J. W, King, J. A, & Heller, L. R (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and' school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 331-339 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.331
  13. Fantuzzo, J. W, Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 173-177 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.173
  14. Gillies, R. M, & A. F. Ashman (1995). The effects of gender and ability on students' behaviors and interactions in classroom-based work groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 211-225 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.tb01143.x
  15. Ginsburg-Block, M, & Fantuzzo, J. (1997). Reciprocal peer tutoring: A analysis of 'teacher' and 'student' interactions as a function of training and experience. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(2), 134-149 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088955
  16. Good, T. L., Mulryan, C, & McCaslin, M. (1992). Grouping for instruction in mathmatics' A call for programmatic research on small-group process. In D. A Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan. 165-196
  17. Griffin, B. W., & Griffin, M. M (1997). The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on graduate students' achievement, test anxiety, and academic self-efficacy. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 197-209 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943454
  18. Gaustad, J. (1993). Peer and cross-age tutoring. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 367-379 https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259701800606
  19. Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637-644 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17118
  20. Johnson, D. W, Johnson, R. T, & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co
  21. King, A (1989). Effects of a metacognitive strategy on high school students' comprehension of lectures. ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 305149
  22. Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2002). Designing collabcrative learning context. Theory into Practive, 41(1), 26-32 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4101_5
  23. Pintrich, P. R, & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
  24. Rittschof, K. A, & Griffin, B. W (2001). Reciprocal peer tutoring: Re-examining the value of a cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 21(3), 313-331 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410123903
  25. Rohrbeek, C. A, Fantuzzo, J. W, Ginsburg-Block, M. D., & Miller, T. R (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta -analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 240-257 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240
  26. Sanders, P. (2001). Peer tutoring, An effective instructional strategy. Paper presented at the Louisiana Educational Research Association, Annual Conference, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  27. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69