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 Students' Motivational Characteristics on the Processes of Concept Learning Using A Discrepant Event

학습자의 동기적 특성들이 불일치 사례를 사용한 개념 학습 과정에 미치는 영향

  • Published : 2009.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the influences of students' motivational characteristics on the processes of learning density concept using a discrepant event. The participants were 642 seventh graders from two middle schools. Tests of failure tolerance, self-efficacy and mastery/performance goal orientation were administered as pretests. A preconception test was also administered. The intervention was the students' individual study of the density concept with a worksheet that was designed to incorporate the major steps of conceptual change learning. The tests of attention, effort and conceptual understanding were administered as post-tests. The responses of 203 students who had been found to possess the target misconception were analyzed. The results of a path analysis revealed that students' motivational characteristics variables did not influence cognitive conflict. Failure tolerance and mastery goal orientation, however, influenced conceptual understanding via situational interest, attention and effort. Self-efficacy influenced conceptual understanding via effort. Performance goal orientation negatively influenced conceptual understanding via attention and effort. Cognitive conflict influenced conceptual understanding directly as well as indirectly via situational interest.

본 연구에서는 학습자의 동기적 특성이 불일치 사례를 이용한 밀도 개념 학습 과정에 미지는 영향을 조사하였다. 두 개의 중학교 1학년 학생 642명이 연구에 참여하였으며, 사전 검사로 실패에 대한 인내, 자아효능감, 과제 목표 지향과 수행 목표 지향 검사를 실시한 뒤, 선개념 검사를 실시하였다. 개념 변화 학습의 주요 단계를 포함한 학습지를 이용하여 밀도 학습에 대한 개별적인 학습을 실시한 뒤, 사후 검사로 주의집중, 노력, 개념 이해도 검사를 실시하였다. 목표 오개념을 지닌 203명의 학생들의 응답을 경로 분석한 결과, 동기적 특성 변인들은 인지 갈등에 영향을 주지 않았다. 그러나 실패에 대한 인내와 과제 목표 지향은 상황 흥미와 주의집중, 노력을 매개로 개념 이해도에 영향을 주었다. 자아효능감은 노력을 매개로 개념 이해도에 영향을 주었다. 수행 목표 지향은 주의집중과 노력을 매개로 개념 이해도에 부적인 영향을 주었다. 인지 갈등은 상황 흥미를 매개로 간접적으로뿐 아니라 직접적으로도 개념 이해도에 영향을 주었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강석진, 박지애, 최숙영, 노태희 (2008). 학습자의 인지적 특성이 개념 변화에 미치는 영향. 대한화학회지, 52(5), 561-568 https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2008.52.5.561
  2. 강훈식, 김민경, 노태희 (2007). 인지갈등과 비인지적 변인이 개념변화에 미치는 영향 및 변칙사례에 의해 유발된 상황 흥미의 근원. 한국과학교육학회지,27(1), 18-27
  3. 권재술, 이경호, 김연수 (2003). 인지갈등과 개념변화의 필요조건과 충분조건. 한국과학교육학회지, 23(5), 574-591
  4. 김계수 (2007). Amos 7.0 구조방정식모형 분석.서울: 한나래출판사
  5. 노태희, 강석진, 김혜경, 채우기, 노석구 (1997). 효과적인 실험 수업을 위한 개념 변화 수업 모형의 개발 및 적용. 한국과학교육학회지, 17(2), 179-190
  6. 노태희, 임희연, 강석진, 김순주 (2001). 학생의 인지적${\cdot}$정의적 변인, 변칙 사례에 의한 인지 갈등, 개념 변화 사이의 관계. 한국과학교육학회지, 21(4), 658-667
  7. 소연희, 김성일 (2005). 문제중심학습 상황에서문제특성, 자기효능감 및 평가유형이 흥미에 미치는효과. 교육심리연구, 19(3), 653-675
  8. 이경호 (2000). 고등학생의 물리 개념변화에 미치는 인지갈등, 학습동기와 학습전략의 영향. 한국교원대학교 대학원 박사 학위 논문
  9. 전경문, 노태희 (1997). 학생들의 과학 학습 동기및 전략. 한국과학교육학회지, 17(4), 415-423
  10. 전경문, 박현주, 노태희 (2006). 동기 및 인지 변인이 화학 선다형 수리 문제 해결에 미치는 영향: 성취 목적, 유능감, 학습 전략, 자기 조절 능력. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(1), 1-8
  11. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals,structures, and student motivation. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
  12. Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994).Motivation and strategy use in science: Individualdifferences and classroom effects. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 31(8), 811-831 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310805
  13. Archer, J., & Scevak, J. J. (1998).Enhancing students' motivation to learn:Achievement goals in university classrooms.Educational Psychology, 18(2), 205-223 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341980180206
  14. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Theexercise of control. New York: W. H. Freemanand Company
  15. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and egoinvolving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journalof Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474-482 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474
  16. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997).Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict inconceptual change. Cognition and Instruction,15(1), 1-40 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_1
  17. Chen, A., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P.(2001). An examination of situational interestand its sources. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 71(3), 383-400 https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158578
  18. Chinn, C., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). Anempirical test of a taxonomy of responses toanomalous data in science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
  19. Clifford, M. M. (1988). Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten- to twelve-yearoldstudents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 15-27 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00875.x
  20. Clifford, M. M., & Chou, F. C. (1991). Effects of payoff and task context on academic risk taking. Journal of Educational Psychology,83(4), 499-507 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.499
  21. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T.(2004). Reexamining the role of cognitiveconflict in science concept learning. Researchin Science Education, 34(1), 71-96 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568.b3
  22. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T., &Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students'cognitive and motivational variables in respectof cognitive conflict and conceptual change.International Journal of Science Education,27(9), 1037-1058 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038553
  23. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design ofinstruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.).Instructional design theories and models.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association
  24. Keller, J. M. (1993). IMMS: Instructionalmaterials motivation survey. Florida StateUniversity
  25. Malpass, J. R. (1994). A structural model ofself-efficacy, goal orientation, worry, selfregulatedlearning, and high stakesmathematics achievement. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Los Angeles: Universityof Southern California
  26. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H.(1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitiveengagement in classroom activities. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 80(4), 514-523 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.514
  27. Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C.A. (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: Students' motivation and strategies in project-based learning. Elementary SchoolJournal, 97(5), 501-521
  28. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role ofself-efficacy and self-concept beliefs inmathematical problem solving: A pathanalysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,86(2), 193-203 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193
  29. 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
  30. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A.(1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: Therole of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167
  31. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W.,& Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of ascientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  32. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece J.L. (2008). Motivation in Education: theory,research, and applications. 3rd ed. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill PrenticeHall
  33. Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B.(2003). Skill and will: The role of motivational and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081-1094 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052207