DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

메타 분석을 이용한 로봇교육과 프로그래밍교육의 효과 비교

Comparison of the Effects of Robotics Education to Programming Education Using Meta-Analysis

  • 양창모 (청주교육대학교 컴퓨터교육과)
  • Yang, Changmo (Dept. of Computer Education, Cheongju National University of Education)
  • 투고 : 2014.07.20
  • 심사 : 2014.08.25
  • 발행 : 2014.09.30

초록

로봇교육과 프로그래밍교육이 학습자들에게 미치는 긍정적인 효과는 거의 동일하지만, 로봇교육은 프로그래밍교육에 비하여 로봇구입이라는 경제적 비용과 학습자의 인지적 부담을 증가시키는 로봇 제작 과정이 포함되기도 하는 차이점이 있다. 이러한 차이점으로 인하여 모든 학교급 또는 모든 학습 목표에 대하여 프로그래밍교육이 동일한 효과를 갖지 않을 수도 있을 것이다. 이러한 가정을 확인하기 위하여 본 연구에서는 국내에서 발표된 로봇교육의 효과에 대한 논문을 메타분석하여 효과크기를 산출하고 프로그래밍교육의 효과크기와 비교한다. 비교 결과를 바탕으로 로봇교육의 방향을 제시하고자 한다. 로봇교육과 프로그래밍교육의 평균 효과크기는 각각 0.6664과 0.4060로 유의미한 차이를 보였다. 초등학생의 경우 평균 효과크기가 로봇교육은 0.373, 프로그래밍교육은 0.667로 유의미한 차이를 보였다. 중학생이 로봇교육과 프로그래밍교육 모두에서 가장 큰 효과를 보였으며, 학교급이 높아질수록 프로그래밍교육에 비하여 로봇교육의 효과가 커짐을 알 수 있었다. 목적별 분석 결과 프로그래밍교육은 모든 영역에 고르게 중간의 효과를 보인 반면 로봇교육은 인지적 영역보다 정의적 영역에 더 큰 효과가 있었다. 교육방법별로 분석한 결과 로봇제작의 효과크기는 1.3294로 높은 효과를 보이며, 로봇제작과 프로그래밍, 로봇프로그래밍, 로봇활용의 순으로 중간의 효과를 보였다. 본 연구의 결과에 따라, 프로그래밍교육이 로봇교육에 비하여 전반적으로 효과가 크고, 로봇교육은 중학생 이상의 대상에 대하여 프로그래밍 교육보다 효과가 크며, 로봇교육은 정의적 영역의 향상에 효과가 있다. 또한 로봇교육은 단순 로봇활용보다는 로봇제작, 로봇프로그래밍을 포함하여, 다양한 주제에 적용할 때 더 큰 효과가 있음을 알 수 있다.

The positive impacts of robotics education and programming education on learners are similar. However, robotics education differs from programming education because it includes purchasing and building robots that cause financial and cognitive load of learners. Due to these differences, two kinds of education may not possess equal efficacies for all schools or all learning objectives. To verify this hypothesis, we conducted meta-analysis of studies on robotics education published in South Korea to estimate the effect sizes and compare it to that of programming education. The difference between the average effect sizes of robotics education and of programming education was significant, as the former was 0.4060 and the latter 0.6664. The average effect size of programming education was significantly larger than that of robotics education for primary school students. Middle school students achieved the highest results in both robotics education and programming education. Also, robotics education became more effective than programming education as students were older. Analysis on objectives showed that programming education uniformly affected all areas, whereas robotics education had more impact on affective domain than cognitive domain. Robot construction had the largest effect size, followed by robot construction and programming, robot programming, and robot utilization. Programming education has larger positive impacts on students overall compared to robotics education. Robotics education is more effective to upperclassmen than programming education, and improves affective domain of students. Also, robotics education shows higher efficacy when combined with various subjects.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Alberta Education(2012). Competencies for 21st century learning.
  2. D. Alimisis(2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
  3. F. B. V. Benitti(2013). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 50, 978-988.
  4. A. Felicia and S. Sharif(2014). A review on educational robotics as assistive tools for learning mathematics and science. International Journal of Computer Science Trends and Technology, 2(2).
  5. G. V. Glass(1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Research, 10, 3-8.
  6. S. Grover(2011). Robotics and engineering for middle and high school students to develop computational thinking. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
  7. S. Grover and R. Pea(2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Research, 42(1), 38043.
  8. L. V. Hedges and I. Olkin(1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press, Orlando.
  9. L. V. Hedges and J. L. Vevea(1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486-504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
  10. C. Kim(2013). A study on systematic review of learning with a robot. Journal of Korean Association of Information Education, 17(2), 199-209.
  11. K.-C. Kim and S.-D. Park(2013). A meta analysis of R-Learning effects on targeting young children. The Journal of Korea Open Association for Early Childhood Education, 18(4), 397-417.
  12. E. Lee(2009). A Robot Programming Teaching and Learning Model to Enhance Computational Thinking Ability. PhD thesis, Korea National University of Education.
  13. S. B. Morris and R. P. DeShon(2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta- analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.105
  14. S. Papert(1980). MINDSTORMS: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books.
  15. C. A. Siebra and N. C. Q. Lino(2010). An experimental study on the use of robotics as an educational tool. In XXI Brazilian Symposium on Computer in Education.
  16. A. J. Sutton, S. J. Duval, R. L. Tweedie, K. R. Abrams, and D. R. Jones(2000). Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ, 320(10), 1574-1577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574
  17. D. C. Williams, Y. Ma, L. Prejean, M. J. Ford, and G. Lai(2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201-216, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782505
  18. J. M. Wing(2011). Computational thinking: What and why? The Link Magazine.

피인용 문헌

  1. Recent Trends in R-Learning Research in Korea and its Effects on Preschool and Elementary School Children vol.6, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.30528/jolss.2016.6.2.004
  2. The Effects of Programming Education using App inventor on Problem-solving Ability and Self-efficacy, Perception vol.22, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2017.22.01.123
  3. 교육대학교 로봇 활용 소프트웨어 교육 과정 개발을 위한 예비 교사의 인식 조사 연구 vol.21, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2017.21.3.277
  4. 국내 로봇활용 SW교육에 대한 연구 동향: 2006년~2016년을 중심으로 vol.17, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5392/jkca.2017.17.10.190
  5. Meta-analysis of the programming learning effectiveness depending on the teaching and learning method vol.22, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2017.22.11.125
  6. 로봇 활용 SW교육이 초등학생의 컴퓨팅 사고력, 창의성, 학업흥미, 협업능력에 미치는 효과 vol.22, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2018.22.1.9
  7. 초등SW융합교육의 효과에 대한 메타분석 vol.20, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5392/jkca.2020.20.10.247