Journal of Practical Engineering Education (실천공학교육논문지)

Korean Institute for Pratical Engineering Education (한국실천공학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Physics Education for the Learning-disabled by the Direct Instruction

직접교수법에 의한 기초공학(물리학)에서 학습장애자 교육

  • 황운학 (한국기술교육대학교 문리HRD학부)
  • Received : 2015.08.31
  • Accepted : 2015.10.30
  • Published : 2015.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Direct Instruction (DI) was applied to the learning-disabled in the basic engineering education (especially, physics education). The DI is specified as an educational method in which the instructor strongly controls during the whole process of the entire course. The tests of understanding, reasoning, memory, and problem-solving speed showed that 20 students (20%) out of random 100 students are learning-disabled. The average points of mid-term and final exams were 53.7% and 61.0% respectively for a certain 41-students class. However, in this class, for the lower point students who obtained less than 50% points, the average points of mid-term and final exams were 29.8% and 28.2% respectively, which showed decreased. From this lower point group, the 8 students (20% students of 41 students) were selected as the learning-disabled. With additional DI studies provided, the average points of mid-term and final exams for the learning-disabled were 18.9% and 25.5% respectively, which showed 6.6% increase that means the DI for the learning-disabled was effective.

이 연구는 직접교수법을 적용해 기초공학의 일부인 물리학 수업에서 발생하는 교육장해학생에 대한 교육을 다루었다. 이 직접교육이란 교육자가 수업방향을 분명히 잡고 강력하게 이끄는 것이 중요한 교육요소인 방법론이다. 임의의 학생 100명에 대해 문제해결에 대한 이해력, 추리력, 기억력, 문제해결속도를 측정하여 20명(20%) 학생이 기초공학장애자로 나타났다. 한편, 직접교육을 통해 표본그룹(41명)의 중간고사와 기말고사에서 각각 53.7%와 61.0%의 성적을 거두어서 13.6% 증가를 보여주었으나 성적 50% 이하인 하위 그룹은 각각 29.8%와 28.2%를 거두어 오히려 감소하였다. 그러나 특별히 성적 최하위 20%인 8명의 학생을 학습장애자로 선정하여 별도로 여가의 직접교육을 수행하였고 이들은 중간고사 및 기말고사 평균점수는 각각 18.9%와 25.5% 로써 6.6% 증가를 보여주어 학습장애자들에 대한 직접교육이 실효가 있음을 보여주었다.

Keywords

References

  1. L. Aguilar, G. Walton, and C. Wieman, "Psychological insights for improved physics teaching," Physics Today, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 433-49, 2014.
  2. L. B. Stebbins, R. G. St. Pierre, E. C. Proper, R. B. Anderson, and T. R. Cerva, Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model. vols. 4 A-D. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1977.
  3. G. D. Borman, G. M. Hewes, L. T. Overman, and S. Brown, "Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis," Review of Educational Research Summer, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 125-230, 2003. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002125
  4. R. Herman, D. Aladjem, P. McMahon, E. Masem, I. Mulligan, A. S. O'Malley, S. Quinones, A. Reeve, and D. Woodruff, An Educator's Guide to School Reform. Washington, DC expenditures, 1999.
  5. National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
  6. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science for all Americans: Project 2061, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990.
  7. B. Alberts, "Considering science education," Science, vol. 319, no. 5870, p. 1589, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157518
  8. U. H. Hwang, "Analysis of the deductive inference in engineering education through the experiments of elliptical trainers," Journal of Practical Engineering Education, vol. 5, no.1, pp.1-13, 2013.
  9. U. H. Hwang, "Variable control in inductive inference for engineering education," Journal of Practical Engineering Education, vol. 6, no.1, pp.1-7, 2014. https://doi.org/10.14702/JPEE.2014.001
  10. J. Handelsman, D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman, and W. B. Wood, "Scientific teaching," Science. vol. 304, no. 5670, pp. 521-522, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1096022
  11. B. Alberts, "Redefining science education," Science, vol. 323, no. 5913, p. 437, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170933
  12. D. Klahr, Paths of Learning and Their Consequences: Discovery learning versus direct instruction in elementary school science teaching [Internet]. Available:http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/supergroup/.
  13. D. Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 2003.
  14. G. H. Roid, Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th ed. Itasca, IL: Riverside, 2003.
  15. A.S. Kaufman, and N. L. Kaufman, Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd ed. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance, 2004