정보교육학회논문지 (Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education)

  • 제20권1호
  • /
  • Pages.101-108
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1229-3245(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8428(eISSN)
한국정보교육학회 (Korea Association of Information Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

메타인지 전략에 기반한 코스웨어 설계

A Courseware Design using Metacognitive Strategy

  • 이재무 (부산교육대학교 컴퓨터교육과)
  • Lee, Jaemu (Dept. of Computer Education, Busan National University of Education)
  • 투고 : 2016.02.04
  • 심사 : 2016.02.12
  • 발행 : 2016.02.29
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

현재 개발된 대부분의 코스웨어들은 학습 효과를 높이기 위한 교수 전략 부족으로 질적인 면에서 부정적인 평가를 받고 있다. 그리고 코스웨어 설계는 시간이 많이 걸리며 어려운 작업이다. 따라서 코스웨어 개발을 체계적으로 하고 학습 효과를 높이기 위한 개발 방법들이 요구된다. 본 연구는 메타인지 전략을 활용하여 코스웨어 설계 방향 및 관리를 용이하도록 하였다. 또한 교수 모형 구체화 틀을 메타인지 도구로 활용하여 설계를 쉽게하고 학습 효과를 높인 코스웨어의 질 향상도 추구하였다. 그리고 이 방법을 교육대학의 코스웨어 설계론 수강자들에게 적용하였다. 적용 후 분석 결과 메타인지 전략으로 코스웨어 설계가 쉽고, 설계 과정 중 자신의 설계 방향을 모니터링 할 수 있었다. 교수 모형 구체화 틀을 메타인지 전략으로 활용함으로 체계적인 설계를 할 수 있었고 구체적 교수 전략을 구현 할 수 있었다. 그러나 설계자들이 교수모형 구체화 틀을 만드는 데 어려움이 있었고, 교수모형 구체화 틀의 공유가 필요하였다.

Most of a courseware evaluated negatively by short of instructional strategy to improve learning effects. Designing a courseware is a time-taking and challenging task. Therefore, a method is required that helps to easily design courseware that is effective to learning. This study proposed a method for designing and management courseware by utilizing a metacognitive strategy. We made a design the coursewase efficiently using concrete instructional model frameworks as metacognitive stragety and tried to improve the quality of courseware for learning effects. We applied our proposed method to teacher's college students in Korea who were taking the "Courseware Development" course. After analyzing it's effects, the responds can design courseware easily and monitor the design direction while their designing. Also, they can design the courseware systematically and implement detail instructional strategy by using concrete instruction model frameworks as metacognitive strategy. However, they were not easy to develop concrete instructional model frameworks at first and we need sharing it among the designers.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Gregory Schraw & David Moshman(1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
  2. Ines Grutzner, Stephan Weibelzahl & Patrick Waterson (2004). Improving Courseware Quality Through Life Cycle Encompassing Quality Assurance. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 946-951.
  3. Jun, Young Cook (1998). Theoretical Backgrounds for an Ongoing Prototype of Automated Instructional Design System. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 1(1), 127-138.
  4. Jung, Insung (1997). Developing a Constructivistic Model for Virtual Online University. Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 1-21.
  5. Karen. L. Milheim (2011). The Role of Adult Education Philosophy in Facilitating the Online Class Room. Adult Learning, 22, 24-31.
  6. Kim, Dongsik (1995). Conceptualization of Instructional Design Automatization Systems. Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 51-86. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.11.2.51
  7. Kim, Hoo-Nam (2001). Design and Implementation of an On-line Learning System Using Meta-cognitive Strategy. Master Thesis, Han Nam University.
  8. Kim, JongHee & Lee, Jaemu (2005). Development and Application of ICT Teaching and Learning Materials for Physical Education based on Direct Instruction Model. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 9(3), 397-405.
  9. Kim, Woohyun, Lee, Jongsuk & Lee Joon (2015). Analysis of Online Simulation Education: Focusing on the EDISON_Computational Chemistry System. The Conference of the Korean Institute of Information Scientists and Engineers, 2015(6), 1003-1004.
  10. Lee, Jaemu (2012). Requirements Analysis for an Adaptive Courseware. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 16(2), 173-180.
  11. Lee, Jaeho, Yoon, Kyeongseob & Wang, Changjong Wang (1995). A Design of Tools for Authoring Instruction. The Conference of The Korean Institute of Information Scientists and Engineers, 22(1).
  12. Lee, Na Hyun & Song, Hae Deok (2015). A Development of e-Portfolio Design Principles for Facilitating Metacognition Activities from Affordance Perspectives. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 21(2), 165-184.
  13. Lee, Seong Ju, Jeon, Hee Jeong & Nah, Jae Hee (2013). Computer-Aided Education: The Effect of Contents Presentation Types, Levels and Metacognition on Concept Map in Online Learning. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 16(6), 71-81.
  14. Oenardi Lawanto (2010). Students' Metacognition During an Engineering Design Project. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20084
  15. Roblyera, M. D. (1981). Instructional Design versus Authoring of Courseware: Some Crucial Differences. AEDS Journal, 14(4), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00011037.1981.11008295
  16. Susan Gillera & Philip Barkerb (2006). An Evolving Methodology for Managing Multimedia Courseware Production. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(3), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290600750879
  17. Yeon, Hyejin & Jo, Miheon (2014). Development of a Robot Programming Instructional Model based on Cognitive Apprenticeship for the Enhancement of Metacognition. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 18(2), 225-234. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2014.18.2.225