정보교육학회논문지 (Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education)

  • 제22권5호
  • /
  • Pages.575-583
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1229-3245(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8428(eISSN)
한국정보교육학회 (Korea Association of Information Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

EPL 교육에서 연역적 및 귀납적 교수·학습방법 비교연구

A comparative study of deductive and inductive teaching and learning methods for EPL education

  • 박재연 (광주 어등초등학교) ;
  • 마대성 (광주교육대학교 컴퓨터교육과)
  • Park, Jaeyeon (Gwangju Odung Elementary School) ;
  • Ma, Daisung (Dept. of Computer Education, Gwangju National University of Education)
  • 투고 : 2018.10.16
  • 심사 : 2018.10.29
  • 발행 : 2018.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 EPL학습을 문법 교수 학습방법인 연역적 교수 학습방법과 귀납적 교수 학습방법으로 접근했다. 엔트리 사이트에서 초등 5~6학년 학생을 대상으로 제공하는 강의를 연역적 학습과정으로 정했다. 이를 바탕으로 귀납적 학습 과정을 개발하고 각 학습과정을 12차시로 구성했다. 연구를 진행한 후 두 그룹 간 EPL 활용능력평가, 학습 만족도 및 몰입도 검사를 실시했다. 연구결과 두 그룹 간 통계적으로 의미 있는 결과를 얻기는 어려웠다. 하지만 세 가지 검사에서 귀납적 교수 학습방법을 적용한 그룹의 평균값이 모두 높았다. 학습과정을 장기적으로 구성하여 연구를 실행한다면 두 그룹 간 통계적으로 의미 있는 결과를 나태 낼 것으로 생각한다.

This study approached EPL learning with deductive teaching and learning methods and inductive teaching and learning methods which are grammar teaching and learning methods. In the entry site, lectures provided for elementary school students in grades 5 to 6 were set as deductive learning courses. Based on this, inductive learning process was developed and each learning process was composed of 12 periods. After conducting the research, EPL utilization evaluation, learning satisfaction and immersion test were conducted between the two groups. It was difficult to obtain statistically meaningful results between the two groups. However, in the three tests, the mean value of groups using inductive teaching and learning methods was high. If we construct a long-term learning process and conduct research, we think that statistically meaningful results are produced between the two groups.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Hyun yeong(2016). Programming Language for Elementary and Secondary Education (EPL) Monthly SW Centralized Society August, 2016.
  2. Kim Kyung Jin(2010). A Comparative study on Inductive grammar Instruction and Deductive Grammar Instruction in Middle School English Class. The Graduate School of Education Ewha Womans Univetsity.
  3. Kim Ye Eun (2009). A Comparative Study of English Grammar Learning in High Schools Through Deductive Classes and Inductive Classes. A Study on the Master's Degree in Graduate School of Korea National University of Education.
  4. Min Byeong Chan(1999). A Study on the Application of Inductive Thinking in Social Studies Education. Journal of social studies education. Vol 1.
  5. Park Ho Soo(1995). The effects of inductive and deductive teaching on learning of knowledge and intellectual functioning. Thesis for Master's Degree by Graduate School of Education, Dong-A University.
  6. Song Sae Ra(2014). A Comparative study on deductive versus inductive grammar instruction for improving English grammar and writing skills. The Graduate school of Education Hanguk University of Foreign Studies.
  7. Lee Seok Bum, Choi Wan Sik(1997). Comparative study on deductive teaching method and inductive teaching method for basic ability of computer programming. The journal of Vocational Education Research. 16(2). 131-142.
  8. Lee You-Rim, Kim Hyeon-Okh(2007). AComparative Study on Deductive versus Inductive Grammar Instruction in High School English Class. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics. 23(1). 37-64.
  9. Jung Yeong Sik, Yu jung Soo, Lim Jin Suk, Son Yu Kyung (2015). Software Education. Jeon-ju : Simas.
  10. KERIS(2013). Educational programming language selection strategies. Daegu : KERIS
  11. KERIS(2014). Trend Analysis and Teaching of Educational Programming Language - Case Study.
  12. Butt, D.(1989). Living with English . Sydney : Macgmarie University.
  13. Celce-Muria, M.(2001). Language teaching approaches: An overview. In M. Celec-Muria (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-11). Boston, MA : Heinle & Heinle.
  14. Doughty, C, & Williams, J.(1998). Pedagogical Choices in focus on form. In C, Doughty & J, Williams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge : Cambridge University.
  15. Fortune, A. (1992). Self-study grammar practice : Learner's view and preferences. ELT Journal. 46(2). 160-171. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.2.160
  16. ISTE(2004). Programming as a Second Language. Learning & Leading with Technology. 32(4).
  17. Nunam, David(1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice Hall.
  18. Thornbury, S.(1999). How to teach grammar. Essex : Pearson Education.
  19. Tucker, A. (1996). Strategic directions in computer science education. ACM Computing Surveys. 28(4). 836-845.
  20. ENTRY, https://playentry.org/