The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education (컴퓨터교육학회논문지)

The Korean Association of Computer Education (한국컴퓨터교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Influencing Factors of the Team Project-based Computer Programing Education

팀 프로젝트 기반 교육이 컴퓨터 프로그래밍 학습효과에 미치는 영향요인 분석

  • Received : 2019.01.31
  • Accepted : 2019.03.24
  • Published : 2019.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We designed and applied team project based learning for effective computer programming education and analyzed the effect on learning effect. Throughout simplified traditional theories and practices, teamed up with random lottery, divided role & responsibility, and conducted problem solving projects in a competitive way for a given task. When after completion of the course, we conducted questionnaires on learners in order to grasp the influence factors on the learning effect. As a result of the structural equation model analysis, it was shown that Team Project had a direct effect on the learning effect. The learning effect based on the relationships among the factors derived through exploratory factor analysis. Based on this analysis, we propose a more effective computer programming education way.

본 논문에서는 효과적인 컴퓨터 프로그래밍 학습을 위하여 팀 프로젝트 기반 학습을 설계하여 적용하고 학습효과에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 이론 강의 및 실습 최소화, 무작위 추첨에 의한 팀 구성, 각 팀원별 책임과 권한의 설정, 주어진 과제에 대한 경쟁 방식 문제 해결 프로젝트 진행, 팀 프로젝트가 끝날 때까지 매주 단계별 진행사항 발표를 통한 자연스러운 정보 공유 및 학습 사이클 반복 등을 통하여 학생들이 능동적으로 학습에 참여하는 모습이 관찰되었다. 과정 종료 후, 학습효과에 대한 분석을 위하여 학습자를 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였으며, 그 결과 팀 프로젝트 기반 교육이 컴퓨터 프로그래밍 학습에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 파악되었다. 본 논문에서는 도출된 요인 간 관계분석을 바탕으로 보다 효과적인 컴퓨터 프로그래밍 학습 방법을 논하고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Byrne, P., & Lyons, G. (2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 49-52. https://doi.org/10.1145/507758.377467
  2. 이수진.이민정 (2017). 비전공자 대상 컴퓨터프로그래밍 교육 패러다임 연구. 한국컴퓨터교육학회 학술발표대회논문집, 21(2), 161-164.
  3. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  4. Department of Education. (2013). The national curriculum in England - Key stages 1 and 2 framework document.
  5. 김미량 (2002). 컴퓨터 프로그래밍 교육에 적용 가능한 효과적 교수방법의 탐색적 대안. 컴퓨터교육학회논문지, 5(3), 1-8.
  6. 임규연.허희옥.김영수 (2009). 온라인 팀 프로젝트에서 팀 리더의 상호작용 패턴 분석. 교육정보미디어연구, 15(4), 295-317.
  7. Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small group research, 37(5), 490-521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938
  8. Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory (revised edition). Boston: McBer.
  9. Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 330-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878105279012
  10. Park, W., & Bang, H. (2002). Team role balance and team performance. In Belbin Biennial Conference,"Changing Role of Management in the 21st Century," Clare College, Cambridge, England.
  11. Charney, D., Reder, L., & Kusbit, G. W. (1990). Goal setting and procedure selection in acquiring computer skills: A comparison of tutorials, problem solving, and learner exploration. Cognition and instruction, 7(4), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0704_3
  12. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning . John Wiley & Sons.
  13. Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of management, 23(4), 495-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90045-3
  14. Gruenfeld, D. H., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Kim, P. H. (1998). Cognitive flexibility, communication strategy, and integrative complexity in groups: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(2), 202-226. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1349
  15. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied psychology, 51(3), 355-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00951
  16. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382-388.
  17. 김계수 (2007). 구조방정식모형 분석. 한나래출판사.
  18. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  19. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.247
  20. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5