융합정보논문지 (Journal of Convergence for Information Technology)

중소기업융합학회 (Convergence Society for SMB)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

전통 교실과 Active Learning Classroom 간 비교 연구: 학습 공간이 대학생들의 인식에 미치는 영향을 중심으로

Comparison between Traditional Classrooms and Active Learning Classrooms: The Impact of Learning Spaces on Student Perceptions

  • 최고은 (고려대학교 교육학과) ;
  • 신원석 (인천대학교 국어교육과) ;
  • 김명랑 (성신여자대학교 교육학과)
  • Choi, Koun (College of Education, Korea University) ;
  • Shin, Won-Sug (Department of Korean Language Education, Incheon National University) ;
  • Kim, Myunglang (Department of Education, Sungshin University)
  • 투고 : 2020.07.13
  • 심사 : 2020.08.20
  • 발행 : 2020.08.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 학습자의 능동적인 학습활동을 촉진하여 학습의 질을 제고하기 위해 설계된 ALC(Active learning classroom) 수업에 대한 학습자의 인식을 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 본 연구의 목적을 달성하기 위해 수도권 소재 A대학 71명의 학생(ALC 수업 43명, 일반교실 수업 28명)을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하고, 교실 구성요소 간의 관계, 교수자의 수업전문성, 교실의 사회·문화적 환경, 심리·정서적 환경에 대한 인식을 비교하였다. 주요 연구 결과로는 첫째, ALC 수업 학생들은 교수·학습과 물리적 학습환경의 관계를 보다 긍정적으로 인식하는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, ACL 수업 학생들은 ALC 환경을 능숙하게 다루는 측면에서의 교수자의 전문성을 긍정적으로 인식하는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, ALC 수업 학생들은 교수자와의 비형식적 관계가 보다 촉진되었다고 인식하였으나 심리·정서적 측면에서의 만족도 및 몰입은 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 새로운 학습공간 설계에 있어 교수·학습활동 운영을 위한 실제적인 시사점을 제공할 것으로 기대한다.

The purpose of this study is to compare students' perception shaped by two different university classrooms: Traditional Classroom and ALC(Active learning classroom). We conducted survey of 71 university students who were taught by an identical instructor using same pedagogy. The survey questionnaires asked respondents about their perceptions on teaching and learning and physical environments relations, teaching proficiency, social context, student satisfaction and immersion. The data was analyzed using Student's T-test. The results showed that ALC group, compared to the traditional classroom group, demonstrated statistically higher awareness on teaching and learning and physical environments relations, teaching proficiency, and instructor-student unofficial relations. Based on these findings, implications and limitations of this study were discussed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. S. A. Becker, M. Brown, E. Dahlstrom, A. Davis, K. DePaul, V. Diaz & J. Pomerantz. (2018). NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE.
  2. L. Johnson, S. A. Becker, M. Cummins, V. Estrada, A. Freeman, & C. Hall. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition (pp. 1-50). Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  3. R. J. Beichner. (2014). History and Evolution of Active Learning Spaces. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 9-16. DOI : 10.1002/tl.20081
  4. H. Soule & T. Warrick. (2015). Defining 21st century readiness for all students: What we know and how to get there. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 178. DOI : 10.1037/aca0000017
  5. D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson. (2009). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  6. L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink. (2002). Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. Centers for Teaching and Technology. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ct2-library/199
  7. S. Bell (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
  8. P. C. Blumenfeld, E. Soloway, R. W. Marx, J. S. Krajcik, M. Guzdial, & A. Palincsar. (1991). Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_8
  9. H. S. Barrows & R. M. Tamblyn. (1980). Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education (Vol. 1). New York : Springer Publishing Company.
  10. C. E. Hmelo-Silver. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How do Students Learn?. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  11. A. Morrone, A. Flaming,, T. Birdwell, J. Russell, T. Roman, & M. Jesse (2017). Creating active learning classrooms is not enough: Lessons from two case studies. Educause Review.
  12. K. M. Leander, N. C. Phillips & K. H. Taylor. (2010). The Changing Social Spaces of Learning: Mapping New Mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329-394. DOI : 10.3102/0091732X09358129
  13. R. Hiemstra. (1991). Aspects of effective learning environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1991(50), 5-12. DOI : 10.1002/ace.36719915003
  14. I. Park. (2010). A study on problems of the current classroom and expectations of the future classroom perceived by teachers in secondary education. The Korean Association for Educational Methodology Studies, 22(1), 265-290.
  15. T. Monahan. (2002). Flexible space & built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1-19. DOI : 10.1187/cbe.16-07-0228
  16. P. Temple. (2007). Learning spaces for the 21st century: A review of the literature. London: London Centre for Higher Education Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.
  17. P. A. Soneral & S. A. Wyse. (2017). A SCALE-UP mock-up: Comparison of student learning gains in high-and low-tech active-learning environments. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(1), ar12. DOI : 10.1187/cbe.16-07-0228
  18. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, & M. P. Wenderoth. (2014). Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Eengineering, and Mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. DOI : 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  19. D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, & K. A. Smith. (2014). Cooperative Learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25, 85-118.
  20. T. Park & H. Cha. (2015). Investigation of Teachers' Awareness of Flipped Classroom to Explore its Educational Feasibility. The Journal of Korean association of computer education, 18(1), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.32431/KACE.2015.18.1.008
  21. J. Bergmann & A. Sams. (2014). Flipped Learning: Gateway to Student Engagement. Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education.
  22. D. Radcliffe. (2009). A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places. Proceedings of Learning spaces in higher education: Positive outcomes by design: The Next Generation Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium (pp. 11-16). Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland.
  23. D. C. Brooks. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719-726. DOI : 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x
  24. H. K. Jin & Kim, D. C. (2017). The effects of physical environment on student's satisfaction and class concentration in college education services. Korean Business Education Review, 32(3), 355-377. https://doi.org/10.23839/kabe.2017.32.3.355
  25. R. G. Henshaw, P. M. Edwards, & E. J. Bagley. (2011). Use of Swivel Desks and Aisle Space to Promote Interaction in Mid-Sized College Classrooms. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(1), 1-9.
  26. R. S. Shieh. (2012). The impact of Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) implementation on student learning and teachers' teaching in a high school context. Computers & Education, 59(2), 206-214. DOI : 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.016
  27. B. Fahlberg, E. Rice, R. Muehrer, & D. Brey. (2014). Active Learning Environments in Nursing Education: The Experience of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 137, 85-94.
  28. J. D. Walker, & P. Baepler. (2017). Measuring Social Relations in New Classroom Spaces: Development and Validation of the Social Context and Learning Environments (SCALE) Survey. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 34-41.
  29. Mui, M. L. S., Carpio, G. A. C., & Ong, C. M. (2019). Evaluation of Engagement in Learning within Active Learning Classrooms: Does Novelty Make a Difference?. Journal of Learning Spaces, 8(2), 1-11.
  30. P. Baepler, J. D. Walker, D. C. Brooks, K. Saichaie, & C. I. Petersen. (2016). A guide to teaching in the active learning classroom: History, research, and practice. Washington, D.C.: Stylus Publishing.
  31. N. Shin. (2003). Transactional presence as critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 48-58. DOI : 10.1080/01587910303048
  32. N. Y. Kim. (2009). The Structural Relationship among Academic Motivation, Program, Organizational Support, Interaction, Flow and Learning Outcome in Cyber Education. Doctoral dissertation. Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
  33. J. W. Kim & H. S. Byun. (2004). The Role of Cognitive Absorption as a Mediating Variable in Virtual Community. Information Systems Review, 6(2), 47-63.
  34. D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright, & J. Bland. (2004). Reform in undergraduate science teaching for the 21st century. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  35. N. Song, J. Hong, T. Noh, & J. Han. (2019). A Case Study on Professor's Teaching Professionalism in College of Science-Engineering Based on Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 405-414. DOI : 10.14697/jkase.2019.39.3.405