한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제43권2호
  • /
  • Pages.181-190
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

증강현실을 활용한 소집단 학습에서 도구 사용 환경에 따른 담화 비교

Comparison of Discourse by Environments for Using Tools in Small Group Learning with Augmented Reality

  • 투고 : 2023.03.30
  • 심사 : 2023.04.14
  • 발행 : 2023.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구에서는 증강현실을 활용한 소집단 학습에서 도구 사용 환경에 따른 담화를 참여 유형, 담화의 유형, 지식 형성 과정 측면에서 비교하였다. 고등학교 1학년 학생 24명을 6개 모둠으로 나눈 후, 마커 1개와 스마트 기기 1개를 공동으로 사용하는 도구 공유 환경과 마커와 스마트 기기를 개별로 사용하는 개별 도구 환경에 각각 배치하였다. 학생들은 모둠별로 물질의 규칙성과 결합 단원에서 다루는 개념을 주제로 증강현실 애플리케이션을 활용한 소집단 학습에 참여하였다. 모든 수업 과정은 모둠별로 녹음 및 녹화하였으며, 자발적으로 동의한 학생 6명을 대상으로 반구조화된 면담을 실시하였다. 연구결과, 도구 공유 환경은 일인 주도형의 비율이 높았으나, 개별 도구 환경은 부분 참여형 및 다수 참여형의 비율이 높았다. 개별 도구 환경은 도구 공유 환경보다 지식 공유와 지식 구성 담화의 비율이 유사하였고, 세부 담화 유형도 다양하였다. 도구 공유 환경에서는 일부 학생에 대해서만 의미 있는 지식 형성 과정이 나타났다. 반면 개별 도구 환경에서는 모둠원 대부분이 목표 개념에 대해 올바른 지식을 구성하며 의미 있는 지식 형성 과정이 이루어졌으며, 일부 모둠원에게 나타난 오개념은 소집단 토의를 통해 올바른 과학 개념으로 수정되었다.

In this study, we compared discourse by environments for using tools in terms of participation types, discourse types, and knowledge building processes. 24 first-year high school students were divided into six groups. They were assigned to the sharing tools environment, which used one marker and one smart device, or the individual tools environment, which used markers and smart devices individually. Students participated in small group learning using AR application based on the concept of chemical bonding. All classes were video- and audio-taped. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six students who voluntarily agreed. The results of the study revealed that the sharing tools environment had a high proportion of one-student dominating type, while the individual tools environment had a high proportion of partly participating type and most students participating type. In the individual tools environment, the ratio of knowledge sharing and knowledge construction discourse was similar compared to the tool sharing environment, and the sub-discourse types were also diverse. In the sharing tools environment, only some students had a meaningful knowledge building process. On the other hand, in the individual tools environment, most of the group members constructed knowledge about the target concept, and had a meaningful knowledge building process. In addition, the misconceptions that appeared to some group members were corrected through small group discussions.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
  2. Chang, J., Park, J., Song, J. (2019). The Features of inquiry activities using technology in elementary science digital textbook - Focusing on the cases of using virtual experiment, virtual reality and augmented reality -. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 38(2), 275-286. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2019.38.2.275
  3. Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449-462.
  4. Dalim, C. S. C., Kolivand, H., Kadhim, H., Sunar, M. S., & Billinghurst, M. (2017). Factors influencing the acceptance of augmented reality in education: A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Science, 13(11), 581-589. https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2017.581.589
  5. Diegmann, P., Schmidt-Kraepelin, M., Eynden, S., & Basten, D. (2015). Benefits of augmented reality in educational environments: A systematic literature review. Benefits, 3(6), 1542-1556.
  6. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1
  7. Han, J., Lee, C., Yi, H., Noh, T. (2006). Teachers' perceptions of cooperative learning in science instructions. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 14(3), 103-117.
  8. Hmelo-Silver, C., Jeong, H., Faulkner, R., & Hartley, K. (2017). Computer-supported collaborative learning in STEM domains: Towards a meta-synthesis. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  9. Ibanez, M. B., Di Serio, A., Villaran, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014). Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education, 71, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.004
  10. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247-265.
  11. Kang, S. (2000). Concept learning strategy emphasizing social consensus during discussion: instructional effect and verbal interaction in small group discussion. Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  12. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano R, J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y
  13. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity [KOFAC] (2015). Science level up. Retrieved Jan 16, 2020, from https://sciencelevelup.kofac.re.kr/
  14. Kye, B., & Kim, Y. (2008). Investigation on the relationships among media characteristics, presence, flow, and learning effects in augmented reality based learning. Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.24.4.193
  15. Lamsa, J., Hamalai nen, R., Koskinen, P., & Viiri, J. (2018). Visuali sing the temporal aspects of collaborative inquiry-based learning processes in technology-enhanced physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 40(14), 1697-1717.
  16. Lee, J., Park, G., Noh, T. (2020). Development and application of the multiple representation-based learning strategies using augmented reality on the concept of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(4), 375-383.
  17. Li, N., Gu, Y. X., Chang, L., & Duh, H. B.-L. (2011). Influences of AR-supported simulation on learning effectiveness in face-to-face collaborative learning for physics. Paper presented at the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Georgia, USA.
  18. Li n, C. P., Wong, L. H., & Shao, Y. J. (2012). Compari son of 1:1 and 1:m CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00421.x
  19. Liu, W., & Wang, C. (2022). How roles in collaboration respond to the exchange of device-student ratio under the impact of external scripts?. Educational Technology & Society, 25(2), 15-30.
  20. Matcha, W., & Rambli, D. R. A. (2013). Exploratory study on collaborative interaction through the use of augmented reality in science learning. Procedia Computer Science, 25, 144-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.018
  21. Nasir, N. I. S., & Hand, V. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400801986108
  22. Nichols, K., Hanan, J., & Ranasinghe, M. (2013). Transforming the social practices of learning with representations: A study of disciplinary discourse. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 179-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9263-0
  23. Nor, N. F. M., Hamat, A., & Embi, M. A. (2012). Patterns of discourse in online interaction: Seeking evidence of the collaborative learning process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655748
  24. Nunez, M., Quiros, R., Nunez, I., Carda, J. B., Camahort, E., & Mauri, J. L. (2008). Collaborative augmented reality for inorganic chemistry education. In WSEAS International Conference. Proceedings. Mathematics and Computers in Science and Engineering.
  25. Payne, R. A., & Samhat, N. H. (2012). Democratizing global politics: Discourse norms, international regimes, and political community. Suny Press.
  26. Phon, D. N. E., Ali, M. B., & Abd Halim, N. D. (2014). Collaborative augmented reality in education: A review. In 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering (pp. 78-83). IEEE.
  27. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classroom: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
  28. Shin, S., Noh, T., Lee, J. (2020). An Exploration of learning environment for promoting conceptual understanding, immersion and situational interest in small group learning using augmented reality. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 64(6), 360-370.
  29. van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledgeconstruction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5
  30. Wang, C., & Le, H. (2022). The More, the merrier? Roles of device-student ratio in collaborative inquiries and its interactions with external scripts and task complexity. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(8), 1517-1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211010794
  31. Wang, C., & Yu, S. (2021). Tablet-to-student ratio matters: Learning performance and mental experience of collaborative inquiry. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-17.