Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

The Effects of Grouping Method in Solving Chemistry Problems Using Think-Aloud Paired Problem Solving

해결자.청취자 활동을 이용한 화학 문제 해결에서 소집단 구성 방법에 따른 효과

  • Published : 2004.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of grouping method in solving chemistry problems using Think-Aloud Paired Problem Solving (TAPPS). Three classes (125 students) of a co-ed high school in Seoul were randomly assigned to the control, the homogeneous TAPPS, and the heterogeneous TAPPS groups. Prior to the instructions, a test of awareness of metacognition was administered. In the treatment groups, students were grouped into either homogeneous or heterogeneous group on the basis of their pre-achievement levels, and worked in pairs on chemistry problems about chemical equation and stoichiometry. Students' analytical skill, problem solving ability, and awareness of metacognition were examined after the instructions. One-way ANCOVA results indicated that the scores of the homogeneous TAPPS group in the analytical skill test were significantly higher than those of the heterogeneous TAPPS group. However, there were no significant differences among the three groups in the problem solving ability and the awareness of metacognition.

이 연구에서는 해결자 청취자 활동을 이용한 화학 문제 해결에서 소집단 구성 방법에 따른 효과를 조사하였다. 서울시에 위치한 인문계 고등학교의 3개 학급을 선정하여 전통적 수업 집단, 동질적 집단 구성의 해결자 청취자 활동 수업 집단, 이질적 집단 구성의 해결자 청취자 활동 수업 집단으로 무선 배치하였다. 사전 검사로 메타인지적 기술의 사용에 대한 인식 검사를 실시하였다. 처치 집단의 학생들은 사전 성취 수준에 따라 동질적 집단과 이질적 집단으로 구성되었으며, 2명이 조를 이루어 화학 반응식과 화학 양론에 관한 문제를 해결하였다. 수업 처치 후 분석적 기술 검사, 문제 해결력 검사, 메타인지적 기술의 사용에 대한 인식 검사를 실시하였다. 일원 공변량 분석 결과, 동질적 집단 구성으로 해결자 청취자 활동을 한 수업 집단의 분석적 기술 점수가 다른 집단에 비해 통계적으로 유의미하게 높았다. 그러나 화학 문제 해결력 검사와 메타인지적 기술의 사용에 대한 인식 검사에서는 집단 간에 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 노태희, 여경희, 전경문(1999). 문제 해결 전략에서 협동학습의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 19(4), 635-644
  2. 전경문과 노태희(2001). 문제 해결 전략과 해결자 . 청취자 활동이 고등학생의 화학 문제 해결에 미치는 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 21(2), 289-298
  3. 전경문과 노태희(2002). 해결자 . 청취자 문제해결 활동에서의 소집단 과정. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(3), 411-421
  4. Bodner, G. M. (1987). The role of algorithms in teaching problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 513-514 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed064p513
  5. Bunce, D. M. & Heikkinen, H. (1986). The effects of an explicit problem-solving approach on mathematical chemistry achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(1), 11-20 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230102
  6. Carmichael, J. W., Bauer, J. S., & Robinson, D.(1987). Teaching problem solving in general chemistry at a minority institution. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(1), 453-457
  7. Dorman, N. H. (1990). The effects of a problemsolving course on secondary school students' analytical skills, reasoning ability and scholastic aptitude. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland College Park
  8. Glass, A. R. (1992). The effects of thinking aloud pair problem solving on technology education students' thinking processes, procedures, and problem solutions (pair problem-solving). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota
  9. Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627-636 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17117
  10. Hooper, S. & Hannafin, M. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3), 27-40
  11. Huffman, D. (1997). Effect of explicit problem solving instruction on high school students' problemsolving performance and conceptual understanding of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 551-570 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199708)34:6<551::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-M
  12. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company
  13. Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E.(1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
  14. O'Neil, H. F. & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 234-245 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1996.9941208
  15. Pestel, B. C. (1993). Teaching problem solving without modeling through 'thinking aloud pair problem solving'. Science Education, 77(1), 83-94 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770106
  16. Slavin, R. (1981). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 38(8), 655-660
  17. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press
  18. Watson, S. B. & Marshall, J. E. (1995). Effects of cooperative incentives and heterogeneous arrangement on achievement and interaction of cooperative learning groups in a college life science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 291-299 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320308
  19. Whimbey, A. & Lochhead, J. (1986). Problem solving and comprehension. Hilsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum