Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지

The Effects of the Group Reward and Cooperative Skill Training on the Science Achievement and Learning Motivation of Elementary Students

집단보상과 협동기술 훈련이 초등학생의 과학성취도와 학습동기에 미치는 효과

  • Published : 2006.04.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the group reward and cooperative skill training on science achievement and learning motivation of elementary students. 3 classes of the 6th grade students were selected from an elementary school in Busan. Group I took traditional cooperative learning (TCL), group II took cooperative learning with competitive group reward (GR), and group III was trained in cooperative skill (CS) before cooperative learning. Students were taught about 'weather forecast' for thirteen periods and problem-based learning steps were applied in each class. The results from this study were as follows: First, there was an interactive effect between the treatment and achievement level in the science achievement test scores. In the case of high-level students the group reward was more effective than cooperative skill training on the science achievement; on the other hand, in the case of low-level students the cooperative skill training was more effective than the group reward on the science achievement. Second, there was no interactive effect between the treatment and achievement level in the motivation scores.

본 연구는 협동학습에서 소집단 경쟁을 유도하는 집단보상과 소집단 구성원의 결속을 강조하는 협동기술 훈련의 효과를 비교하기 위하여 시도되었다. 이를 위하여 초등학교 6학년 3개 학급을 대상으로 문제중심 협동학습을 실시하였고 2개 학급에서는 각각 집단보상과 협동기술 훈련을 실시하였다. 학업성취도 면에서 이질적으로 구성된 소집단별로 진행된 협동학습 후에 세 집단의 과학성취도와 학습동기 점수를 성취도 수준별로 비교 분석하였다. 본 연구의 결과, 첫째, 집단보상과 협동기술 훈련이 과학성취도에 영향을 미쳤으며 학습자의 학업성취 수준에 따른 차이가 나타났다. 즉 성취 수준 상위인 학습자에게는 집단보상이 협동기술 훈련보다 효과적인 반면 하위인 학습자에게는 협동기술 훈련이 집단보상보다 효과적이었으며 중위인 학습자는 집단보상과 협동기술 훈련이 모두 효과적인 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 집단보상과 협동기술 훈련이 학습동기에 영향을 미쳤으나 학습자의 학업성취 수준과는 관련이 없었다. 학습동기의 하위요소별로는 주의력 요소에는 효과가 없었으나 자신감과 만족감 요소에는 효과가 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강석진, 한수진, 노태희, 2002, 과학 개념 학습에서 협동적 소집단 토론의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1), 93-101
  2. 고한중, 양수경, 한재영, 노태희, 2003, 초등학교 과학수업에서 팀게임 토너먼트 협동학습의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(3), 304-312
  3. 박수경, 1999, 구성주의적 과학수업이 대기압 개념 획득과 학습동기에 미치는 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 19(2), 217-228
  4. 박수경, 2004, 과학과 문제중심학습에서 협동기술훈련의 효과. 한국지구과학회지, 25(5), 327-335
  5. 변영계, 김광휘, 2000, 협동학습의 이론과 실제. 서울: 학지사. 369 p
  6. 임희준, 노태희, 2001, 이질적으로 구성된 소집단 협동학습에서의 언어적 상호작용. 한국과학교육학회지, 21(4), 668-676
  7. Cohen, E. G., 1987, Talking and work together: Status interaction and learning. In P. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds), Advances in group process,. Greenwich, CN, USA, 3-26
  8. Cohen, E. G., 1994, Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
  9. Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T., 1996, Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, an individualization (4th ed.). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 253 p
  10. Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T., 1999, Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67-73 https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834
  11. Kagan, S., 1992, Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA, 240 p
  12. Kagan, M. and Kagan, S., 1993, Playing with element: Advanced work in the structural approach. Cooperative Learning, 13, 6-7
  13. Keller, J. M., 1987, Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905967
  14. Lazarowitz, B. J. H. and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., 1992, Academic achievement and social gains of differing status students learning science in cooperative groups. Cooperative Learning, 13, 17-20
  15. Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T., 1986, Positive interdependence, academic and collaborative skill group contingencies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 476-488 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312023003476
  16. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B. and d'Apollonia, S., 1996, Whinin-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423-458 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004423
  17. Sharan, S. and Shachar, C., 1988, Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. Springer, NY, USA, 176 p
  18. Slavin, R. E., 1983, Cooperative learning. New York: Longman, 27 p
  19. Slavin, R. E., 1987, Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and hurnanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet. Elementary School Journal, 88, 290-337
  20. Slavin, R. E., 1992, When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 145-173
  21. Slavin, R. E., 1995, Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, USA, 173 p
  22. Stepien, W. and Gallagher, S., 1993, Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50, 25-28
  23. Swing, S. R. and Peterson, P. L., 1982, The relationship of students ability and small group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 259-274 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019002259
  24. Torp, L. and Sage, S., 2002, Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K -16 education (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, USA, 129 p
  25. Webb, N. M., 1982a, Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 475-484 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.475
  26. Webb, N. M., 1982b, Peer interaction, and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642-655 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.5.642