Journal of Engineering Education Research (공학교육연구)

Korean Society for Engineering Education (한국공학교육학회)
권호 표지

An analysis of Self-perceived Communication Apprehension by Learning Styles of Engineering Students

공과대학생의 학습양식에 따른 의사소통 불안인식 분석 연구

  • 김지심 (건국대학교 교수학습지원센터) ;
  • 최금진 (건국대학교 공학교육혁신센터) ;
  • 이종연 (건국대학교 교육공학과)
  • Received : 2010.04.27
  • Accepted : 2010.10.12
  • Published : 2010.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate between learning styles and communication apprehension of Engineering students. Participants were 405 first-year Engineering cohort. Following were the results: First, 80 percent were classified as Reflective learners, 61 percent were classified as Sensing learners, 73.1 percent were classified as Visual learners, and 66.7 percent were classified as Global learners. Second, the result showed that there was a significant difference in learning style by gender. Most female learners were Reflective, while most male learners were Active. Lastly, the finding revealed that there were significant differences in communication apprehension on Perception and Processing dimension. Sensing students demonstrated higher level of communication apprehension than Intuitive students and Reflective students shown higher level of communication apprehension than Active students. For the program developing Engineering students' communication skills, implications for reducing students' communication apprehension based on the type of learning styles were discussed.

본 연구의 목적은 공과대학생의 학습양식 유형을 분석하고, 학습양식에 따른 의사소통 불안 수준의 차이를 검증하는 것이다. K대학교에 재학 중인 공과대학 1학년생 405명을 대상으로 학습양식을 분석한 결과, 감각적 학습자는 61%, 시각적 학습자는 73.1%, 숙고하는 학습자는 80%, 총체적 학습자는 66.7%로서 우세한 비율을 차지하는 나타났다. 성별에 따른 학습양식의 차이에서는 정보처리 차원에서 유의한 차이를 보였으며, 여자가 남자보다 숙고하는 학습양식을 선호하는 것으로 나타났다. 학습양식에 따른 의사소통 불안 수준의 차이를 분석한 결과, 정보지각과 정보처리 차원에서 유의한 차이를 보였다. 감각적 학습자가 직관적 학습자보다, 숙고하는 학습자가 적극적 학습자보다 더 높은 수준의 의사소통 불안을 느끼는 것으로 나타났다. 연구결과에 기초하여 의사소통 교육 프로그램을 실행할 때, 학습자의 학습양식을 고려하여 의사소통 불안 수준을 최소화할 수 있는 전략에 대한 시사점을 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강호정 (2008). 과학기술자를 위한 의사소통 능력. 공학교육, 15(4): 28-30.
  2. 고영남 (2005). 대학생의 학습양식에 따른 학업성취 및 진로결정수준의 관계. 열린교육연구, 13(3): 215-234.
  3. 권두승, 이경아 (2004). 학점은행제 성인학습자의 학습양식에 관한 연구. 평생교육연구지, 10(2): 25-48.
  4. 김대영, 김기수, 김판욱, 노태천, 류창열, 최완식, 최유현, 구진희, 노희진, 이진우, 이창훈, 정수진, 강현무 (2006). 공학전문가가 인식하는 공학기초능력의 구성요소에 관한 연구, 공학교육연구, 9(2): 34-51.
  5. 김은주 (2003). 협동학습에서 의사소통 불안 수준이 학업 성취도와 수업만족도에 미치는 영향. 교육심리연구, 17(2): 215-232.
  6. 신선경 (2008). 21세기 과학기술자를 위한 의사소통 교육의 새로운 방향. 공학교육. 15(4): 23-27.
  7. 이영희, 이영미, 김병수 (2008). 의예과 학생의 성격특성과 의사소통 능력 및 수업태도의 관계. Korean J Med Educ, 20(3): 177-187.
  8. 이태종 (2003). 학습양식에 입각한 학습방법에 관한 연구. 창의력개발연구, 6: 137-152.
  9. Blood. G. W., Blood, I. M., Tellis, G., & Gabel, G. (2001). Communication apprehension and self-perceived communication competence in adolescents who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26: 161-178.
  10. Bourhis, J., & Berquist, C. (1990). Communication apprehension in the basic course: Learning styles and preferred instructional strategies of high and low apprehensive students. In L. Hugenberg (Ed.), Basic communication course annual III (pp. 27-46). Boston: American Press.
  11. Burroughs, N. F., Marie, V., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). Relationships of self-perceived communication competence and communication apprehension with willingness to communicate: A comparison with first and second languages in Micronesia. Communication Research Reports, 20(3): 230- 239.
  12. Dwyer, K. K. (1998). Communication apprehension and learning style preference: Correlations and implications for teaching. Communication Education, 47: 137-150.
  13. Felder, R. M, & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1): 57-72.
  14. Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (1994). Index of Learning Styles. http://www.ncsu.edu/felderpublic/ ILSpage.html, 2009년 9월 14일 검색.
  15. Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1): 103-112.
  16. Felder, R.M. & Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 78(7): 674-681.
  17. Indra, D. S., & Shahnaz, F. F. (2008) Oral Communication Apprehension and Communicative Competence Among Electrical Engineering Undergraduate in UTeM. Journal of Human Capital Development, 1(1): 1-10.
  18. Kolmos, A., & Holgarrd, J. E. (2008). Learning styles of science and engineering students. Procding of European Socociety for Engineering Education, Aalborg, DK: SEFI.
  19. Lee, W.E. III & Lunsford, D. (2007). Communication apprehension in undergraduate engineering students: The influence of the performing arts and related activities. Proceedings 2007 ASEE Conference, Honolulu, HW: ASEE.
  20. McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45: 192-203.
  21. McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Willingness to Communicate, Communication Apprehension, and Self-Perceived Communication Competence: Conceptualizations and Perspectives. In Daly et al. (Eds.). Avoiding communication: Shyness, Reticence, & Communication Apprehension, (pp. 75-108). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  22. P'Rayan, A. & Shetty, R.T. (2008). Developing engineering students' communication skills by reducing their communication apprehension. English for Specific Purposes World, 4(20): http://www.esp-world.info, 2009년 12월 14일 검색.
  23. Rugarcia, A., Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., & Stice, J. E. (2000). The Future of Engineering Education I. A Vision for a New Century. Chem. Engr. Education, 34(1): 16-25.
  24. Stice, J. E., Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., & Rugarcia, J. E. (2000). The Future of Engineering Education IV. Learning How to Teach. Chem. Engr. Education, 34(2): 118-127.
  25. Zywno, M.S. & Stewart, M.F. (2007). Learning Styles of Students in Technology-Focused vs. Humanities Programs - Gender and Program Differences. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Engineering Education, Coimbra, PT: ASEE.