Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Reflection Rubric on Critical Thinking and Collaboration Argumentation in CSCA environment

CSCA 환경에서 성찰루브릭이 비판적 사고와 협력적 논증에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2013.10.23
  • Accepted : 2013.11.07
  • Published : 2013.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the reflection rubric on frequency and content of critical thinking in CSCA. The researcher carried out research during 4 weeks, on 60 students taking the course of 'educational methods and educational technology' in K collage. As the result of this study, The reflection rubric frequency could not be significant difference in critical thinking, but could be significant difference in critical thinking content and collaboration argumentation. The reflection rubric could prevent learner form giving one side reasoning, considered both side opinion and grounds. Also the reflection rubric could trigger learner to construct collaborative knowledge building more strongly. This study showed that the reflection rubric have significant impacts on the argumentation collaboration learning in CSCA.

본 연구는 CSCA 환경에서 성찰 루브릭을 통해 자신의 의견을 평가하고 타인의 의견을 평가하는 것이 비판적 사고의 빈도와 내용, 협력적 논증에 어떠한 효과가 있는지를 알아보고자 하였다. K대 '교육방법 및 교육공학' 수강생 60명을 대상으로 4주동안 진행하였다. 연구결과 성찰 루브릭 제공이 비판적 사고의 빈도에는 유의미한 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났으나 내용 및 협력적 논증에는 유의미한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 성찰 루브릭이 협력적 논증 학습 환경에서는 한 쪽으로 치우친 추론을 방지하고 양쪽 입장을 모두 고려하는 합리적인 주장과 근거를 제시하는 데 있어 효과적이었음을 알 수 있었으며, 협력적 논증의 궁극적인 목적인 '협력적 지식구축'에 긍정적인 영향을 줄 수 있음을 확인하였다. 이 연구는 CSCA 환경에서 효과적인 논증협력학습활동을 위한 전략 제시라는 점에서 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D. L., Aqui, Y. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2007). Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International journal of computersupported collaborative learning, 2(4), 479-500. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9025-1
  2. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in human behavior, 23(3), 1105-1125. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.005
  3. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J.(2006) Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the Science Classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  4. Koschmann, T. (2003). CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquirt: Argumentation is learning. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments(pp. 261-269). Boston: Kluwer.
  5. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The Development of Argument Skills. Child development, 74(5), 1245-1260. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
  6. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651595
  7. Choi, I., & Land, S. M. (2006, April). Instructor modeling and online guidance for peer-questioning during online discussions. Paper presented at the same annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco, CA.
  8. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201-224. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_2
  9. Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286-313. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.002
  10. Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 1, 57-87. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-6844-4
  11. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaboration new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confrontion cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp.205-226). Boston: Kluwer.
  12. Lipman, M.(2003). Thinking in Education (2th ed.) / Jin Hwan, Park, translation(2005). Thinking in Education.
  13. Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical and historical essays in logical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Paul, R. & Linda, E. (2006) Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Cjarge of Your Life. 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall.
  15. Leitao, S. (2000). The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building. Human development, 43(6), 332-360. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000022695
  16. Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International journal of educational research, 39(8), 861-871. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.11.008
  17. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of Collective and Individual Knowledge in Argumentative Activity. The Journal of the learning sciences, 12(2), 219-256. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
  18. Kim, Young-Cheol & Gong, Jin-Suk.(2007). A Study on the effect of using rebric through students participation on speaking ability. Studies in English Education, 13(1), 66-98.
  19. ll-Ho Yang, Hyo-Jeong Lee, Hyonyong Lee, Hyunjun Cho,(2009). The Development of Rubric to Assess Scientific Argumentation. Journal Korea Association Science Education, 29(2), 203-220
  20. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). "Mapping to know": The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10004