한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육 (The Mathematical Education)

  • 제56권2호
  • /
  • Pages.161-175
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1225-1380(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9633(eISSN)
한국수학교육학회 (Korean Society of Mathematical Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

수학 성취도가 낮은 학생의 보충 지도 과정에서 블렌디드 e-러닝과 개별화 교수체제의 효과 비교 분석

The comparison on the learning effect of low-achievers in mathematics using Blended e-learning and Personalized system of instruction

  • 투고 : 2017.01.23
  • 심사 : 2017.05.02
  • 발행 : 2017.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the impact on low-achievers in mathematics who studied mathematics using Blended e-learning and Personalized system of instruction after school. Blended e-learning is defined as the management of e-learning using the e-study run by the education office in local. Personalized system of instruction was proceeded as follows; (1) all students are given a syllabicated learning task and a study guide, (2) students study the material autonomously according to their own pace for a certain period of time, (3) the teacher strengthens the students' motivation through grading and feedback after students study a subject and solve the evaluation problem. The learning materials for Personalized system of instruction are re-edited the offline education contents provided by the blended e-learning to the level of students. The 118 $7^{th}$ grade students from the D middle school participated in this study. The results were verified by achievement tests before and after the study, as well as survey regarding their attitude toward mathematics. The results are as follows. First, Blended e-learning has more positive impacts than Personalized system of instruction in mathematics achievement. Second, there was no difference in mathematics achievement according to their self-directed learning between Blended e-learning and Personalized system of instruction. Third, both types utilizing Blended e-learning and Personalized system of instruction have positive effect on attitude toward mathematics, and there is not their difference between two methods of teaching and learning mathematics.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 노영순, 윤희송 (2000). 수준별 과제 학습지의 구안과 학습자 자신의 선택에 의한 자기 주도적 학습이 수학과 학업성취에 미치는 영향. 수학교육 39(1), 11-20. (No, Y.S. & Yun, H.S. (2000). The effect of self-directed learning by self-selecting of the level tasks for the students' own level on achievement in mathematics. The Mathematical Education 39(1), 11-20.)
  2. 문종호 (2011). e-learning활용이 수학학습 부진아의 공간감각 능력에 미치는 영향. 석사학위논문, 대구교육대학교. (Moon, J.H. (2011). Effects of e-learning on development of spatial sense of mathematics underachievers. Master's dissertation, Daegu National University of Education.)
  3. 산업통상자원부 (2004). 이러닝(전자학습)산업발전법. http://law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=61843#0000에서 인출. (Ministry of Trade Industry and Energy (2004). e-learning Industry development act. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from http://law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=61843#0000.)
  4. 서원경 (2011). e러닝 유형에 따른 수학과 사이버가정학습의 효과성 연구. 석사학위논문, 서울시립대학교. (Seo, W.K. (2011). A study on the effects of mathematics learning through e-Learning type of cyber home system. Master's dissertation, University of Seoul.)
  5. 송다겸 (2014). 브랜디드형 e-러닝과 개별화 교수체제를 활용한 중학교 1학년 수학학습부진 학생 지도의 효과 비교 분석. 석사학위논문. 경북대학교. (Song, D. (2014). The comparison analysis of teaching effect of 7th grade students who were challenged by mathematics learning using Blended e-learning and Personalized system of instruction. Master's dissertation, Kyungpook National University.)
  6. 이성호 (1999). 개정 교수방법의 탐구. 서울: 양서원. (Lee, S.H. (1999). Revised method of instruction. Seoul: Yangseowon.)
  7. 이인숙 (2002). e 러닝-사이버 공간의 새로운 패러다임. 서울: 문음사. (Lee, I.S. (2002). New paradigm of cyberspace for e-learning. Seoul: Moonumsa.)
  8. 이혜경, 김향숙 (2006). KERIS의 사이버가정학습 시스템에 적합한 SCORM기반 수학과 e-Learning 컨텐츠 설계 및 개발. 수학교육논문집 20(3), 425-441. (Lee, H.G. & Kim, H.S. (2006). Design and development of SCORM based e-learning contents about mathematics for the KERIS's cyber home education system. Communication of Mathematics Education 20(3), 425-441.)
  9. 한국교육과정평가원 (2008). 2007년 국가수준 학업성취도 평가 연구: 수학 (연구보고서 No. RRE 2008-5-3). 서울: 저자. (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2008). National Assessment of educational achievement in 2008 -the result analysis of the Mathematics achievement test- (Report No. RRE 2008-5-3). Seoul: Author.)
  10. 한국교육과정평가원 (2009). 2008년 국가수준 학업성취도 평가 연구: 수학 (연구보고서 No. RRE 2009-9-3). (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2009). National Assessment of educational achievement in 2009 -the result analysis of the Mathematics achievement test- (Report No. RRE 2009-9-3).)
  11. 한국교육과정평가원 (2010). 2009년 국가수준 학업성취도 평가 연구: 수학 (연구보고서 No. RRE 2010-6-4). (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2010). National Assessment of educational achievement in 2010 - the result analysis of the Mathematics achievement test- (Report No. RRE 2010-6-4).)
  12. 한국교육과정평가원 (2010). 수학에 대한 정의적 특성 향상 방안 연구 (연구보고서 No. RRI 2010-9). (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2010). A study on affective characteristics toward mathematics (Report No. RRI 2010-9).)
  13. 한국교육과정평가원 (2011). 2010년 국가수준 학업성취도 평가 결과 분석: 수학 (연구보고서 No. RRE 2011-3-4). (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2011). National Assessment of educational achievement in 2011 - the result analysis of the Mathematics achievement test- (Report No. RRE 2011-3-4).)
  14. 한국교육과정평가원 (2012). 2011년 국가수준 학업성취도 평가 결과 분석: 수학 (연구보고서 No. RRE 2012-2-3). (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2012). National Assessment of educational achievement in 2012 - the result analysis of the Mathematics achievement test- (Report No. RRE 2012-2-3).)
  15. 한국교육과정평가원 (2013). 2012년 국가수준 학업성취도 평가 결과 분석: 수학 (연구보고서 No. ORM 2013-37-3). (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2013). National Assessment of educational achievement in 2013 - the result analysis of the Mathematics achievement test- (Report No. ORM 2013-37-3). Seoul: Author.)
  16. 한국교육학술정보원 (2004). 해외교육학술정보화동향. (Korea Education and research Information Service (2004). A trend of international education information.)
  17. 한태인, 곽덕훈 (2006). 이러닝 유러닝. 서울: 한국산학협동단지. (Han, T.I. & Kwack, D.H. (2006). E-learning and U-learning. Seoul: Korea Community of Industrial-Educational Cooperation.)
  18. Brothen, T., Wambach, C., & Hansen, G. (2002). Accommodating students with disabilites: PSI as an example of universal instructional design. Teaching of Psychology 29, 239-240.
  19. Coldeway, D.O. & Spencer, R.E. (1982). Keller's personalized system of instruction: the search for a basic distance learning paradigm. Distance Education 3, 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791820030104
  20. Fuller, R. (2005). The essential features of the personalized system of instruction (PSI) or the Keller plan. Retrieved January 18, 2017, from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=physicspsikeller.
  21. Graham, C.R. (2006). Blended learning system: Definition, current trends, future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  22. Grant, L.K. & Spencer, R.E. (2003). The personalized system of instruction: review and applications to di stance education. Retrieved January 18, 2017, from http://www.irrodl.org/index. php/irrodl/article/view/152/233.
  23. Hannon, J.C., Holt, B.J., & Hatten, J.D. (2008). Personalized system of instruction model: teaching health-related fitness content in high school phisical education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 2(2), 20-33.
  24. Ironsmith, M. & Eppler, M.A. (2007). Mastery learning benefits low-aptitude students. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 28-31.
  25. Keller, F.S. (1968). Good-bye teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-79
  26. Keller, F.S. & Sherman, J. (1974). The Keller plan handbook. Menlo Park, CA: W. A. Benjamin.
  27. Kerres, M. & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media 28(2/3), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165032000165653
  28. Pear, J.J. & Crone-Todd, D.E. (1999). Personalized system of instruction in cyberspace. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 32(2), 205-209. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-205
  29. Rovai, A. & Jordan, H. (2004). Belnded and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance learning, 5(2). Retrieved 18, January, 2017 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ853864.pdf.
  30. Wu, J.H., Tennyson, R.D., & Hsia, T.L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55, 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
  31. Wu, J.H., Tennyson, R.D., Hsia, T.L., & Liao, Y.W. (2008). Analysis of e-learning innovation and core capability using a hypercube model. Computer in Human Behavior 24, 1851-1866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.008