한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제38권5호
  • /
  • Pages.667-680
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

온라인 주석시스템에서 학생들의 지식공유를 통한 과학교과서의 협력적 독해 양상 분석

Collaborative Reading Comprehension of Science Textbook via Students' Knowledge Sharing in an Online Annotation System

  • 투고 : 2018.07.26
  • 심사 : 2018.10.10
  • 발행 : 2018.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구에서는 온라인 주석시스템을 이용한 과학교과서 독해 과정에서 학생들이 동료들에게 요청한 지식의 종류, 학생들이 동료들에게 제공한 지식의 정확성, 지식공유행동의 빈도, 협력적 독해의 효과성에 대한 학생들의 평가, 그리고 동료 간 신뢰의 정도를 조사하였다. 중학교 2학년 241명의 학생이 과학 교과서의 2개 대단원을 온라인 주석시스템을 이용하여 작성한 주석(질문과 답변)을 Bloom의 개정된 분류틀과 답변의 정확성 분석틀을 이용하여 분석하였다. 또 효과성 설문지, 인지기반 신뢰와 정서기반 신뢰 측정 도구를 사용하였다. 학생들이 교과서를 읽으면서 만든 질문의 80%는 '이해 질문'이었고, 이 유형의 질문은 개인의 독해를 위한 메타인지 전략과 유사하였다. 이러한 요구에 의해 학생들 간에 공유한 지식은 71%가 과학적으로 올바른 지식이었다. 지식공유행동의 빈도를 살펴보면 학생들은 온라인 주석시스템을 이용한 독해과정에서 활발하게 지식공유행동을 수행하였으나, 행동의 빈도는 보상에 크게 영향을 받는 것으로 보인다. 학생들은 온라인 주석시스템을 통해 수행한 지식공유행위가 학습에 도움이 되었다고 평가하였다. 또한 학생들끼리 서로를 지식공유자로서 신뢰하는 비율은 80% 이상으로 나타났다. 이 연구를 통해 온라인 주석 시스템을 사용하여 독해를 하였을 때 학생들이 지식공유를 함으로써 독해과정에서 발생한 어려움을 극복할 수 있었음을 알 수 있다. 또한 온라인 주석 시스템을 사용한 협력적 독해는 일방향적인 정보전달에 그쳤던 기존의 교과서 읽기와 달리, 쌍방향적이고 역동적으로 지식을 공유하게 함으로써 인지적 개별화 교육이 가능하도록 함을 확인하였다.

The purpose of this study is to investigate 1) the types of knowledge students ask for in their reading comprehension of science textbooks using an online annotation system, 2) the accuracy of the knowledge provided by the students to their peers, 3) the frequency of knowledge sharing behaviors, 4) the evaluation of the effect of collaborative reading, and 5) the trust among peers as knowledge sharers. Questions made by 241 students in the second grade of middle school using an online annotation system in two chapters of the science textbook were analyzed using Bloom's revised taxonomy and their answers were grouped according to five accuracy categories. Also, questionnaires for the evaluation of the effectiveness of collaborative reading comprehension and of trust among the students were used. The students asked their peers 'understanding questions' which comprised almost 80% of the total questions they made and were similar with individual metacognitive strategies for reading comprehension. Of the total threads, 71% has scientifically correct threads shared by the students. The frequency of the knowledge sharing behaviors was high but this was affected by the rewards (point system). Students evaluated that collaborative reading comprehension conducted through an online annotation system were helpful in their learning. In addition, the ratio of students trusting their peers who did the knowledge sharing is over 80%. This study shows that when students use an online annotation system, they can fill one another's cognitive gaps in the reading process by sharing knowledge. Also, collaborative reading using an online annotation system has proved that cognitive individualization is possible through sharing knowledge interactively and dynamically, unlike reading hard copies of textbooks which are a one way information transfer.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Alexander, P. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1994). Learning from physics text: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of research in science teaching, 31(9), 895-911. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310906
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., ... & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  3. Andre, M. E., & Anderson, T. H. (1978). The development and evaluation of a self-questioning study technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 605-623.
  4. Bartol, K.M., Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900105
  5. Berry, T., Cook, L., Hill, N., & Stevens, K. (2010). An exploratory analysis of textbook usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. College Teaching, 59(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.509376
  6. Butler Jr, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of management, 17(3), 643-663. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700307
  7. Carr, E., & Ogle, D. (1987). KWL Plus: A strategy for comprehension and summarization. Journal of reading, 30(7), 626-631.
  8. Constant, D., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., 1994. What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research 5 (4), 400-421. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.5.4.400
  9. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of occupational psychology, 53(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x
  10. Costa, J., Caldeira, H., Gallastegui, J. R., & Otero, J. (2000). An analysis of question asking on scientific texts explaining natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 602-614. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<602::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-N
  11. Cummings, K. C. S. U., French, T., & Cooney, P. J. (2002). Student textbook use in introductory physics. In Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 7-8).
  12. Dillon, T. J. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  13. Dirks, K.T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.445
  14. Flammer, A. (1981). Towards a theory of question asking. Psychological Research, 43, 407-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309225
  15. Friend, R. (2000). Teaching summarization as a content area reading strategy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(4), 320-329.
  16. Graesser, A. C., & McMahen, C. L. (1993). Anomalous information triggers questions when adults solve quantitative problems and comprehend stories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 136-151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.1.136
  17. Heiner, C. E., Banet, A. I., & Wieman, C. (2014). Preparing students for class: How to get 80% of students reading the textbook before class. American Journal of Physics, 82(10), 989-996. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4895008
  18. Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International journal of human-computer studies, 65(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003
  19. Kass, A. (1992). Question-asking, artificial intelligence, and human creativity. In T. Lauer, E. Peacock, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Questions and information systems(pp. 303-360). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  20. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students' comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(4), 366-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(89)90022-2
  21. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85(6), 758-768. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1037
  22. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  23. Lander, M.C., Purvis, R.L., McCray, G.E., Leigh, W., 2004. Trust building mechanisms utilized in out sourced IS development project: a case study. Information and Management 41 (4), 509-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.10.001
  24. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/63.4.967
  25. Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, 6, 94-107.
  26. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-59.
  27. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse processes, 38(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1
  28. Miller, K., Zyto, S., Karger, D., Yoo, J., & Mazur, E. (2016). Analysis of student engagement in an online annotation system in the context of a flipped introductory physics class. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020143. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020143
  29. Mostow, J., & Chen, W. (2009, July). Generating Instruction Automatically for the Reading Strategy of Self-Questioning. In AIED (pp. 465-472).
  30. Otero, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2001). PREG: Elements of a model of question asking. Cognition and instruction, 19(2), 143-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_01
  31. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
  32. Panteli, N., Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter organizational alliances: a framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 599-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.03.003
  33. Paul, D.L., McDaniel Jr., R.R., (2004). A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183-227. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148633
  34. Podolefsky, N., & Finkelstein, N. (2006). The perceived value of college physics textbooks: Students and instructors may not see eye to eye. The Physics Teacher, 44(6), 338-342. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2336132
  35. Ryu, S., Ho, S.H., Han, I., 2003. Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(03)00011-3
  36. Shepperd, J. A., Grace, J. L., & Koch, E. J. (2008). Evaluating the electronic textbook: Is it time to dispense with the paper text?. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 2-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/009862830803500102
  37. Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (1990). Textbook annotation: An effective and efficient study strategy for college students. Journal of Reading, 34(2), 122-129.
  38. Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It's more than textbook reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(6), 528-541.
  39. Sporer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. L. F. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003
  40. Taylor, L. K., Alber, S. R., & Walker, D. W. (2002). The comparative effects of a modified self-questioning strategy and story mapping on the reading comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11(2), 69-87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015409508939