디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제17권3호
  • /
  • Pages.395-404
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

대학 수업에서 스마트 LMS의 상호작용 효과

A Study on the Interactivity of Smart LMS in a University Class

  • 최미양 (숭실대학교 베어드 교양대학)
  • Choi, Mi-Yang (Baird Liberal Arts College, Soongsil University)
  • 투고 : 2018.12.11
  • 심사 : 2019.03.20
  • 발행 : 2019.03.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 스마트 LMS의 상호작용 효과를 밝히는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 이를 위하여 전공영어 과목에서 한 학기 동안 강의실 안과 밖에서 스마트 LMS를 활용한 후 이 과목을 수강하는 35명의 학생을 대상으로 사전 설문과 사후 설문을 실시하였다. 연구결과 스마트 LMS는 교수 학생 간, 학생과 학생 간, 학생과 학습내용 간 모두에서 상호작용 효과가 있음을 알 수 있었다. 특히 수업 중에 활용한 수업활동게시판은 교수자의 즉각적인 피드백을 가능하게 하였고 위키는 강의실 밖에 조별 발표를 위해 학생들이 협업하는 것을 편리하게 하였다. 또한 수업활동 게시판에 정리된 조별활동 산출물과 스마트 LMS에 탑재된 강의자료들 역시 상호작용 효과를 높이는 역할을 하였다. 그러나 향후 상호작용성을 더 높이기 위하여 고려할 점은 학생들에게 스마트 LMS를 활용하는 수업방식에 잘 적응할 수 있게 하는 방안 마련과, 스마트 LMS 기능에 대한 사전 실험, 스마트폰의 데이터와 배터리 문제를 해결하기 위한 적절한 대응을 꼽을 수 있다.

This study investigates the interactivity of smart LMS. To this end, smart LMS was used for one semester in the English course for economics majors and the surveys about its interactivity were conducted. The findings show that smart LMS enhanced the interaction between instructors and students, between students and students, and between students and learning contents. Especially in the classroom, the activity bulletin made possible the instructor's immediate feedback about team-based activity outcomes. Also, outside the classroom, Wiki made it convenient for students to collaborate with each other. In addition, activity outcomes in the activity bulletin and course materials uploaded on smart LMS contributed to the interactivity. However, what is recommended to do to increase the interactivity are to prepare instructional strategies for students to get used to using smart LMS and smartphones as their learning tool, to test the target systems of smart LMS in advance, and to take proper actions to solve the problems of smartphone's data and battery.

키워드

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_395_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Class activity bulletin

Table 1. Pre-questionnaire

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_395_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Interaction between instructors and students

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_395_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Interaction between students and students

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_395_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Interaction between students and learningcontents

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_395_t0004.png 이미지

참고문헌

  1. Y. S. Jung. (2003). A Study on the Effectiveness of the Instructional Design for Further Interaction on English Learning in a CMC Based Language Learning Environment: Focusing on University General English Education. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 281-308.
  2. S. K. Cho. (2011). A Study of Methods for Activating Interaction in Online English Reading Courses. English 21, 24(4), 289-314.
  3. W. Huang, C. Chen & R. Weng. (2015). Constructing a Multimedia Mobile Classroom Using a Novel Feedback System. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 13(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2015040101
  4. M. G. Jeong, J. Y. Lee & J. R. Kim. (2013). An analysis of learner interaction in Smart English education. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 16(4), 39-65.
  5. E. H. Nam. (2007). The use of ICT in English teaching : theory and practice. Modern English Education, 8(2), 162-177.
  6. C. I. Lim. (1999). A Comprehensive Design model for Interactive Web-Based Instruction. Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.15.1.3
  7. B. Cooper & P. Brna. (2002). Supporting High Quality Interaction and Motivation in the Classroom Using ICT: the social and emotional learning and engagement in the NIMIS project. Education, Communication & Information, 2(2), 113-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463631021000025321.001
  8. N. Jinajai1 & S. Rattanavich. (2015). The Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction Based on Top-Level Structure Method in English Reading and Writing Abilities of Thai EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 8(11), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n11p231
  9. R. T. Sivaram & R. Ramar. (2014). Effect of CAI on Achievement of LD Students in English. Journal on English Language Teaching, 4(1), 12-17.
  10. M. K. Lee. (2006). The Impact of Web-based English Reading Classes on Learning Motivation of University students. Modern English Education, 7(1), 161-181.
  11. S. Gomez. (2016). How working collaboratively with technology can foster a creative learning environmen. New perspectives on teaching and working with languages in the digital era. Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
  12. K. C. Nah, P. White & R. Sussex. (2008). The potential of using a mobile phone to access the Internet for learning EFL listening skills within a Korean context. ReCALL, 20(3), 331-347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000633
  13. S. C. Cheng, W. Y. Hwang, S. Y. Wu, R. Shadiev & C. H. Xie. (2010). A Mobile Device and Online System with Contextual Familiarity and its Effects on English Learning on Campus. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 93-109.
  14. M. Y. Choi. (2017). A study on the usage of smartphones for English listening activity. Journal of Digital Convergence, 15(4), 451-459. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2017.15.4.451
  15. W. A. Anderson & T. G. Noland. (2010). How Remote Response Devices Enable Student Learning: A Four-Year Analysis. American Journal of Business Education, 3(8), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i8.466
  16. J. A. Muncy & J. K. Eastman. (2012). Using Classroom Response Technology To Create An Active Learning Environment In Marketing Classes. American Journal Of Business Education, 5(2), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v5i2.6824
  17. J. L. Terrion & V. Aceti. (2012). Perceptions of the Effects of Clicker Technology on Student Learning and Engagement: A Study of Freshmen Chemistry Students. Research in Learning Technology, 20(2), 1-11.
  18. R. Caceffo & R. Azevedo. (2014). LSQuiz: A Collaborative Classroom Response System to Support Active Learning through Ubiquitous Computing. International Association for Development of the Information Society. The International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (pp. 63-70).
  19. J. Jung & D. Jeon. (2008). The Effect of Using a Remote Answering Machine in High School Physics Class. School Science Journal, 2(2), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.15737/ssj.2.2.200808.95
  20. J. M. Kang et al. (2014). Practical Use of the Classroom Response System, CRS for Diagnostic and Formative Assessments in a High School Life Science Class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 273-283. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0273
  21. J. S. Oh. (2013). Perception and Effects of Classroom Response System Use. Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 435-458. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.29.2.435
  22. H. S. Kim & J. R. Kim. (2010). Effects of Student Participation Performance Assessment Using a Remote Responder on Students' Academic Achievement. Journal of The Korean Assocaition of Information Ecucation, 14(3), 461-468.
  23. J. W. Choi, W. K. & J. H. Shin. (2015). Study on learner's recognition on application of mobile based classroom response system in college classes. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 5(6), 347-363. https://doi.org/10.14257/AJMAHS.2015.12.54
  24. A. Wong. (2016). Student perception on a student response system formed by combining mobile phone and a polling website. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 12(1), 144-153.
  25. J. H. Bae. (2014). Effectiveness of Learning Flow and Academic Achievement on Learning Activities with Real-Time Feedback utilizing a Smart Clicker App in Higher Education. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, 15(9), 5543-5552. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2014.15.9.5543
  26. S. Y. Yoon. (2017). Using learner response systems for EFL classrooms: Students' perspectives and experience. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 36-58.
  27. B. Cao, M. Esponda-Argüero & R. Rojas. (2016). Development and Evaluation of a Classroom Interaction System. The International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) International Conference on Mobile Learning (pp. 59-66).
  28. M. M. Fuad & D. Deb. (2017). Cloud-Enabled Hybrid Architecture For In-Class Interactive Learning Using Mobile Device. 5th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Cloud Computing, Services, and Engineering (pp. 149-152).
  29. W. Y. Eom. (2008). Case Analysis on Using Course Management System by Faculty in a Traditional University. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 14(2), 109-128.
  30. S. R. Malikowski, M. E. Thompson & J. G. Theis. (2006). External factors associated with adopting a CMS in resident college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.006
  31. E. J. Shin. (2017). Learners' evaluation of using LMS : from the survey of Japanese writing class. Japanese Cultural Studies, 64, 161-178.
  32. Y. M. Jeon, J. S. Cho & K. R. Kim. (2016). A Study on the effect of LMS on the self-regulated learning competency and learning satisfaction in Higher Education. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 22(1), 55-84.
  33. I. A. Kang, S. M. Jin & H. E. Bae. (2016). Defining the Characteristics of LMS for Smart Learning Drawn from the Analysis of the Current Cases of LMS. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 22(2), 195-222.
  34. S. R. Lee, I. K. Chung, M. H. Yu & J. S. Kim. (2015). A Case Study of Utilizing LMS in Teaching of College Writing - Focused on Blackboard. Research in Writing, 26, 201-227.
  35. J H. Yun, S. Y. Kim & S. K. Kwon. (2015). Implementation of a textbook based mobile speaking program for Korean middle school students. English Language Teaching, 27(2), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.17936/pkelt.2015.27.2.006
  36. G. Stockwell. (2010). Using Mobile Phones for Vocabulary Activities: Examining the Effect of the Platform. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 95-110.