디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

대학 실시간 온라인 교육의 효과적인 운영을 위한 고려요소 및 개선방안 탐색: 학습자 경험과 인식을 중심으로

Exploring Consideration Factors and Improvement Suggestions for Operating Effective Synchronous Online Education in College: Focusing on Learners' Experience and Perception

  • 투고 : 2020.10.06
  • 심사 : 2020.12.20
  • 발행 : 2020.12.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 논문은 대학 교육에 있어서 실시간 온라인 교육의 효과적인 운영을 위한 고려요소를 탐색하는 목적을 지닌다. 대학 교육에서 실시간 온라인 교육이 확대되고 있다. 하지만 성공적인 운영이 이루어지기 위해 고려해야 할 핵심 요소가 무엇인지를 학습자의 경험과 인식을 통해 종합적으로 탐색한 연구는 미흡하다. 그룹면담을 통한 질적 분석과 다차원척도 분석법을 활용하여 학습자의 경험과 인식을 통해 고려요소와 개선방안을 확인하였다. 연구 결과, 효과적인 운영을 위해 상호작용이 중요하게 고려되어야 하며, 학습자 간 라포 형성이 이루어져야 한다. 활동을 촉진하는 다양한 활동 도구가 통합된 시스템 개선과 함께 교수자는 퍼실리테이터 역할을 중점적으로 수행해야 하며 학습자는 몰입이 이루어질 수 있도록 환경을 조성해야 한다. 온라인 교육 유형들에 대해서 학습자들은 활동성과 동일 시간성으로 구분하였다. 향후 실시간 온라인 교육의 특성을 고려한 최적화된 수업 설계전략을 개발할 필요가 있다.

This study is to explore factors to consider for effective operation of synchronous online education in college. Synchronous online education is expanding in higher education. However, there is insufficient to comprehensively identify key components based on the learners' experience and perception. Using qualitative analysis on content of group interview and multidimensional scale analysis, the experience and perception of learners were identified. For the effective operation, interaction should be considered important, and rapport between learners needs to be built. In addition to improving the system in which activity tools are integrated, instructors should play mainly facilitator role, and learners have to manage the environment for immersion. For the types of online education, learners were divided into the dimension of 'activity' and 'temporality'. Further, it is to develop optimized design strategies considering its characteristics.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. T. C. Shoepe, J. F. McManus, S. E. August, N. L. Mattos, T. C. Vollucci & P. R. Sparks. (2020). Instructor prompts and student engagement in synchronous online nutrition classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(3), 1-17. DOI : 10.1080/08923647.2020.1726166
  2. D. C. Arroyo & Y. Yilmaz. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer‐mediated communication. Language Learning, 68(4), 942-972. DOI : 10.1111/lang.12300
  3. C. G. Jeong & J. S. Yun. (2020). Online real-time lecture operation examples and training effects : Focusing on the case of at Korea University. Korean Journal of Converging Humanities, 8(3), 159-179. DOI : 10.14729/converging.k.2020.8.3.159
  4. J. S. Choi, M. K. Kwon & E. K. Choi. (2020). A study on the instructor perceptions and satisfaction levels of real-time online classes: Focusing on the case of Korean language program at D University. Journal of Dong-ak Language and Literature, 8(3), 159-179. DOI : 10.25150/dongak.2020..81.005
  5. L. Somenarain, S. Akkaraju & R. Gharbaran. (2010). Student perceptions and learning outcomes in asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments in a biology course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 353-356.
  6. I. Dahlstrom-Hakki, Z. Alstad & M. Banerjee. (2020). Comparing synchronous and asynchronous online discussions for students with disabilities: the impact of social presence. Computers & Education, 150, 1-11. DOI : 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103842
  7. M. J. Rosenberg. (2001) E-Learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill, New York. DOI : 10.1002/pfi.4140410512
  8. J. Delahunty, P. T. Jones & I. Verenika. (2014). Movers and shapers: Teaching in online environments. Linguistics and Education, 28(4), 54-78. DOI : 10.1016/j.linged.2014.08.004
  9. J. E. Nieuwoudt. (2020). Investigating synchronous and asynchronous class attendance as predictors of academic success in online education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 15-25. DOI : 10.14742/ajet.5137
  10. S. S. Lee. (2004). An analysis of interaction patterns in face-to-face and online synchronous/asynchronous learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 63-88. DOI : 10.17232/KSET.20.1.63
  11. Y. M. Koo & J. H. Seo. (2012). Development of six thinking hats online synchronous discussion tool to facilitate structured interaction and communication. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 16(1), 107-121.
  12. S. H. Eom & K. Lim. (2017). Analyses of the patterns of the synchronous and asynchronous social media usage in college e-learning Settings. Journal of Digital Convergence, 15(4), 27-34. DOI : 10.14400/JDC.2017.15.4.27
  13. A. Francescucci & L. Rohani. (2019). Exclusively synchronous online learning: The impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of marketing Education, 41(1), 60-69. DOI : 10.1177/0273475318818864
  14. S. Guo. (2020). Synchronous versus asynchronous online teaching of physics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Physics Education, 55(6), 1-10. DOI : 10.1088/1361-6552/aba1c5
  15. J. S. Choi, M. K. Kwon & E. K. Choi. (2020). A Study on Learner Perceptions and Satisfaction Levels of Real-Time Online Learning: Focusing on the case of Korean language program at D University. Journal of the International Network for Korean Language and Culture, 17(2), 247-278. DOI : 10.15652/ink.2020.17.2.247
  16. C. K. Baker & M. Hjalmarson. (2019). Designing purposeful student interactions to advance synchronous learning experiences. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 14(1), 1-16. DOI : 10.4018/IJWLTT.2019010101
  17. T. H. Kim & I. J. Rha. (2010). Learners' perceptions toward non-speech sounds designed in e-learning contents. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 10(7), 470-480. DOI : 10.5392/JKCA.2010.10.7.470
  18. J. B. Kruskal & M. Wish. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage University Series. DOI : 10.4135/9781412985130
  19. E. M. Sung & R. E. Mayer. (2012). Students' beliefs about mobile devices Vs. desktop computers in South Korea and the United States. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1328-1338. DOI : 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.005
  20. Y. K. Lee & S. K. Yoon. (2017). Reconstructing the meaning of flipped learning by analyzing learners' experiences. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 20(1), 53-62. DOI : 10.18108/jeer.2017.20.1.53
  21. E. G. Guba & Y. S. Lincoln. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. DOI : 10.2307/3121684
  22. R. C. Clark & R. E. Mayer. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons. DOI : 10.1002/9781119239086
  23. W. J. Hong, C. I. Lim & T. J. Park. (2013). Effects of segmenting video lectures on the learning outcomes. Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 13(12), 1048-1057. DOI : 10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.12.1048
  24. H. Jung & C. Brady. (2020). Maintaining rich dialogic interactions in the transition to synchronous online learning. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 391-400. DOI : 10.1108/ils-04-2020-0096
  25. C. Wedmeyer. (1977). Independent study. In A. S. Knowles (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of higher education. Boston: Northeastern University.
  26. T. C. Shoepe, J. F. McManus, S. E. August, N. L. Mattos, T. C. Vollucci, & P. R. Sparks. (2020). Instructor prompts and student engagement in synchronous online nutrition classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(3), 1-17. DOI : 10.1080/08923647.2020.1726166
  27. T. Anderson, L. Rourke, D. R. Garrison & W. Archer. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 5, 1-17. DOI : 10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875
  28. E. H. Koh. (2006). The exploratory empirical study of teaching presence as a construct in online learning context. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 12(4), 263-287.
  29. J. Brennan. (2020). Engaging learners through zoom: Strategies for virtual teaching across disciplines. Jossey-Bass.
  30. E. C. Lee. (2013). The effect of group composition according to rapport levels on interaction in online collaborative learning environment. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 51(3), 57-82. DOI : 10.5392/JKCA.2018.18.05.514
  31. R. A. Glazier. (2016). Building rapport to improve retention and success in online classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(4), 437-456. DOI : 10.1080/15512169.2016.1155994
  32. C. I. Lim, H. J. Han, D. E. Jung, E. O. Yunus & J. H. Hong. (2017). Exploring an e-learning platform prototype for supporting learning design. Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 799-837. DOI : 10.17232/KSET.33.4.799
  33. A. Gruber & E. Bauer. (2020). Fostering interaction in synchronous online class sessions with Foreign Language Learners. In R. E. Ferdig, E. Baumgartner, R. Hartshorne, R. Kaplan-Rakowski, & C. Mouza. (Eds). Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.