Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Using Mobile Augmented Reality on Science Achievement, Science Learning Motivation, and Learning Flow in Chemical bond

화학 결합에서 모바일 증강현실을 이용한 과정기반 안내탐구학습이 과학 학업 성취도, 과학 학습 동기, 학습 몰입감에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2022.04.06
  • Accepted : 2022.06.08
  • Published : 2022.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this paper, we developed an augmented reality learning tool suitable for chemical bond learning and proposed a process-oriented guided inquiry learning using mobile augmented reality (POGIL-MAR) to find out how it affects science achievement, science learning motivation and learning flow. Participants were 139 10th-grade students from a coeducational high school in Gyeonggi-do, and they were randomly assigned to the control group (TL), the treatment group 1 (POGIL), and the treatment group 2 (POGIL-MAR). They learned the concept of the chemical bond from the Integrated Science subject for four class periods. Results of two-way ANCOVA revealed that the POGIL-MAR group scored significantly higher than the other groups in a science achievement test, science learning motivation test, and learning flow test, regardless of their prior science achievement. In addition, in the case of the low-level group, the POGIL-MAR group showed a statistically significant improvement in achievement compared to the TL and POGIL groups. The MANCOVA analysis for sub-factors of science learning motivation show that the POGIL-MAR group had significantly higher scores in intrinsic motivation, career motivation, self-determination, self-efficacy, and grade motivation. In particular, the interaction effect between the teaching and learning method and the level of prior achievement was significant in the intrinsic motivation. Meanwhile, the MANCOVA analysis for sub-factors of learning flow show that the POGIL-MAR group had significantly higher scores in clear goals, unambiguous feedback, action-awareness merging, sense of control, and autotelic experience. Based on the results, educational implications for effective teaching and learning strategy using mobile augmented reality are discussed.

본 연구에서는 화학 결합 학습에 적합한 모바일 증강현실 학습도구를 개발하고 모바일 증강현실을 활용한 과정기반 안내탐구학습(POGIL-MAR)을 제안하여 이 교수학습 방법이 과학 학업 성취도, 과학 학습 동기 및 학습 몰입감에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 알아보았다. 연구 참여자는 경기도 소재의 남녀 공학 고등학교 1학년 학생 139명으로, 이를 통제집단(TL), 실험집단 1(POGIL), 실험집단 2(POGIL-MAR)로 무선 배치하였다. 학생들은 4차시에 걸쳐 화학 결합과 관련된 학습을 하였다. 이원 공변량 분석 결과, POGIL-MAR 집단은 과학 학업 성취도, 과학 학습 동기, 학습 몰입감 검사에서 사전성취 수준에 관계없이 다른 집단에 비해 유의미하게 높았다. 또한, 하위 집단의 경우, POGIL-MAR 집단이 TL과 POGIL 집단보다 통계적으로 유의미한 학업 성취도 향상이 있었다. 과학 학습 동기의 하위요인에 대한 이원 중다공변량 분석 결과, POGIL-MAR 집단이 학습 동기의 하위 요인인 내재 동기, 직업 동기, 자아 효능, 점수 동기, 자기 의지에서 유의미하게 높았다. 특히, 내재 동기에서 교수학습 방법과 사전 성취 수준 사이의 상호작용 효과가 유의미하게 나타났다. 한편, 학습 몰입감의 하위 요인에 대한 이원 중다공변량 분석 결과, POGIL-MAR 집단이 분명한 목표, 분명한 피드백, 행위-인식 일체감, 학습 통제감, 자기만족적 경험에서 유의미하게 높았다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 모바일 증강현실을 활용한 과정기반 안내탐구학습의 교육적 시사점을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdinejad, M., Talaie, B., Qorbani, H. S., & Dalili, S. (2021). Student perceptions using augmented reality and 3d visualization technologies in chemistry education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09880-2
  2. Abraham, M. R. (1992). Instructional strategies designed to teach science concepts. In F. Lawrenz, K. Cochran, J. Krajcik, & P. Simpson (eds.) Research matter...to the science teacher(pp41-50), NARST monograph, no. 5. Manhattan, KS: NARST.
  3. Arici, F., Yildirim, P., Caliklar, S., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2019). Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers & Education, 142, 103647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103647
  4. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 6(4), 355-385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
  5. Bergqvist, A., Drechsler, M., De Jong, O., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2013). Representations of chemical bonding models in school textbooks-help or hindrance for understanding?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 589-606. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP20159G
  6. Billinghurst, M. Grasset, R., & Looser, J. (2005). Designing augmented reality interfaces. SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 39(1), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1145/1057792.1057803
  7. Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The Impact of Teaching Strategies on Intrinsic Motivation. Champaign, IL.
  8. Butts, B., & Smith, R. (1987). HSC chemistry students' understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds. Research in Science Education, 17(1), 192-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357187
  9. Cai, S., Wang, X., & Chiang, F. K. (2014). A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.018
  10. Canelas, D. A., Hill, J. L., & Carden, R. G. (2019). Cooperative learning in large sections of organic chemistry: Transitioning to POGIL. In active learning in organic chemistry: Implementation and analysis (pp. 199-215). American Chemical Society.
  11. Cen, L., Ruta, D., Al Qassem, L. M. M. S., & Ng, J. (2019). Augmented Immersive Reality (AIR) for improved learning performance: a quantitative evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(2), 283 296. https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2019.2937525
  12. Chamely-Wiik, D. M., Haky, J. E., Louda, D. W., & Romance, N. (2014). SQER3: An instructional framework for using scientific inquiry to design classroom demonstrations. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(3), 329-335. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300689n
  13. Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students' learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352-365.
  14. Chung, S. I., & Shin, D. H. (2017). Cases of discrepancy in high school students' achievement in science education assessment: Focusing on testing tool in affective area. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(5), 891-909. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.5.891
  15. Chung, Y. & Lee, J. (2015). The effectiveness of inquiry learning using augmented reality in the middle school science class. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 21(4), 521-542.
  16. Conway, C. J. (2014). Effects of guided inquiry versus lecture instruction on final grade distribution in a one-semester organic and biochemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(4), 480-483. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300137z
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow finding: Psychology of relationship with daily life. New York: Harper Collins.
  19. De Gale, S., & Boisselle, L. (2015). The effect of POGIL on academic performance and academic confidence. Science Education International, 26(1), 56-61.
  20. Di Serio, A., Ibanez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002
  21. Douglas, E. P., & Chiu, C. C. (2013). Implementation of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) in engineering. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(3), n3.
  22. Dunser, A., & Hornecker, E. (2007). Lessons from an AR book study. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, 179-182.
  23. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109-132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
  24. Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided-inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of chemical education, 76(4), 570-574. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p57
  25. Furio, C., & Calatayud, M. L. (1996). Difficulties with the geometry and polarity of molecules: beyond misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(1), 36-41. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed073p36
  26. Garzon, J., Baldiris, S., Gutierrez, J., & Pavon, J. (2020). How do pedagogical approaches affect the impact of augmented reality on education? A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Educational Research Review, 100334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100334
  27. Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(10), 1159-1176. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20442
  28. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning science: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1088-1107. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20181
  29. Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290609
  30. Ha, M. & Lee, J-K. (2013). The item response, generalizability, and structural validity for the translation of Science Motivation Questionnaire II (SMQII). The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 13, 1-18.
  31. Habig, S. (2020). Who can benefit from augmented reality in chemistry? Sex differences in solving stereochemistry problems using augmented reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 629-644. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12891
  32. Hanson, D. M. (2006). Instructor's guide to process-oriented guided-inquiry learning. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
  33. Hanson, D. M. (2013). Instructor's guide to process oriented guided inquiry learning. New York: Pacific Crest.
  34. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352-381. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<352::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-J
  35. Hein, S. M. (2012). Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 860-864. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100217v
  36. Hurst, M. O. (2002). How we teach molecular structure to freshmen. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 763-764. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p763
  37. Ibanez, M. B., Di Serio, A., Villaran, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014). Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education, 71, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.004
  38. Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 18(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.18.1.17
  39. Kafumann, H., & Schmalstieg, D. (2003). Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, 27(3), 339-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0097-8493(03)00028-1
  40. Kim, K. (2009). The Effects of learning activities on the application of augmented reality contents in elementary science instruction. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 12(5), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.32431/KACE.2009.12.5.007
  41. Kirikkaya, E., & Basgul, M. S. (2019). The effect of the use of augmented reality applications on the academic success and motivation of 7th grade students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(3), 362-378. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.362
  42. Ko, Y., & Kim, C. (2012). Analysis of educational effects in augmented reality combined marker system. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 16(3), 373-382.
  43. Ku, J., Kim, S., Lee, H., Cho, S., & Park, H. (2016). OECD Programme for International Student Assessment: An analysis of PISA 2015 results. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  44. Kwak, Y. (2017). Exploration of features of Korean eighth grade students' attitudes toward science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 135-142. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0135
  45. Kye, B., & Kim, Y. (2008). Investigation on the relationships among media characteristics, presence, flow, and learning effects in augmented reality based learning. Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.24.4.193
  46. Lawson, A. E. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Los Angeles: SAGE.
  47. Lee, J. (2016). Analysis of changes in the learning environments of middle school science classes. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(5), 717-727. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.5.0717
  48. Lee, J., Park, G., & Noh, T. (2020). Development and application of the multiple representation-based learning strategies using augmented reality on the concept of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of the Korean Association of Science Education, 40(4), 375-383. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.4.375
  49. Lee, J-I., & Choi, J-S. (2011). Making contents of the science education for the element school children based on the AR(Augmented Reality). The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 11(11), 514-520. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2011.11.11.514
  50. Lee, J. S., Sim, H. A., Kim, K. Y., & Lee, K. S. (2010). Effects of reality based science learning program on learning motivation and achievement: Development and implementation of elementary school level's science learning program applied the Keller's ARCS model. Theory and Practice of Education, 15(1), 99-121.
  51. Liyanage, D., Lo, S. M., & Hunnicutt, S. S. (2021). Student discourse networks and instructor facilitation in process oriented guided inquiry physical chemistry classes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00031K
  52. Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Franklin, T. (2009). Teaching science for all children, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson.
  53. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329.
  54. Ministry of Education [MOE] (2015). The 2015 Revised national curriculum of science; Ministry of Education; Seoul, No. 2015-74.
  55. Ministry of Education [MOE] (2020). 4th comprehensive plan for science education (2020.5.).
  56. Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (Eds.). (2008). Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (Vol. 994). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
  57. Nahum, T. L., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical bonding concept aligned with current scientific and pedagogical knowledge. Science Education, 91(4), 579-603. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20201
  58. Ohn-Sabatello, T. (2020). Incorporating technology tools and the 5E instructional model to teach high school students chemistry by online instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(11), 4202-4208. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00824
  59. Perez, J. R. B., Perez, M. E. B., Calatayud, M. L., Garcia-Lopera, R. M., Montesinos, J. V. S., & Gil, E. T. (2017). Student's misconceptions on chemical bonding: a comparative study between high school and first year university students. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 5(1).
  60. Robert, J., Lewis, S. E., Oueini, R., & Mapugay, A. (2016). Coordinated implementation and evaluation of flipped classes and peer-led team learning in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(12), 1993-1998. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00395
  61. Rodriguez, F. C., Frattini, G., Krapp, L. F., Martinez-Hung, H., Moreno, D. M., Roldan, M., ... & Abriata, L. A. (2021). MoleculARweb: A web site for chemistry and structural biology education through interactive augmented reality out of the box in commodity devices. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(7), 2243-2255. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00179
  62. Rodriguez, J. M. G., Hunter, K. H., Scharlott, L. J., & Becker, N. M. (2020). A review of research on process oriented guided inquiry learning: Implications for research and practice. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3506-3520. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00355
  63. Rye, H., & Park, H. (2017). Development and application of the objects on the unit of 'Our Body' on augmented reality. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 36(4), 367-378. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2017.36.4.367
  64. Salar, R., Arici, F., Caliklar, S., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2020). A model for augmented reality immersion experiences of university students studying in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09810-x
  65. Sang, K., Kwak, Y., Park, J., & Park, S. (2016). The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): Findings from TIMSS 2015 for Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  66. Sani, F., & Todman, J. (2008). Experimental design and statistics for psychology: a first course. John Wiley & Sons.
  67. Shelton, B. E. (2003). How augmented reality helps students learn dynamic spatial relationships. Seattle: University of Washington.
  68. Shin, H. Y., & Woo, A. J. (2016). An analysis of concept description and model and student understanding about ionic compound in textbooks developed under the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 60(5), 362-373. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2016.60.5.362
  69. Shin, S., Kim, H., Noh, T., & Lee, J. (2020). High school students' verbal and physical interactions appeared in collaborative science concept learning using augmented reality. Journal of the Korean Associaion of Science Education, 40(2), 191-201.
  70. Shin, S., Noh, T., & Lee, J. (2020). An exploration of learning environment for promoting conceptual understanding, immersion and situational interest in small group learning using augmented reality. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 64(6), 360-370. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2020.64.6.360
  71. Suh, H. (2008). Relationships among presence, learning flow, attitude toward usability, and learning achievement in an augmented reality interactive learning environment. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 14(3), 137-165.
  72. Talanquer, V., & Pollard, J. (2017). Reforming a large foundational course: Successes and challenges. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(12), 1844-1851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00397
  73. Trout, L. (Ed.). (2012). POGIL activities for high school chemistry. Batavia, IL: Flinn Scientific.
  74. Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M., & Bradley, J. (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(6), 460-464. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed068p460
  75. Vishnumolakala, V. R., Southam, D. C., Treagust, D. F., Mocerino, M., & Qureshi, S. (2017). Students' attitudes, self-efficacy and experiences in a modified process-oriented guided inquiry learning undergraduate chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00233A
  76. Walker, L., & Warfa, A. R. M. (2017). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) marginally effects student achievement measures but substantially increases the odds of passing a course. PLoS One, 12(10), e0186203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186203
  77. Wong, C. H., Tsang, K. C., & Chiu, W. K. (2021). Using augmented reality as a powerful and innovative technology to increase enthusiasm and enhance student learning in higher education chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(11), 3476-3485. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01029
  78. Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science education, 88(3), 465-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126