Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.555

Role Formation by Interaction Function and Pattern for Group Discussion Activity using the case of Environmental Education Camp for Undergraduate Student  

Jung, Won-Young (KEEPER)
Lee, Go-Eun (Pusan National University)
Shin, Hyeon-Jeong (Sawoo High School)
Cha, Hyun-Jung (Seoul National University)
Kim, Chan-Jong (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.32, no.4, 2012 , pp. 555-569 More about this Journal
Abstract
Many science education research and practices are recently emphasizing the importance of collaborative learning. This study also understands learning in aspects of socio-cultural context, and regarded the creation of meaning in a same-age group as an important learning process. This is most especially true in the premise that the formation of roles in a collaborative learning is important for successful interactive learning. This study aims to find out how roles form in a group. For this purpose, university students participating in a group discussion activity about energy flow and circulation of material were selected as research participants. Discussions among the nine students in one group consisted of cognitive conversations on the topic and operational conversations for preparing a presentation. Video-clips of the discussions were made and transcribed. For the analysis, we developed a framework that includes four interaction functions (cognitive, organizational, meta-cognitive, operational), four action elements (question, simple answer, providing opinion, response to opinion), and two to four intention elements by each action elements. As a result, a total of nine roles were revealed through the interaction function and element; cognitive questioner, operational questioner, simple answerer, operational suggester, organizational commander, operational commander, cognitive explainer, terminator, reflective thinker. These roles are re-classified into seven utterance patterns by the utterance order and object, and they were categorized into three role groups (facilitating interaction, sustaining interaction, finishing interaction). The result means that role formation and function can have influence on learning and interaction. This study is meaningful to the suggestion to collaborative learning including project-based learning, investigation, club activity, and for the re-illumination of the role in an aspect of the interaction.
Keywords
group interaction; role; discussion;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김경철.김안나 (2010). 예비교사의 구성주의적 토론수업 경험에 관한 연구. 유아교육학론집, 14(3), 197-226.
2 김연귀.정구송 (2010). 지구과학 천문 영역에서 개념스케치를 활용한 소집단 토론 수업의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(1), 170-180.
3 김현경.최병순 (2009). 과학고 토론수업을 위한 수업모형 개발과 적용과정에서 나타난 언어적 상호작용의 특징. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(4), 359-372.
4 도승이 (2005). 교실 토론상황에서 학생의 감정, 인지, 행동의 상호작용: 근거이론 분석법을 통한 모델을 중심으로. 교육심리연구, 19(1), 17-39.
5 박다정.이재경 (2009). 블로그를 활용한 토론학습이 학업성취, 학습흥미 및 학습전이에 미치는 효과에 관한 연구. 한국실천공학교육학회논문지, 1(1), 7-12.
6 박성선 (2001). 컴퓨터를 활용한 수학학습에 대한 사회문화적 관점. 초등수학교육, 5(1), 13-20.
7 박연호 (1996). 현대인간관계론. 서울:박영사.
8 박태윤.정완호.최석진.최돈형.이동엽.노경임 (2001). 환경교육학개론. 서울:교육과학사.
9 오필석.이선경.김찬종 (2007). 지식 공유의 관점에서 본 과학 교실 담화의 사례. 한국과학교육학회지, 27(4), 297-308.
10 이상수 (2004). 면대면 학습 환경과 온라인 실시간/비실시간 학습 환경에서의 상호작용 패턴 분석. 교육공학연구, 20(1), 63-88.
11 이재성 (2010). 다양한 토론 방식을 적용한 <독서와 토론> 수업 모형의 토론 자기 효능감 연구. 새국어교육, 85, 247-267.
12 이지연 (2005). 웹 기반 게시판을 활용한 협력학습에서의 상호작용 유형과 지식형성 과정. 교육공학연구, 21(4), 29-58.
13 이현영.장상실.성숙경.이상권.강성주.최병순 (2002). 사회적 상호작용을 강조한 과학 탐구실험과정에서 학생-학생 상호작용 양상 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(3), 660-670.
14 임수복 (2002). 지방자치단체장의 역할 확인 및 정립방안에 관한 연구-주민 및 공무원의 의식조사를 바탕으로. 경기대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
15 정원영 (2010). 자연사전시관에서 중학생 소집단의 사회적 상호작용 기반 환경 학습 과정. 서울대학교대학원 박사학위논문.
16 최창호 (1999). 새행정학. 서울:삼미사.
17 Baron, R. & Byrne, D. (2000). Social Psychology. Allyn and Bacon.
18 Borun, A., Chambers, M. & Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learning in science museums. Curator, 39, 123-138.   DOI
19 Brown, A. L. & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20 Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: the development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Routledge.
21 Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek: Altamira press.
22 Henri, F. (1992) Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. E. Kaye(ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
23 Jacobson, S. K., McDuff, M. D., & Monroe, M. C. (2006). Conservation education and outreach techniques. New York: Oxford University Press.
24 Kempa, R.F. & Ayob, A.(1991). Learning interactions in group work in science. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 341-354.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science, 31, 7-39.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27 Wals, A. E. J. & de Jong, F. P. M. C. (1997). Community-based environmental education, school culture and lifelong learning. In W. L. Filho (Ed.), Lifelong learning and environmental education (pp. 121-133). New York: Peter Lang.
28 Pennington, D.C. (2005). 소그룹 내 행동의 사회심리학 (한지은∙유승민 공역). 시그마프레스.
29 Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
30 Vye, N.J., Goldman, S.R., Hmelo, C., Voss, J.F., Williams, S., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 435-484.