Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.32431/kace.2019.22.3.007

The Effect of e-Learning Contents' Information Presentation Method on Teaching Presence and Academic Achievement  

Kim, Jinha (동신대학교 교수학습센터)
Kim, Kyunghee (동신대학교 유아교육학과)
Lee, Seongju (동신대학교 유아교육학과)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education / v.22, no.3, 2019 , pp. 79-87 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study examined the effect of e-learning contents with different dual-coding, media-richness, and cognitive-load degree on learning. To do so, after dividing summary and explanation presentation methods in e-learning contents according to information's quantity and kind, the effects on teaching presence and academic achievement were examined. The summary presentation method was produced as text type and text+illustration type and the explanation presentation method as audio type and audio+video type. The results of this study are as follows. First, in the summary method, the text+illustration type had significantly higher teaching presence than text type. Second, in the explanation method, the audio type was found to be significantly higher than the audio+video type. Third, the interaction between the summary method and explanation method was found to be significant in teaching presence and academic achievement.
Keywords
e-Learning; e-Learning contents delivery type; Information (presentation) method; Teaching presence; Academic achievement;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 최정원 (2012). 이러닝 콘텐츠 제시유형에 따른 교수실재감과 학습실재감에 관한 연구. 건국대학교 대학원. 석사학위논문.
2 이은주 (2017). 시각적 단서 제시 여부에 따른 동영상 유형이 학습 성과 및 교수실재감에 미치는 영향. 고려대학교 대학원. 박사학위논문.
3 유평준 (2003). 원격대학원 온라인 수업의 학습참여도, 학업성취도, 및 학습만족도에 미치는 학습자 관련 변인. 교육정보미디어연구, 9(4), 229-267.
4 배성무 (2015). 대학 이러닝 동영상 강의에서 자기조절학습능력과 전면자막 유형이 학업성취도 및 학습몰입도에 미치는 효과. 인천대학교 교육대학원. 석사학위논문.
5 Swan, K., Shea, P., Richarddson, J. C. Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-mentor, 2 (24), 1-12.
6 구한나 (2006). 온라인 강의에서 강사 제시 유형에 따른 인지적 실재감, 성취도, 학습 만족도 차이 규명. 이화여자대학교 대학원. 석사학위논문.
7 장선영.노석준 (2009). 학습자의 측면에서 본 대학 e-러닝 콘텐츠의 질에 영향을 미치는 요인 분석. 인터넷정보학회논문지, 10(3), 159-172.
8 노진아.이석재.윤종현.조현우.강석빈 (2014). 이러닝 신기술 동향. 한국전자통신연구원 차세대 콘텐츠기술 특집, 41-49.
9 Clark, R.E., & Craig, T.G. (1992). Research and theory on multi-media learning effects. In M. Giardina (Ed.), Interactive multimedia learning environments. Human factors and technical considerations on design issues (pp 19-30). Heidelberg: Springer.
10 Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
11 김회수 (1995). 멀티미디어 설계와 개발. 서울교육과학사
12 최수정.강경준.고일상 (2007). 이러닝시스템의 매체풍부성, 매체유용성, 매체경험이 학습자 만족에 미치는 영향. Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management 14 (2), 27-47
13 Heeter, C. (1992). Being There: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1 (2), 262-271.   DOI
14 Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. J. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32 , 554-571.   DOI
15 Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., and Trevino, L.K.. (1987) Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance : Implications for Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Sep, 355-366.
16 Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem sloving: Effect on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.   DOI
17 김지심 (2009). 기업 이러닝에서 실재감과 학습효과의 구조적 관계 규명. 이화여자대학교 대학원. 박사학위논문.
18 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher education. 2 (2-3). 87-105.   DOI
19 Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7 (3), 225-240.   DOI
20 고은현 (2007). e-러닝 환경에서의 교수 실재감 측정도구 개발 연구. 고려대학교 대학원. 박사학위논문.
21 Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 5, 1-17.
22 Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7 (1), 1-30.   DOI
23 Richardson, J. C., Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (1), 68-88.
24 김정화 (2010). 이러닝 환경에서 e-튜터의 학습지원이 교수실재감과 학습실재감의 하위 변인에 미치는 영향과 구조적 관계 분석. 이화여자대학교 대학원. 박사학위논문.
25 Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M. & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of "teaching presence" in the SUNY learning network. Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction, 4, 279-312.
26 남정현 (2005). 이러닝 학습자료 제시유형이 학습에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 정보과학대학원. 석사학위논문.
27 Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9 (2), 1-21.
28 심혜정 (2012). 사이버가정학습에서 교수실재감, 자기효능감과 자기결정성 동기의 관계. 한국교원대학교 대학원. 석사학위논문.
29 Morris, T. A. (2011). Exploring community college student perceptions of online learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 8 (6), 31-44.
30 Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 143-156.   DOI
31 Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9 (3), 175-190.   DOI
32 김나연 (2011). 사이버대학생의 교수실재감, 학습실재감, 학습성과의 구조적 관계 규명. 이화여자대학교 대학원. 석사학위논문.
33 이재은.유병민.박혜진 (2015). 원격교육에서 성인학습자의 교육참여동기와 실재감이 학습 만족도에 미치는 영향. 농촌지도와 개발, 22(2). 233-243.
34 Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12 (3), 3-22.