웹 자원기반학습 환경에서 교수자 역할에 따른 메타인지 촉진 전략 활용의 효과

Abstract

In 21^st century s Knowledge-based information society appeared as a result of the rapid development of information and communication technology, the information and the knowledge are the most valuable resources of the society. Therefore the learners must be able to keep in touch with new information constantly and have the ability to select and utilize the necessary information. In response to such social requirements, it became necessary for a new educational environment where the learners can obtain these abilities to be established. Rakes(1996) emphasized the necessity of RBL(Resource-Based Learning), which means learning by direct interaction with various external learning materials rather than just with the instructor in the classroom. Just providing abundant resource does not fulfill the purpose of RBL. In order for RBL to maximize its efficiency, it requires not only the provision of proper learning activity and evaluation of learning result, but also sufficient support of the instruction and continuous feedback to help learners utilize it. In learners leading environments such as RBL, the learners must have metacognitive ability to plan and inspect the learning course and the result for themselves. It can be improved by constant teaching activity and the results may vary according to the role of the supporting instructor. Therefore the purpose of this study is to investigate if there are any differences in degree of metacognitive level, achievement, and satisfaction of task performance between two different styles of instructors when the roles of instructors supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy are classified into facilitator and model in RBL environment. Details of this research are as follows : 1. In web Resource-Based Learning environment, is there any different effect between facilitator and model role of instructor on learner s metacognitive level? 2. In web Resource-Based Learning environment, is there any different effect between facilitator and model role of instructor on learner s achievement? 2-1. Is there any different effect between facilitator and model role of instructor on total achievement of learner s task performance? 2-2. Is there any different effect between facilitator and model role of instructor on process of learner s task performance? 2-3. Is there any different effect between facilitator and model role of instructor on result of learner s task performance? 3. In web Resource-Based Learning environment, is there any different effect between facilitator and model role of instructor on learner s satisfaction? In this experiment, some E university students were selected as subjects of facilitator and model strategy supporting group by the role of instructors supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy. They performed web Resource-Based Learning and evaluated learners degree of change in metacognitive level, achievement, and satisfaction of task performance. Among all the participants, attending the J class in September, 2002, only 55 subjects, who participated in all experimental courses, were included in analyses of the final result. The steps were : First, assessed learners original metacognitive level with metacognitive level test paper. Second, provided learners a Resource-Based Learning task and task guide in Resource-Based Learning orientation. Third, the learners performed Resource-Based Learning for four weeks and the instructors supported the metacognitive facilitating strategy in two separate styles, as a facilitator and a model. At last, at the end of the four weeks of Resource-Based Learning, the learners submitted their task reports and metacognitive level and satisfactory level were evaluated. Some tools that were used in concluding the experiment are as follows: Resource-Based Learning room supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy, Resource-Based Learning manual(Resource-Based Learning orientation manual, metacognitive facilitating strategy support manual applied to Resource-Based Learning), metacognitive level assessment tools, achievement evaluation tools, and satisfaction evaluation tools. Resource-Based Learning orientation manual and metacognitive facilitating strategy support manual applied to Resource-Based Learning were properly verified by two educational technology specialists and edited and compensated. Metacognitive level assessment tools were used after confirmed .87 of confidence with pilot test. Achievement evaluation tools and satisfaction evaluation tools were properly verified by three educational technology specialists and edited and compensated. The results were analyzed by two groups independent sample t-tests. The analyses of the difference of degree of change in metacognitive level, achievement, and satisfaction between those groups are as following: First, as a result of the analysis of difference of degree of change in metacognitive level in roles of instructor in Resource-Based Learning environment, the degree of change of metacognitive level of supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy group as a facilitator(average=6.21, standard deviation=11.62) was higher than it of group as a model(average=12, standard deviation=9.73), and it has statistical meaning(t=-2.094, df=53, p<.05). Second, as a result of the analysis of difference of total achievement in roles of instructor in Resource-Based Learning environment, the achievement score of supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy group as a facilitator(average=43.29, standard deviation=3.52) was higher than it of group as a model(average=39.53, standard deviation=5.10), and it has statistical meaning(t=-3.216, df=53, p<.05). In achievement category, achievement of task performance process of supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy group as a facilitator(average=13.79, standard deviation=2.31) and it of group as a model(average=13.74, standard deviation=2.86) do not have statistical meaning(t=-0.074, df=53, p>.05). In achievement category, achievement of task performance result of supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy group as a facilitator(average=29.52, standard deviation=2.05) was higher than it of group as a model(average=25.81, standard deviation=2.99), and it has statistical meaning(t=-5.399, df=53, p<.05). Third, as a result of the analysis of difference of learners satisfaction in roles of instructor in Resource-Based Learning environment, learners satisfaction level of supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy group as a facilitator(average=3.82, standard deviation=.38) and it of group as a model(average=3.71, standard deviation =.50) do not have statistical meaning(t=-.945, df=53, p>.05). From these results, the following conclusions were extracted: First, in Resource-Based Learning environment, instructors supporting metacognitive facilitating strategy as facilitators were more effective than as models in improving learners level of metacognition. This result is contrary to Lester and Garofalo(1985) s opinion; making learners check themselves is more effective than providing and supporting information from instructors directly. The reason is that the internalization of such higher-order thinking ability like metacognition, is hard to be improved in short time instructing and learning. That is, it takes time for the learners to understand the usefulness of it and internalize it in case of learning with the model type of instructor. In this study, it was difficult to confirm its effect due to the limitation of the time. On the other hand, when facilitated as a facilitator, even in the short time study, as instructors provide and remind the strategies to perform tasks, the effect has been observed. But it is hard to believe for this effect to last long period of time. Like the The Osman and Hannafin(1992) s opinion that because the ultimate purpose of metacognitive strategy training is to make learners control their own studies, the role of facilitators who help learners should be decreased, the future study should be done not just in a single task or a short time, but in a semester-long or longer period of time to be an effective role of instructors to help learners to internalize metacognitive strategy. Second, instructors as a facilitator to support metacognitive facilitating strategy were more effective learners task performing achievement. It is because while supported as a facilitator, learners were stimulated constantly by instructors and could understand the application of metacognitive strategy and task performing process fast and easily. In case of which supported as a model, learners should spontaneously observe performance of models and perform their task, the role of model was hard to stimulate learners who were used to traditional passive learning. Therefore in learners leading learning environment, to make learners utilize model when supported class as a model, it is necessary that the role of models should be understood enough first. On the other hand, in Resource-Based Learning task performing process, two groups did not demonstrate any meaningful difference. For, even in Resource-Based Learning environment, to contact various and abundant information may have been an additional burden other than task itself; so the facilitators and models supported to make learners feel comfortable in taking large amount of information, organizing it, and understanding it. It coincides with the result of Brown and Gibbs s opinion that because most learners suffer from lack of information organizing technique when they first meet Resource-Based Learning, proper guide and instructional support should be provided. Third, in satisfaction of Resource-Based Learning task, supported as a facilitator, this group got average 3.82 out of 5, supported as a model, average 3.71 out of 5, both of them are higher than average. That is, regardless of metacognitive facilitating strategy, adults are satisfied with Resource-Based Learning environment. This result coincides MacDonald and Mason(1999) s study that learners are positive about Resource-Based Learning Environment because it can cause interest and guarantee learning course fit to each learner. Especially in RBL in this study, as the instructors not only selected tasks and resources and provided the learners with them in advance, but also guided through RBL orientation, the learners show positive attitude rather than rejection toward the new learning method. Based on the results of the study, several suggestions for future studies can be made : First, to efficiently embody RBL with increasing importance in this information society, this study should cover further more about the effect of change of degree of metacognitive level, achievement and satisfaction by the each role of the instructor. But experiment of RBL is still short. So to accumulate the constant experimental data of RBL, study of various learning environment and effective design of RBL as learning contents is necessary. Second, this research was experimented in a short period of time, four weeks, which was not enough time to extract distinguishable difference in results. So it is hard to apply this experiment in actual learning situation because, again, metacognitive ability is so closely related with emotion and would not be changed in short time. Therefore it requires a long-term study to prove the effect of metacognitive facilitating strategy. Third, to ensure objectivity of the result and to meet the schedule of the class, publishing and evaluation was eliminated from RBL steps in this study. However, in RBL, because the learners can improve the effectiveness of learning by sharing and evaluating the results with fellow learners, the study covering all steps of RBL must be carried on in the future studies. ; 급격한 정보통신기술의 발달로 도래한 21세기 지식정보사회는 정보와 지 식이 사회의 부가가치를 창출하는 중요한 자원이 되는 사회이다. 따라서 지식정보사회의 학습자는 끊임없이 새로운 정보를 습득하고 활용하여야 하며, 무수히 많은 정보 가운데서 자신에게 꼭 필요한 정보를 올바르게 선별하고 실제 과제나 문제 해결에 활용하는 정보 활용 및 지식 창출 능력이 없으면 지식정보사회에서 경쟁력을 갖춘 지식인으로 성장하기 어렵다. 이와 같은 사회의 요구에 대응하기 위해 학습자에게 정보 활용 및 지식 창출 능력을 길러줄 수 있는 새로운 교육 환경이 필요하게 되었다. 이처럼 새로이 요구되는 정보 활용 능력을 학습하기 위한 학습 환경으로 Rakes(1996)는 자원기반학습(RBL : Resource-Based Learning)의 필요성을 강조하였다. 여기서 말하는 자원기반학습이란 교실에서 교사에 의해 제공되는 설명만을 듣고 학습하기 보다는 외부의 다양한 학습 자료들과 직접 상호작용 함으로써 학습하는 것을 의미한다. 그러나 풍부한 자원을 공급하는 것만으로는 자원기반학습의 성공을 보장하기는 어려우며, 자원기반학습이 최선의 결과를 가져오기 위해서는 적절한 학습 활동의 제공과 학습 결과에 대한 평가 뿐만 아니라 학습 과정에서 학습자들이 자원을 활용하는데 어려움을 느끼지 않도록 교수자의 충분한 지원과 피드백이 지속적으로 제공되는 것이 무엇보다 중요하다. 특히 자원기반학습과 같은 학습자 주도적 학습 환경에서 학습자는 스스로 학습을 계획하고 학습 과정과 결과에 대해 점검하는 메타인지 능력을 필요로 한다. 이는 지속적인 교수활동을 통하여 길러질 수 있으며, 이를 지원하는 교수자의 역할에 따라 그 효과가 달라질 수 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 자원기반학습 환경에서 촉진자(Facilitator)와 모델(Model)로 메타인지를 촉진하는 교수자의 역할을 구분하여 학습을 지원하였을 때, 각각의 역할에 따라 학습자의 메타인지 수준의 변화 정도와 과제 수행 성취도 그리고 만족도에 차이가 있는지를 규명해 본 후, 자원기반학습에서의 교수자 역할에 대한 시사점을 제시하고자 하는 데 목적이 있다. 이와 같은 연구 목적에 따라 다루어진 세부 연구 문제는 다음과 같다. 1. 웹 자원기반학습 환경에서 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하는 교수자의 역할에 따라 학습자의 메타인지 수준 변화 정도에 차이가 있는가? 2. 웹 자원기반학습 환경에서 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하는 교수자의 역할에 따라 학습자의 성취도에 차이가 있는가? 2-1. 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하는 교수자의 역할에 따라 학습자의 전반적인 과제수행 성취도에 차이가 있는가? 2-2. 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하는 교수자의 역할에 따라 학습자의 과제수행 과정에 차이가 있는가? 2-3. 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하는 교수자의 역할에 따라 학습자의 과제수행 결과에 차이가 있는가? 3. 웹 자원기반학습 환경에서 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하는 교수자의 역할에 따라 학습자의 만족도에 차이가 있는가? 위와 같은 연구 문제를 검증하기 위해 본 연구는 E 대학 학부생 55명을 대상으로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하는 교수자의 역할에 따라 집단을 촉진자(Facilitator)로서 전략 지원 집단과 모델(Model)로서 전략 지원 집단으로 나누어 웹을 활용한 자원기반학습을 수행한 후, 학습자의 메타인지 수준 변화 정도와 과제 수행 성취도 및 만족도를 측정하였다. 본 연구의 대상은 2002년 9월, J 과목을 수강하고 있는 E대학교 학부생으로, 이 중 실험의 모든 과정에 참여한 학습자 55명 만이 최종 결과 분석에 포함되었다. 연구 절차는 첫째, 메타인지 수준 검사지를 사용하여 학습자들의 사전 메타인지 수준을 측정하였으며, 둘째, 자원기반학습 오리엔테이션을 통하여 학습자에게 자원기반학습 과제와 자원기반학습 과제 수행의 지침 등을 제공하였다. 셋째, 학습자들은 4주간 자원기반학습을 수행하였으며, 교수자는 자원기반학습 진행 단계에 따라 촉진자와 모델로 교수자의 역할을 구분하여 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하였다. 마지막으로 4주간의 자원기반학습 수행 후 학습자들은 과제를 제출하였고, 사후 메타인지 수준 검사와 만족도 검사를 수행하였다. 실험에 사용된 연구 도구에는 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원하기 위한 자원기반학습 방, 자원기반학습 매뉴얼(자원기반학습 오리엔테이션 매뉴얼, 자원기반학습에 적용된 메타인지 촉진 전략 지원 매뉴얼), 메타인지 수준 측정 도구, 성취도 평가 도구, 만족도 검사 도구이다. 자원기반학습 오리엔테이션 매뉴얼과 자원기반학습에 적용된 메타인지 촉진 전략 지원 매뉴얼은 교육공학 전문가 2인에게 타당도 검증을 받아 수정·보완 후 사용되었으며, 메타인지 수준 측정 도구는 파일럿 테스트를 통하여 .87의 신뢰도를 확보한 후 사용되었다. 성취도 평가 도구와 만족도 검사 도구는 교육공학 전문가 3인의 타당도 검증을 거쳐 수정·보완 후 사용되었다. 이렇게 나온 결과는, 두 집단 독립표본 t-검증을 통해 분석되었으며 두 집단의 메타인지 수준 변화 정도 및 성취도, 만족도의 차이를 분석한 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 자원기반학습 환경에서 교수자 역할에 따른 메타인지 수준 변화 정도의 차이를 분석한 결과, 촉진자로서 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단의 메타인지 수준 변화 정도(평균=6.21, 표준편차=11.62)는 모델로서 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단의 메타인지 수준 변화 정도(평균=.12, 표준편차=9.73)보다 더 컸으며 이는 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 있었다(t=-2.094, df= 53, p<.05). 둘째, 자원기반학습 환경에서 교수자 역할에 따른 학습자의 전반적인 성취도 차이를 분석한 결과, 교수자가 촉진자의 역할로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단의 성취도 점수(평균=43.29, 표준편차=3.52)는 모델의 역할로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단의 성취도 점수(평균=39.53, 표준편차=5.10)보다 높았으며, 이는 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 있었다(t=-3.216, df=53, p<.05). 성취도 영역 중 과제수행 과정에 대한 성취도는 교수자가 촉진자의 역할로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단(평균=13.79, 표준편차=2.31)이 모델의 역할로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단(평균=13.74, 표준편차=2.86)에 비하여 높은 것으로 나타났으나 통계적으로 유의미한 차이를 나타내지는 않았다(t=-0.073, df=53, p>.05). 성취도 영역 중 과제수행 결과에 대한 성취도는 교수자가 촉진자의 역할로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단의 점수(평균=29.52, 표준편차=2.05)가 모델의 역할로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단의 점수(평균=25.81, 표준편차=2.99)보다 높았으며, 이는 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 있었다(t=-5.399, df=53, p<.05). 셋째, 자원기반학습 환경에서 교수자 역할에 따른 학습자의 만족도 차이를 분석한 결과, 교수자가 촉진자의 역할로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단(평균=3.82, 표준편차=.38)이 모델의 역할로 메타인지 촉진 전략을 지원한 집단(평균=3.71, 표준편차=.50)에 비하여 높은 것으로 나타났으나 통계적으로 유의미한 차이를 나타내지는 않았다(t=-.945, df=53, p>.05).