PBL(Problem-Based Learning) 활용 수업에서 자기규제학습 능력에 따른 성취도, PBL 학습요소별 인식의 차이 및 성취도와 인식차의 관계 분석

Abstract

오늘날 자신에게 필요한 정보의 보다 신속한 처리, 습득, 변형 등이 요구되고 있는 정보 사회에 적응할 인재 양성을 위해서 교육적 패러다임은 급격한 대전환이 됴구된다. 정보 사회가 필요로 하는 교육적 패러다임은 한 마디로 가르치는 교사 중심에서 배우는 학습자 중심으로의 전화이며 이는 다른 말로 교수(instruction)에서 학습(learning)으로의 변화라고 요약할 수 있다. 이러한 혁명적인 교육 패러다임의 변화를 이론적으로 대변해주고 그 실천안을 제시해줄 수 있는 하난의 대안이 구성주의(constructivism) 패러다임이다. 구성주의에 의한 교수-학습 모형의 하나인 문제중심학습(PBL)은 학생들로 하여금 비구조적이고 실제적인 문제를 해결해가면서 사고력을 기를 수 있고, 실제 생활과 관련된 복잡한 문제를 정의하고, 가설을 설정하여, 자료를 찾아 해결안을 제시하고, 문제 해결 과정을 효과성에 대하여 평가해 나가는 과정에서 얻어진 학습 결과는 실생활에서 문제를 해결할 때 반영되므로 그 전이 효과가 크다고 할 수 있다. 이렇듯 PBL 학습상황에서는 학습자가 주도적이 되어 학습을 이끌어 나가야하므로, 자기 급제 학습(Self-Regulated Learning:SRL) 능력은 PBL의 성공에 영향을 미치는 주요한 학습능력이 되고 있다. 따라서, 본 연구는 구성주의의 패러다임을 반영하는 PBL을 학교 교실 수업에 적용할 때에 학습자의 자기 규제 학습에 따라 성취도와 PBL 과정의 학습 요소별 인식에 차이가 있는지, 그리고 PBL의 어떠한 학습 요소별 인식이 성취도에 영향을 미치는지, 실증적 자료를 통해 분석하는데 그 목적이 있다. 이와 같은 연구 목적에 따른 연구 문제는 다음과 같다. A. PBL 활용 수업에서 학습자의 자기규제학습 능력에 따라 PBL 학업 성취도에 차이가 있는가? B. PBL 활용 수업에서 학습자의 자기규제학습 능력에 따라 학습 요소별 인식에 차이가 있는가 C. PBL 활용 수업에서 학습자의 자기규제학습 능력에 따라 어떠한 학습 요소별 요인이 학업 성취도에 영향을 미치는가? 연구 대상은 2001년 현재 인천 소재 실업계 고등학교 1학년에 재학중인 여학생(4개 학급) 161명을 대상으로 하였다. 연구 대상 전원에게 자기규제학습 능력 검사를 실시하여, 자기규제학습 능력을 상·중·하로 구분(상(上)인 집단 56명, 중(中)인 집단 60명, 하(下)인 집단 45명) 한 후, 자기규제학습 능력이 상·중·하인 학습자를 평균이 비슷하도록 4인 1조로 모둠조를 편성하여 학급별로, PBL 수업 과정안에 따라 5차시에 걸쳐 수업을 실시하였따. 매 차시마다 제출된 학습 과정 평가지들과 학습 결과 평가를 평가 준거에 따라 종합하여 PBL성취도 점수를 산출하였다. 수업 마지막 차시에는 PBL 학습요소별 인식 검사를 실시하였다. 수집된 자료들은 일원분산분석과 사후 검증 방법으로 Seheffe′검증을 이용하였으며, 다중희귀분석(multiple regression)방법을 사용하였다. 본 연구를 토대로 얻어진 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 연구문제 A의 결과는, PBL 학업 성취도에서 자기규제학습 능력이 높은 상위 집단 학습자들이 중·하위 집단의 학습자들 보다 통계적으로 유의한 (F(2, 158)-10.821.p< .05)점수를 얻었다. 둘째, 연구문제 B의 결과는, 학습 요소별로 나누어 비교해 볼??, 협동학습과정과 자기주도학습과정, 과정중심이 평가방법, 수업 만족도 부분의 인식에서는 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았지만 (P> .05), 문제의 실제성을 인식하는 수준에서는 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다.(F(2,158)=3.079, P<.05).그리고 자료수집의 인식 부분에서도 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다.(F(2,158)=5.327,p<.05). 셋째, 연구문제 C의 결과는, 자기규제학습 능력이 중인 집단에서 자료수집 요인만이 학업 성취도에 유의미한 영향을 미쳤으며(t= 2.32, p< .05), 또한 하인 집단에서도 자료수집 요인만이 성취도에 유의미한 영향을 미쳤다(t= 2.08, p<.05).그리고 자기규제학습 능력에 상관없이 전체 학습자를 대상으로 분석한 결과에서도 PBL학업 성취도 점수는 자료수집 요인의 영향을 받는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 자기규제 학습 능력에 따라 학업 성취도를 설명할 수 있는 총변화량값을 비교하면 상위 집단은 총변화량의 20.9%(R²=.159)를 학습요소별 인식이 성취도에 영향을 주었다. 자기규제학습 능력에 관계없이 전체적으로는 학습자들의 학습요소별 인식이 성취도 점수의 11.3%(R²= .113)까지 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이와 같은 연구 결과를 토대로 다음과 같은 결론 및 제언을 하고자 한다. PBL 활용 수업과 같이 문제 해결 과정을 요구하는 수업에서는 자기규제학습 능력이 높은 ㄴ으동적인 학습자 집단이 좋은 학습 결과를 가져온다고 볼 수 있다. 즉, 자기규제학습 능력이 PBL 환경에서 주요 변인으로 작용함을 확인할 수 있었다. 그리고 학습 요소별 인식에 있어서의 차이점을 고려할 때 전문가에 의해 실제성이 높다고 판단된 문제를 제시하여도 자기규제학습 능력에 따라 동일한 문제상황을 실제적으로 인식하는 수준이 다를 수 있음을 보여준다. 그러나 이러한 인식의 차이는 학업 성취도에 직접 영향을 미치지는 않은 것으로 나타났다. 연구문제 B와 C의 결과를 토대로 자기규제학습 능력이 중·하위인 집단에서는 자료수집의 요인이 성취도에 크게 영향을 미친다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 자기규제학습 능력 중·하위 학습자들의 경우 자료수집 요인에서의 역위 현상은 자료수집에서의 인식은 자기규제학습과 같은 초인지적 요인보다는 정보 검색 능력과 같은, 컴퓨터와 관련된 기능적 능력의 차이가 원인이었을 것이라는 가정을 해 볼 수 있으며 후속 연구가 필요한 부분이다. 학습 요소 중, 유의한 차이는 없지만 수업 만족도에서의 평균값이 하위집단(평균14.20)> 상위 집단(평균14.11)>중위집단 (13.92)의 순으로 나타났다. 이 결과를 볼때 PBL 활용 수업이 자기규제학습 능력이 높은 학습자들에게 효과적이면서도 반면에 자기규제학습 능력이 낮은 학습자들에게 학습에 흥미를 갖고 학습 능력을 신장시킬 수 있는 수업 형태가 될 수 있음을 시사한다. 위의 결과를 종합해 볼 때, PBL 활용 수업에서 자기규제학습 능력에 관계 없이 학업 성취도를 향상시키기 위한 수업 전략으로, 효울적으로 자료를 활용 할 수 있는 학습 환경을 고려해야 할 것이다. 본 연구 과정 중에서 학습자들은 인터넷을 통해 다양한 자료를 활용하는 것은 좋았지만 전문 용어의 어려움을 많이 호소하였고 교사가 볼 ?x 잘못된 내용과 오개념을 유발할 수 있는 자료들이 있었다. 그래서 고등학교 학생들이 인터넷 자료들을 효율적으로 활용하기 위해서는 내용 전문가로서 교사들이 교과 내용을 바탕으로 활용할 수 있는 문제중심학습의 자원들을 검색하고 선별하여 데이터 베이스화할 것을 제안하고 싶다. 또한, PBL 활용 수업에서 자기규제학습 능력을 종속 변인으로 하여 자기 규제학습 능력이 낮은 학습자들이 자기 효능감과 성취도를 높일 수 있는 요인들을 세부적으로 개발하는 연구가 앞으로 더 활발히 다루어져댜 한다고 본다.; Now that the rapid advance of computer and information technology has accelerated material growth and the change of the related subsystems In the Informatlon Age, people are requested to be able to properIY acquire, process and transform information they need. To establish the right human image to meet the requirements of our times and the future, there should be a shake-up in educational paradigm. That is, the teacher-contered system should change to learnor-contered one. In other werds, the focus of education should be placed on leanllng, not Instruction. Constructivism is an alternative to theoreticalIY represent the ground- breaking change of the educational paradigm and suggest how it could be actualized practicalIY The problem-based learning is ernerging as an altenlative to troubled school education. Initially, there was no connection between that and constructivism, but PBL Is now regarfed as one of the leaching-leanling models based on constructivism, as they pursue the same goal. While solving ill- structured and authentic problems, students are able to develop thinking faculty. By defining complicated problems related to reat life, setting hypotheses, finding materials, developing solutions and assessing the problem-solving process efficiency, they leant to resolve reat problems better, and a greater transfer Is guaranteed. One of the imperative learning strategies for learnor-contered education which is exactly required in our times, is self-regulated leanling, since this type of learning enables leanler to keep doing self- reflection to werk out a strategic learning plan, check it out, evaluate it and change it in ordor to attain significant leanllng objectives. The purpose of this study was to serye as an empirical basis for determining the impact of the self-regulated leanling on achievement and leanling element recognition in PBL-based instruction when PBL complied with the learnlng pnnciples of constructivlsm Is applled to school Instruction The research questions were posed as below: 1. Does the self-regulated leanling capabilities of learnors make any differonce to their academic achievement in PBL-based instruction? 2. Does the self-regulated leanllng capabilities of learnors make any differonce to thelr recognition of learning elements in PBL-based instruction? 3. Does the self-regulated leanling capabilities of learnors make any differonce in PBL-based instruction to learning factors affecting achievement? The subjects In thls study were 161 glr1 students who were In thelr first year as of 3001 in four classes from a business high school in Incheon. After taking the self-regulated leanling test, they were divided into three groups on the basis of ±0.5 SD of the mean scores: one was the top-rated group with 56 students, another was the average-rated group with 60, and the thlrd was the low-rated group with 45. All the leanlers were organized into subgroups of four who gained similar mean scores in the self-regulated leanling test. And the instruction was offered for each class according to the PBL teaching plan prepared by this researcher To find out their achievement, self-evaluation, intermember evaluation, Intorgroup evaluation, personal Jounlal, and teacher observation checklist were utilized to assess leanling process. For leanling outcome evaluation, their presentation, report and leanling content evaluation were scored. The achievement scores given by this researcher and a fellow teacher were averaged for each student. In the last session, a surveY was conducted to ask thelr opinions on the authenticity of the problems, cooperative learning, self-directed leanling, resources utilization, PBL evaluation method, generat PBL-based instruction satisfaction to find out how much the PBL-based instruction was effective The collected data were analyzed with one-way ANOYA and Schefff test was Implemented as a posttest. And multiple regresslon was calculated. The findings of this study were as below First, regarding Research Question 1 about the impact of self-regulated leanling capabilities on academic achievement in PBL-based instruction, the learnors who had the best self-regulated learning capabilities (hereinafter called the top-ranklng group) scored significantly hlgher In PBL achievement than the leanlers who had the average and poor leanling capabilities(hereinafter called the average-ranking group and the lover-ranking group respectiveIY) (F(3, 158)=10.831, p<.05) Therefore, it could be said that a positive learnor group with better self-regulated learnlng capabilitles produces better results In Instruction calling for problem solving, like PBL-based lesson. In other werds, self regulated leanling capabilities act as one of the primarY variables in PBL setting. Second, concenllng Research Question f on the influence of self- regulated learnlng capabilities on the recognitlon of learnlng elements In PBL-based instruction, their opinions on cooperative leanling, self- directed learning, process-contered evaluation and instruction satisfaction were not significantly different(p>.05), but their view of the authenticity of the problems varied significantly(F(3, 158)=3.079, p<.05). This showed that self-regulated learnlng capabilities made them perceive the same situation In different way, even though the problems tornod out to be highly authentic by specialists. And they had a different view on data collection(F(3, 158)=5.337, p<.05) This gap existed between the top-ranking and average-rated group, and no significant differonce was observed between the top- ranklng group and the lover-ranking group. It shall be noted here that the students were divided into the three groups on the basis of SD±0.5 of the mean self-regulated learning capabilities value, based on Son Jong-sik(1994) and Kim Gyeong-suk(1998) s studies, and relative standard that divided the top and lover groups on the basls of the mean value was normalty used In domestic articles. But as there has been a wide differonce In self-regulated leanling scores even though the same inventorY is utilized, it s needed to prepare specific fixed criteria. To take self-regulated leanling capabilities, a roven vital factor affecting leanling output, into account for successful teaching strategy, quantitative exporiment is required to Identify what criteria should be adopted. Those unexpected results for the average- and lover-ranking groups might possibly be 311ributed to their computer literacY like information retrieval skills, rather than meta-cognitive factors like self-regulated learning. This issue is wide open for further studies. The lover-ranklng group felt the best satisfaction with a mean of 14.30, followed by the top-ranking group with a mean of 14.11 and the average group with a mean of 13.93 in the ordor named. This suggested that PBL-based instruction is effective for learnors with higher self- regulated learning capabilities, and at the same time, it is appealing to learnors with poor self-regulated leanllng capabilitles as well and could develop their learning capabilities. Third, as to Research Question 3 about the impact of self-regulated learning capabilities of learnors on their recognition of individual learning components influencing achievement, the data collection factor exercised an only significant Impact on the achievement of the average group (t=3.33, p<.05). The other learnlng components didn t have any significant influence on achievement, no matter what their self-regulated learning capabilities were. For everY learnor, the over311 PBL achievement also was found to be affected by the data collection factor, regardless of self-regulated leanling capabllities. 30.9%(RB=.309) of the total achievement change In the top-ranklng group resulted from thelr perception of leanllng components, and this factor brought 18.8%(RB=.188) change to the achievement of the lover-ranking group, and IS.9% change(RB=.159) to that of the average group. The lover-ranking group was mere affected in achievement by this factor than the average group. As a whole, the recognition of leanling component gave 11.3%(RB=.113) Impact on the achievement of the entire learnor5, regardless of self- regulated leanling capabilities. This finding showed that between the recognition of problem authenticity and of data collection that differed significantly with self-regulated leanling capabilities, the academic achievement was directIY affected by the data collection factor. Consequently, it s needed to consider how leanlers could be able to utilize information mere efficiently as a strategy to improve academic achievement. There are some suggestions based on the above-mentioned findings . The 7th national corncula are scheduled to be Implemented In high school In 3003. The key portion of the 7th curricula Is level-based differentlated instruction. One way to realize it is measuring prior knowledge by paper-pencil test and providing individual onrichment or supplementarY guidance, but another, mere important way is to consider the leanling capabllities and learnlng style of leanlers from mere holistic, comprehensive perspective, such as constructivlsm point of view, to get those who give the biggest trouble to school and are called passive leanlers by SRL theory, to be motivated and intoractive in class. As we leanled from their responses, PBL-based instruction is the kind of teaching method that is capable of helping leanlers with poor SRL ability feel satisfaction and develop self-efficacy. Since leanling output was influenced in PBL-based instruction by the data collection factor, teachers are advised to create well-chosen environment whore students are encouraged to utilize resources in a better way. The learnors found it good to use various data through the Intornet, but complained about difficult technical torms. And this researcher found some data were incorlect or likely to misguide learnor5. To help high school students utilize the Intornet materials efficiently, it s needed for teachers to select good problem-based learning materials available for academic education and put them into a database And deeper researches are requlred, by setting self-regulated leanling capabllities as an Independent vartable, to Idenify what factors could contribute to increasing the self-efficacy and achievement of leanlers with poor self-regulated leanling capabilities in PBL-based instruction.