相異한 學習課題에 대한 CAI 피이드백의 效果

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국교육공학회 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교육공학연구 / 4권 / 1호
ㆍ저자명 : 羅馹柱

목차

Ⅰ. 硏究問題
Ⅱ. 硏究의 方法
Ⅲ. 結果
Ⅳ. 論議
Ⅴ. 要約및 提言
참고문헌

한국어 초록

敎育에 CAI가 소개된 이래로 컴퓨터 프로그램의 質을 높이는데 도움이 되는 要因들은 무엇인가에 대한 끊임없는 연구가 있어왔다. 프로그램에 대한 학생의 統制權(T ennyson, 1980),敎授內容의 組織形態(T ennyson, 1980, 1981), 適應性(Frick, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988; Weis s& Kingsbury, 1984; Clancey, 1987), 그리고 피이드백(Cohen, 1985; Gaynor, 1981; Sturges ,1978; Roper, 1977)은 CAI에 있어서 학생과 프로그램 사이의 相互作用의 過程에 영향을 미치기 때문에 중요한 要因으로 指摘되어 왔다. 고도의 相互作用은 학생의 動機水準을 높이고積極的인 學習을 촉진함으로써 學習의 效果性을 提高한다고 메타分析法을 응용한 연구들은밝히고 있다(Kulik, Bangert- Drowns , & Williams , 1983; Kulik, & Bangert- Drowns , 1985).學習者에 대한 卽刻的피이드백의 제공은 CAI나 프로그램의 최대 장점으로 알려져 있다(Gagn , 1974; Roper, 1977; Gaynor, 1981; Gilman, 1969). 결과에 대한 情報(예- 아니오 式의피이드백; KR), 正答에 대한 情報(正答을 피이드백으로 제공함; KCR), 그리고 正答에 덧붙여 연관된 정보를 주는 피이드백(KCRI)은 학습자에게 제공되는 情報의 量의 측면에서 보면계층을 형성하는 것으로 알려져 있다. 즉, KR이 가장 적은 量의 情報를,KCR이 그 다음, 그리고 KCRI가 가장 많은 情報量을 가진다는 것이다(De Klerk & De Klerk, 1978; Roper,1977). 心理學理論들이 주로 學業成就의 관점에서 피이드백의 역할을 분석하기 위해 이용되었는데 이들 중 가장 강력한 두 개의 理論이 强化理論과 情報理論이다.

영어 초록

This study is an attempt to reduce the gap between previous research findings andavailable knowledge about feedback neces sary for courseware des igners in des igningactual CAI. T his s tudy examined the impact of three different feedbackconditions (YES- NO feedback, KR; Correct answer feedback, KCR; and Correct answerplus information feedback, KCRI) on acquis ition of two different types of learningtasks (declarative knowledge and hierarchical knowledge) with regard to threeins tructional outcomes : effectivenes s , efficiency and appeal.T he sample for this inves tigation cons is ted of 60 undergraduate s tudent colunteersfrom 25 different departments of Indiana Univers ity, Bloomington, Indiana. T hey wererandomly as s igned to one of the three feedback groups : KR, KCR and KCRI. A CAIles son des igned to teach four social science concepts was pres ented. Each s tudents tudied a text and practiced with ques tions in one of the three feedback modes . Afterthe practice, the learner took a pos ttes t and evaluated the model of feedback he or shereceived during the practice in a semantic differential scale format. One week later aretention tes t was adminis tered.T he results indicated that KCRI feedback was the mos t effective feedback in acquiringdeclarative knowledge as well as hierarchical knowledge; the KCR was superior to theKR in the acquis ition of declarative knowledge but there was no s ignificant betweenthe KCR and the KR in the acquis ition of hierarchical knowledge; the KCR and KCRIwere s imilar in the efficiency of declarative knowledge acquis ition; the KCRI was themos t efficient in the acquis ition of hierarchical knowledge; the KR feedback was themos t ineffective and ineffiecient feedback for both types of knowledge acquis ition; theKCR and KCRI were evaluated by the learners as more potent, fruitful and pleasantmodes of feedback than the KR.T he results of this s tudy indicated that the characteris tics of learning tasks have tobe cons idered as an important variable in examining the feedback effects . In otherwords , when the task variable is ignored, and the quality of feedback mes sage isundifferentiated, there is a pos s ible danger of attributing the feedback effects to themere appearance of the feedback mode. T he researcher concluded that the analysesreported in previous s tudies (Gilman, 1969; Roper, 1977; Lhyle & Kulhavy, 1987) onoverall pos ttes t results with no differentiation of learning tasks do not explain thefeedback effects as clearly as the separate analyses differentiated by the characteris ticsof learning tasks . T he s tudy shows a pos s ibility of des igning optimum feedbackmes sages by differentiating the learning tasks .

참고 자료

없음