기술적 문제해결 사고력 검사도구 개발 및 타당화 (Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Technological Problem-Solving Thinking)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국기술교육학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국기술교육학회지 / 4권 / 3호 / 56 ~ 84페이지
· 저자명 : 임윤진, 최유현

초록

이 연구의 목적은 기술적 문제해결 사고력을 측정할 수 검사 도구를 개발하고 타당화하는 것이다.
이 연구를 위하여 기술적 문제해결 사고력 검사의 구인에 대한 20명의 전문가의 의견을 수렴하였고, 기술적 문제해결 사고력 검사는 예비검사(36명), 본검사 426명을 대상으로 하였다. 본 검사의 표집은 인구비례를 고려한 유의표집을 실시하였다.
자료 분석에는 기술통계와 추리통계가 모두 사용하였고, 자료분석도구는excel, SPSS21 그리고 AMOS21이었다.
이 연구의 구인 타당성을 확보하기 위하여 탐색적 요인분석과 확인적 요인분석을 하였다. 연구 결과에 대한 유의 수준은 알파계수 0.05이다.
이 연구의 주요 결과는 다음과 같다.
첫째, 기술적 문제해결 사고력은 3개의 구인과 9개의 하위요인으로 구성되었다. 3개의 구인에 대하여 확산적 문제해결사고, 수렴적 문제해결사고 그리고 시각적 문제해결사고라 명명하였다. 확산적 문제해결사고의 하위요인은 유창성,민감성, 인식의 접근성, 독창성의 4개로 이루어졌고, 수렴적 문제해결 사고는논리적 일관성, 목표와 사고의 일치성, 문제해결 개선 노력성의 3개로 이루어졌으며, 시각적 문제해결사고는 표현성, 조직과 구성성의 2개로 이루어졌다.
둘째, 이 연구에서 활용된 본 검사 도구는 난이도(.331), 변별도(.474)가 적절하였다. 신뢰도는 Cronbach α계수로 제시되었는데, 확산적 문제해결 사고(.834), 수렴적 문제해결 사고(.885), 시각적 문제해결사고(.862) 그리고 전체(.881)로 신뢰도가 높게 나타났다.
셋째, 기술적 문제해결 사고력 검사 점수는 확산적 문제해결사고 평균(14.972), 수렴적 문제해결사고 평균(8.174), 시각적 문제해결사고 평균(2.960), 전체 평균(26.106)으로 나타났다. 검사 결과의 왜도(.234), 첨도(-.134) 모두 정규성이 양호한 것으로 나타났다.

영어초록

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument tomeasure the technological problem solving thinking(below TPST).
The number of expert for opinion survey of TPST construct was 20. Thepopulation of TPST-Test was the nation’s 9th grade students. Using purposivesampling with considering the distribution of local student, 426 of 9th gradestudents were sampled for this study.
A survey questionnaire was developed by the researcher to collect theexpert opinion for TPST construct. It was composed of the 4domain(metacognition, critical thinking, creative thinking and visual thinking)and 18 sub-factors.
The TPST-test was developed in accordance with the following procedures.
The researcher developed 12 questions. 4 questions of which were selectedthrough the expert review. With the selected items, Pilot-tests were conductedon 36 students. The difficulty of items was 0.480 and discrimination of itemswas 0.305 in the pilot-test. The reliability of the pilot test was analyzed byCronbach α coefficient. The result was metacognition(.906), critical thinking(.923), creative thinking(.929), visualization(.955) and overall(.950), respectively.
After modifying the pilot-test items, main test was conducted on 426 students.
The difficulty of items was 0.331 and discrimination of items was 0.474 in themain-test. The reliability of the main test was analyzed by Cronbach αcoefficient. The result was divergent problem solving thinking(.834), convergentproblem solving thinking(.885), and visual problem solving thinking(.862) andoverall (.881), respectively.
The expert survey questionnaires were sent by direct delivery and e-mail.
The survey took place over 2 rounds. The 1st round was conducted in 2014March 26 to March 31. 19 out of 20 questionnaires were returned. The 2ndround was conducted in 2014 April 3 to April 10. 18 out of 19 questionnaireswere returned.
The pilot-tests were sent on April 20 and 36 out of 36 pilot-tests werereturned by direct delivery.
The main-tests were sent by mail in 2014 May 7 and conducted by eachclass. All of 426 main-tests were returned to May 22 by mail.
Both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed for data analysis.
The contents validity ration(CVR) and the content validity index(CVI) werecalculated for the analysis of expert opinions.
Both item difficulty and item determination were calculated to determinethe item suitability. Rater reliability was examined using Cronbach αcoefficient. Interrater reliability and correlation between scores were examinedusing Simple Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient.
In order to study the construct validity, exploratory factor analysis andconfirmatory factor analysis were used. Alpha level of 0.05 was established apriori for determining significance. For data analysis, EXCEL, SPSS 21 andAMOS 21 was used.
Major finding of this study were as follows:1. The TPST was constructed 3 domains and 9 sub-factors. 3 domains weredivergent problem solving thinking(below DPST), convergent problem solvingthinking(below CPST) and visual problem solving thinking(below VPST). Thedivergent problem solving thinking was composed of fluency, sensitivity,awareness of the accessibility and creativity. The convergent problem solvingthinking was composed of logical consistency, consistency of goals andthinking, problem solving efforts to improve. The visual problem solvingthinking was composed of expressiveness, and organizational characteristics.
2. The scores of TPST-test were DPST(14.972), CPST(8.174) and VPST(2.960),the overall average(26.106), respectively. The skewness(0.234) and kurtopsis(-0.134) were showed good normality.
3. In order to standardize, the scores of main test were used to create anorm-table. The scores were converted to a percentiles, Z scores and T scores.
Reporting results of the test were presented in the form of a profile.
Based on the results of the study, some recommendations are made asfollows:1. The instrument to measure a practical ability for technological problemssolving should be developed and validated.
2. It is necessary to extend the target of test to high school students andthe general public.
3. It is necessary to develop the test items that reflect the Bio-technologies.
4. It is necessary to study on the change of thinking in the process oftechnological problem solving.

참고자료

· 없음