Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of Collaborative Problem-Solving Instruction Model on Character Competence of High School Students

협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델이 고등학교 학생의 인성 역량에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2017.08.02
  • Accepted : 2017.10.16
  • Published : 2017.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the effect of the Collaborative Problem-Solving for Character Competence (CoProC) instruction model within the context of secondary science education. The participants of this study were comprised of 143 Korean students, each of whom was in the 10th grade spread across four class cohorts. These cohorts were further divided into an experimental group (comprised of 73 students from two different classes), which received the CoProC program; and a control group (70 students from two other classes), which did not. In order to assess the effect of CoProC instruction model upon participants' character competence, we designed and administered a Character Competence Test for participants. The CoProC instruction model consists of 3 fundamental steps: Preparation, Problem-solving, and Evaluation. Key character competence targeted in the CoProC program include caring, collaboration, communication, responsibility, respect, honesty, self-regulation, and the development of positive self-image. Thus, these same qualities were targeted and analyzed in the Character Competence Test, which was administered before and after the CoProC activities. The results show a significant increase in the experimental group's competency for caring, collaboration, responsibility, respect, and self-regulation when compared to the control group. Based on these results, we have found that CoProC instruction model to be an effective teaching intervention toward cultivating character competence in a secondary science education setting.

이 연구는 과학교육에서 인성 역량 함양을 위한 협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델(Collaborative Problem solving for Character competency, CoProC)의 적용이 학생들의 인성 역량에 미치는 영향을 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 인문계 고등학교 1학년 네 개 학급(143명) 중 실험 집단(2개 학급, 73명)은 두 학기 동안 총 8개 주제의 협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델(CoProC)을 적용하였으며, 비교 집단(2개 학급, 70명)은 전통적 강의식 수업을 진행하였다. 협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델은 협력적 문제해결 과정과 논의기반 탐구 과정을 바탕으로 개발하여 준비, 문제해결, 평가의 3단계로 구성하였다. 협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델의 적용이 학생들의 인성 역량에 미치는 영향을 알아보고자 인성 역량 검사를 분석하였다. 인성 역량 검사의 사전 사후 검사 점수는 SPSS WIN 23.0을 사용하여 실험 집단과 비교 집단간의 차이를 독립표본 T-검증으로 분석하였다. 인성 역량의 총점과 배려, 협력, 책임, 존중, 자기조절에서 실험 집단이 비교 집단보다 유의미하게 높았고, 소통, 정직, 긍정적 자기이해는 유의미한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 또한 인성 역량 총점은 큰 효과 크기를 보였고, 세부인성 역량은 자기조절, 협력, 배려, 책임, 존중 순으로 중간 효과 크기를 나타냈다. 실험 집단의 학생들에게 실시한 설문 조사를 분석한 결과, 학생들은 배려, 협력, 소통, 책임, 존중 등의 역량이 향상되었다고 응답하였다. 인성 역량의 함양을 위한 협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델을 통해 학생들은 과학자들처럼 다른 구성원들과 논의 과정을 거쳐 합의하며, 협력하여 과학적 지식을 도출하는 과정을 경험하였다. 이러한 과정의 경험은 인성 역량의 함양으로 이어졌다고 판단된다. 따라서 협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델을 통해 학생들은 협력과 논의의 과정을 거치면서 인성 역량을 함양 할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117-138). Dordrecht, Boston, New York and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  2. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176008
  3. Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students'decision-making tendencies in thecontext of socioscientific issues(SSI). Journal of Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887-900.
  4. Chang, K., Lee, D., Song, S., Woo, Y. & Jeong, C. (2015). A Study of Character Education through Interaction at Middle Schools. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation RRC 2015-3.
  5. Character Education Partnership (2002). http://www.character.org/ (accessed June3, 2002).
  6. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S. W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st Century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670-697. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424
  7. Cho, Y., Kim, A., Im, H., Sin, D., Cho, A., & Kim, I. (1998). Component factors of desirable character education. Journal of Educational Studies, 28, 131-152.
  8. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 20(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  10. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
  11. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Grasel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00005-6
  12. Gardner, H. (2002). Intelligence reframed. (Moon, Y. Tran.). Seoul: Gimmyoung. (original work published 1999).
  13. Greenawalt, C. E. (1996). Character education in America. Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Harrisburg, PA. ED398327
  14. Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative Advantage. Harvard Business Review 72(4), 96-108.
  15. Kang, S., Park, E., Kim, G., Song, S., Chung, Y., Kim, Y., & Ko, M. (2008). A foundational study for the vision of education for the human nature for 21st century. The Journal of Research in Education, 30, 1-38.
  16. Keys, C., Hand, B., Prian, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  17. Kim, S. (2009). Youth Crime in Korea, 1998-2008. Korean Juvenile Protection Review, (13), 1-50.
  18. Kwak, Y. (2013). Ways of Restructuring Key Competencies for a Revision of Science Curriculum. Korean Earth Science Society, 34(4), 378-387.
  19. Lee, K., Kwak, Y., Lee, S. & Choi, J. (2012). Design of the competencies-based national curriculum for the future society. KICE RRC 2012-4.
  20. Lee, K., Lee, K., Park, J., & Park, M. (2013). A study on the directions reconstructing core competencies-focused curriculum. KICE CRC 2013-17.
  21. Lee, K., Min, Y., Jeon, J. & Kim, M. (2008). A study on developing key competencies in the primary/secondary school curriculum for the future of Koreans(II). -Focused on the establishing sub-domains and components for key competencies-. KICE RRC 2008-7-1.
  22. Melville, W., Yaxley, B., & Wallace, J. (2007). Virtues, teacher professional expertise, and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 95-109.
  23. Ministry of Education. (2014). A Study of development of character index. Seoul: Jinhan M&B.
  24. Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 Revised national curriculum. MOE, Notice No. 2015-74.
  25. Ministry of Government Legislation. (2015). Character Education Promotion Act.
  26. Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral-ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105-128). New York: Springer.
  27. Nam, J., Kwak, K., Jang, K., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
  28. Nelson, L. M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 241-267.
  29. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  30. OECD. (2003). Definition and selection of competencies: Theoretical and conceptual foundation. OECD Press, 224 p.
  31. OECD. (2006). Schooling for tomorrow: Think scenarios, rethink education. OECD: Paris, 200 p.
  32. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do-Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I) http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en
  33. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(7), 692-720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  34. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simmon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  35. Park, D., & Park, J. (2016). Directions for Character Education in Science Education and a Theoretical Approach of Nature-Study in Terms of Character Education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 581-589. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0581
  36. Park, S., & Park, J. (2015). A study on educational methods of Nature-Study for science education through nature. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 59(1), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2015.59.1.45
  37. Park, S., & Huh, S. (2012). A study for development of the integrated humanity scale for adolescent. The Journal of Child Education, 21(3), 35-47.
  38. Ryu, C., & Jin, H. (2006). Analysis of character virtue factors for character education. The Journal of Education, 26(1), 139-166.
  39. Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597-599. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_tbf/4 https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100
  40. Seo, K., Choi, J., Noh. S., Kim, S., Lee, J., & Hyun S. (2013). The development and validation of teacher disposition assessment instruments. Journal of Educational Studies, 44(1), 147-176.
  41. Son, K., & Jeong, C. (2014). A Study on the Analysis of Korean Adolescents' Character and Its Implications for Character Education. Journal of Moral & Ethics education, 33(0), 27-52.
  42. Stiff-Williams, H. R. (2010). Widening the Lens to Teach Character Education Alongside Standards Curriculum. The Clearing House, 83(4), 115-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098651003653030
  43. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15).
  44. Washington State University. (2016). Prosocial Spring 16 Survey. Retrieved from https://educationwsu.co1.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php
  45. Weinstein, E. A. (1969). The development of interpersonal competence. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 753-775). Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
  46. Yang, J., Cho, N., Park, S., Jang, G., & Eun, G. (2013). A Study on the Development of Character Education through Subject Education. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation Research Report RRC 6.
  47. Yang, J., Kim, H., Gao, L., Kim, E., Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2012). Perceptions of science teachers on socioscientific issues as an instructional tool for creativity and character education. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.1.113
  48. Yerrick, R., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Introduction: The role of language in science learning and teaching. Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research, 1-18.
  49. Zuckerman, M., Kernis, M. H., Guarnera, S. M., Murphy, J. F., & Rappoport, L. (1983). The egocentric bias: Seeing oneself as cause and target of others' behavior. Journal of Personality, 51(4), 621-630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00869.x

Cited by

  1. 협력적 문제해결 중심 교수모델(CoProC)을 적용한 고등학교 화학 수업에서의 인성역량 평가 방법에 대한 비교 분석 vol.65, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.2.151
  2. 인성 중심 교수 모형에 대한 이해와 실천이 예비 중등 과학교사의 인성 교육에 대한 인식에 미치는 영향 분석 vol.65, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.4.279