웹기반 하이퍼텍스트 읽기부진 구인 탐색 및 정신모형구축에 대한 영향

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국교육공학회 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교육공학연구 / 20권 / 4호
ㆍ저자명 : 김회수, 염시창, 신현숙, Thurlow.M.

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론
Ⅱ. 이론적 배경
Ⅲ. 실험 1 연구방법
Ⅳ. 실험 1 결과 분석 및 논의
Ⅴ. 실험 2 연구방법
Ⅵ. 실험 2 결과 분석 및 논의
Ⅶ. 종합논의 및 결론
참 고 문 헌

한국어 초록

본 연구의 목적은 하이퍼텍스트 읽기부진(hypertext reading underachievement; UA)이라는 구인을 확인하고 이에 영향을 미치는 요인을 탐색하는 것이다. 1차 실험에 114명의 초등학생과 2차 실험에 95명의 대학생이 이 연구의 피험자로 참여하였다. 본 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 1차 실험에서 초등학생들은 하이퍼텍스트 학습상황과 계열적 텍스트 학습상황에 무선적으로 배치하였다. 하이퍼텍스트 상황은 목록형, 구조도형 및 구조도 설명형으로 나뉘었다. 2차 실험에서는 대학생 피험자 모두 세 가지 하이퍼텍스트 조건(목록형, 구조도형 및구조도 설명형)에 무선적으로 배치하였다. 연구결과, 대학생 읽기수준 집단(부진집단, 유지집단, 증진집단)간에 작동기억검사 점수와 고등사고력 점수에 차이가 없었다. 그러나 사후기억검사 점수와 상황모형 구축 점수에서 대학생 읽기수준 집단간에 의미 있는 차이가 있었다. 초등학생의 경우에는 읽기수준 집단간 작동기억검사에서는 차이가 없었지만, 고등사고력 검사에서는 유지집단이 부진집단보다 고등사고력 점수가 높은 것으로 나타났다. 또한초등학생 읽기수준 집단간에 텍스트 기반 이해 점수와 상황모형 구축검사 점수에서 의미있는 차이가 나타났다. 초등학생 읽기수준 집단간에 중압집행장치 작동기억과 언어적 작동기억에는 차이가 없었으나, 시공간적 작동기억에 의미 있는 차이가 있었다. 반면에 초등학생 읽기수준 집단간에 고등사고력에서는 차이가 없었다. 또한 초등학생과 대학생 모두에서읽기부진이 하이퍼텍스트에 관한 상황모형 구축을 의미 있게 설명하는 것으로 나타났다.

영어 초록

The purpose of this study was to identify the construct of the hypertext reading underachievement.One-hundred fourteen elementary school students and 95 college students participated in thisstudy. The elementary school students were randomly assigned to two conditions: the hypertextcondition(n=59), the linear text condition(n=55). The college students were all assigned to thehypertext condition. Reading underachievers(UA) were defined as those who earned scores abovethe median on the test of prior knowledge but earned scores below the median on the test ofpost comprehension. Those who earned scores above the median on the test of prior knowledgeand the test of post comprehension were classified into maintenance readers(MR). In contrast,those who earned scores below the median on the test of prior knowledge but earned scoresabove the median on the test of post comprehension were labelled the improved readers(IR). Themultivariate analyses of variance(MANOVA) were conducted with the reading groups as theindependent variable and various cognitive measures(e.g., working memory, critical thinking as thedependent variables. Also, the multivariate analyses of covariance(MANCOVA) were conductedwith the reading groups as the IV, various cognitive measures(e.g., recall, concept maps) as theDVs, and the scores of prior knowledge as the covariate.The results of this study were as follows:First, the results of the MANOVA showed that among college students, the three groups ofhypertext reading (UA, MR, IR) did not differ in the scores of working memory and criticalthinking.Second, the results of the MANCOVA showed that among college students, the group effect was significant in the scores of recall and concept maps. In recall, the IR was higher that theMR and the UA. On the test of concept maps, the IR scored the highest and the MR scoredhigher than the UA, which scored the lowest.Third, among elementary school students, the three groups of hypertext reading (UA, MR, IR)did not differ in the level of working memory; however, they significantly differed in the level ofcritical thinking. Post-hoc tests revealed that MR scored higher than the UA.Fourth, the results of MANCOVA showed that among elementary school students, threehypertext reading groups significantly differed both on the text-based comprehension and thesituation model comprehension. That is, the IR scored the highest on both types ofcomprehension, the MR scored the next, and the UA scored the lowest.Fifth, among elementary school students, the three groups of linear text reading (IR, MR, UA)did not differ in two components of working memory such as central executive(CE) andphonological loop(PL), but differed in the other component such as visuospatial sketchpad(VSSP).In VSSP, the IR and the UA scored higher than the MR.Sixth, among elementary school students, the three groups of linear text reading (IR, MR,UA) did not differ in critical thinking.The result of this study imply that the construct of reading underachievement does exist eventhough reading underachievers did not differ in working memory and critical thinking frommaintenance readers and improved readers.

참고 자료

없음