HOME / ¹®¼­¸¶ÄÏ / /

°³³äµµ¸¦ È°¿ëÇÑ Çù·ÂÀû¹®Á¦ÇØ°á °úÁ¦¿¡¼­ÀÇ Áö½Ä°øÀ¯°úÁ¤ - ½æ³×ÀÏ 1page
1/1
  • 1 page

°³³äµµ¸¦ È°¿ëÇÑ Çù·ÂÀû¹®Á¦ÇØ°á °úÁ¦¿¡¼­ÀÇ Áö½Ä°øÀ¯°úÁ¤

¼­½Ä¹øÈ£
TZ-SLE-1444844
µî·ÏÀÏÀÚ
2015.05.22
ºÐ·®
32 page
ÆǸŰ¡
4,000 ¿ø
ÆÄÀÏ Æ÷¸Ë
Adobe PDF (pdf)
Á¶È¸
42°Ç

µî·ÏÀÚ

ÇÐÁö»ç ´º³í¹® ºê·£µå¼¥

µî±Þº° ÇýÅú¸±â

°³³äµµ¸¦ È°¿ëÇÑ Çù·ÂÀû¹®Á¦ÇØ°á °úÁ¦¿¡¼­ÀÇ Áö½Ä°øÀ¯°úÁ¤ ³í¹® ÀÚ·áÀÔ´Ï´Ù

  • Adobe PDF (pdf)Adobe PDF (pdf)
°³³äµµÇù·ÂÀû¹®Á¦ÇØ°áÇù·ÂÀû¹®Á¦ÇØ°á°úÁ¦Áö½Ä°øÀ¯°úÁ¤Áö½Ä°øÀ¯°úÁ¤
¿¬°ü ÃßõÀÚ·á
  • °³³äµµ¸¦ È°¿ëÇÑ Çù·ÂÀû¹®Á¦ÇØ°á °úÁ¦¿¡¼­ÀÇ Áö½Ä°øÀ¯°úÁ¤ 1 page

Àüü 32 page Áß 1 page±îÁö ¹Ì¸®º¸±â°¡ °¡´ÉÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

¼Ò°³±Û

Á¦¸ñ : °³³äµµ¸¦ È°¿ëÇÑ Çù·ÂÀû ¹®Á¦ÇØ°á °úÁ¦¿¡¼­ÀÇ Áö½Ä°øÀ¯°úÁ¤ ÀúÀÚ : ·ùÁöÇå, ±Ç¼÷Áø
¹ßÇàÇÐȸ : Çѱ¹±³À°°øÇÐȸ [Korea society of educational technology]
¹ßÇàÁ¤º¸ : ±³À°°øÇבּ¸ Á¦ 21±Ç 2È£ pp.29-60(32 pages)
¹ßÇà³âµµ : 2005

ÀúÀ۽ñâ : 2005³â 6¿ù

¸ñÂ÷

¥°. °³³äµµ¿Í Çù·ÂÇнÀ
¥±. Çù·Â ÇнÀ¿¡¼­ÀÇ ÀÎÁö°úÁ¤
¥². ¿¬±¸ ¹æ¹ý
¥³. ºÐ¼® °á°ú
¥´. ³í ÀÇ
Âü °í ¹® Çå

º»¹®³»¿ë

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº °³³äµµ(concept map)¸¦ È°¿ë
ÇÑ Çù·ÂÀû ¹®Á¦ÇØ°á °úÁ¤¿¡¼­ ÇнÀÀÚµéÀÌ ¼­·ÎÀÇ Áö½Äü°è¸¦ ¾î¶»°Ô °øÀ¯Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ¾î¶°ÇÑ ÀÎÁöÀû °úÁ¤À» °ÅÄ¡°Ô µÇ´Â°¡¸¦ Ž»öÇϱâ À§ÇÑ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ´ë»óÀº µÎ ¸íÀÇ ´ëÇлýÀ¸·Î ±¸¼ºµÈ Çù·ÂÇнÀ Áý´ÜÀ̾úÀ¸¸ç, 10°³ÀÇ Çù·ÂÇнÀ Áý´Ü Áß¿¡¼­ ¼­·Î ´Ù¸¥ À¯ÇüÀÇ »êÃâ¹°À» Á¦½ÃÇÑ µÎ Áý´Ü(º¹Á¦Çü °³³äµµ Áý´Ü°ú È¥ÇÕÇü °³³äµµ Áý´Ü)ÀÇ Áö½Ä°øÀ¯ °úÁ¤À» ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÇнÀÀÚµéÀÇ Áö½Ä°øÀ¯°úÁ¤À» ºÐ¼®Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© Çù·Â°úÁ¤À» ÃÔ¿µÇÑ ºñµð¿À ÀÚ·á ¹× °³³äµµ°¡ È°¿ëµÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ±Ù°ÅÀ̷п¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ÀÚ·á¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºÐ¼®ÀÌ ½ÃµµµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÇнÀÀÚµéÀº °³³äµµ¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© °³º°ÀûÀÎ °úÁ¦¼öÇàÀ» ÇÑ ÀÌÈÄ¿¡ ³íÀÇ°úÁ¤À» ÅëÇÏ¿© Çù·ÂÀû ¹®Á¦ÇØ°á °úÁ¤À» ¼öÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. Áö½ÄÀ» °øÀ¯Çϱâ À§Çؼ­´Â °³³äÀÇ Á¤Âø(concept fixation), ÀǹÌÀÇ Çù»ó(meaning negotiation), Áö½ÄÀÇ Á¶À²(knowledge tuning)ÀÇ °úÁ¤ÀÌ º¹Á¦Çü Áý´Ü°ú È¥ÇÕÇü Áý´Ü¿¡¼­ °øÅëÀûÀ¸·Î ÀϾ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î°üÂûµÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª º¹Á¦Çü Áý´ÜÀº ÀϹæÀûÀÎ Áö½ÄÀÇ Àü¼ö°úÁ¤À» º¸¿´À¸¸ç, È¥ÇÕÇü Áý´Ü¿¡¼­´Â ¹ÐµµÀÖ´Â »óÈ£ÀÛ¿ëÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇß´ø °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ÀÌ´Â Áö½Ä°øÀ¯¸¦ ÃËÁøÇϱâ À§Çؼ­´Â ÇнÀÀÚµéÀÇ »óÈ£ÀÛ¿ëÀ» ³ôÀÌ°í »ó´ë¹æÀÇ Áö½Ä±¸Á¶¸¦ Ž»öÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ±âȸ°¡ Á¦°øµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÔÀ» ½Ã»çÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

The purpose of this study was
to identify the knowledge sharing process in a collaborativeproblem solving task with a concept map. Ten pairs of college students participated to acollaborative problem solving task that was to generate a concept map to arrange fifteenconcepts from the subject matter of "Instructional Design Process". They were asked to generate an individual concept map first and work together to make a collaborative concept map. Among the pairs, two groups were selected for this study. The selected pairs showed totally different concept maps, which were assumed that they collaborated together in different ways. By comparing different collaborative pairs, it would be easier to identify how the collaboration would be performed differently and what were the similarities between them. One pair was labeled as a duplicated concept map group that seemed to make a collaborative concept map like a duplication of one member's individual concept map. The other pair was labeled as a blended concept map group that made a collaborative concept map as reflecting unique features from each individual concept map. The main data resources of this study were video records of collaboration, concept maps, and transcriptions ofparticipants' collaboration. Grounded theory was applied to qualitatively analyze the verbal data of collaboration, and frequency analysis was employed. The data analysis revealed that there were three stages of sharing knowledge in common: 1) concept fixation, 2) meaningnegotiation, and 3) knowledge tuning. The concept fixation was to fix the definitions of concepts. The meaning negotiation was to decide the relationships between concepts. The knowledge tuning was to externalize the structureof concepts collaboratively negotiated meanings. However, it was identified that the two groups had different interactions between members. For the duplicated concept map group, there was less interaction rather unidirectional communication between members while the blended concept map group showed intensive interactions. It was speculated that the duplicated concept map group performed a knowledge telling process though the other group performed knowledge transformation. The result of delayed test of generating an individual concept for the two groups showed that the blended concept map group generated exactly the same concept map comparing with their collaborative concept map. However, the duplicated concept map group showed inconsistent concept maps to their collaborative concept map. The result of this study proposed that promoting dynamic interactions between members will facilitate the knowledge sharing between members. It was also suggested to help learners to explore other learners' knowledge structure to improve knowledge sharing between them.Key words : Concept map, Shared mental model, Collaborative learning, Knowledge sharing, Problem solving   (ÀÌÇÏ »ý·«)

Âü°í¹®Çå

¾øÀ½

¹ÞÀº º°Á¡

0/5

0°³ÀÇ º°Á¡

¹®¼­°øÀ¯ ÀڷḦ µî·ÏÇØ ÁÖ¼¼¿ä.
¹®¼­°øÀ¯ Æ÷ÀÎÆ®¿Í Çö±ÝÀ» µå¸³´Ï´Ù.

Æ÷ÀÎÆ® : ÀÚ·á 1°Ç´ç ÃÖ´ë 5,000P Áö±Þ

Çö±Ý : ÀÚ·á 1°Ç´ç ÃÖ´ë 2,000¿ø Áö±Þ

ÈıâÀÛ¼º»ç¿ëÈı⸦ ÀÛ¼ºÇÏ½Ã¸é ¹®¼­°øÀ¯ 100 point¸¦ Àû¸³ÇØ µå¸³´Ï´Ù.

¼­½Äº°Á¡ ¡Ù¡Ù¡Ù¡Ù¡Ù

0/120

»ç¿ëÈıâ (0)

µî·ÏµÈ ¸®ºä°¡ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù.

ù¹ø° ¸®ºä¾î°¡ µÇ¾îÁÖ¼¼¿ä.

ÀÌÀü1´ÙÀ½

ºê·£µå Á¤º¸

ÇÐÁö»ç ´º³í¹®

ÇÐÁö»ç ´º³í¹®

°í±Þ ³í¹®À» Á¦°øÇÏ´Â ÇÐÁö»ç ´º³í¹®Àº Àü¹® Çо÷ ºÐ¾ß¿¡ ÃÖ°íÀÇ ÀڷḦ º¸ÀåÇϸç
°¢Á¾ ¿¬±¸ »ç·Ê¿Í ¹Ì·¡ ºÐ¼® µîÀÇ ÀڷḦ ÅëÇØ Àι®ÇÐ, »çȸ ÀÚ¿¬°úÇÐ ºÐ¾ßÀÇ ±íÀÌ Àִ Ž»öÀ» ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°Ô µµ¿Íµå¸®°Ú½À´Ï´Ù.

ÆǸÅÀÚ·á ¼ö : 32,704°Ç