Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education (정보교육학회논문지)

Korea Association of Information Education (한국정보교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of a Robot Programming Instructional Model based on Cognitive Apprenticeship for the Enhancement of Metacognition

메타인지 발달을 위한 인지적 도제 기반의 로봇 프로그래밍 교수.학습 모형 개발

  • Yeon, Hyejin (Asannamsung Elementary School) ;
  • Jo, Miheon (Dept. of Computer Education, Cheongju National University of Education)
  • 연혜진 (아산남성초등학교) ;
  • 조미헌 (청주교육대학교 컴퓨터교육과)
  • Received : 2014.05.22
  • Accepted : 2014.06.15
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Robot programming allows students to plan an algorithm in order to solve a task, implement the algorithm, easily confirm the results of the implementation with a robot, and correct errors. Thus, robot programming is a problem solving process based on reflective thinking, and is closely related to students' metacognition. On this point, this research is conducted to develop a robot programming instructional model for tile enhancement of students' metacognition. The instructional processes of robot programming are divided into 5 stages (i.e., 'exploration of learning tasks', 'a teacher's modeling', 'preparation of a plan for task performance along with the visualization of the plan', 'task performance', and 'self-evaluation and self-reinforcement'), and core strategies of metacognition (i.e., planning, monitering, regulating, and evaluating) are suggested for students' activities in each stage. Also, in order to support students' programming activities and the use of metacognition, instructional strategies based on cognitive apprenticeship (i.e. modeling, coaching and scaffolding) are suggested in relation to the instructional model. In addition, in order to support students' metacognitive activities. the model is designed to use self-questioning, and questions that students can use at each stage of the model are presented.

로봇 프로그래밍은 주어진 과제를 해결하기 위한 알고리즘을 계획하고, 그 알고리즘을 구현하며, 그 결과를 로봇이라는 매체를 통해서 쉽게 확인하고 오류를 수정할 수 있도록 한다. 따라서 로봇 프로그래밍은 반성적 사고에 기반을 둔 문제해결의 과정이며, 학생들의 메타인지와 밀접히 관련된다. 이에 본 연구는 학생의 메타인지 발달을 위한 로봇 프로그래밍 교수 학습 모형을 개발하는 것을 목적으로 수행되었다. 로봇 프로그래밍 교수 학습의 단계를 '학습과제 탐구', '교사의 모델링', '과제 수행 계획 및 시각화', '과제 수행', '자기 평가 및 강화' 등과 같은 5가지로 나누고, 각 단계의 활동들을 메타인지 주요 전략들(계획, 모니터링, 조절, 평가)와 연계하였다. 또한 학생들의 프로그래밍 활동과 메타인지 전략의 활용을 지원하기 위하여 인지적 도제를 기반으로 '모델링', '코칭', '스캐폴딩'과 같은 전략들을 교수 학습 모델과 연계하여 명시하였다. 이와 더불어서, 메타인지 활동을 지원하기 위해서 자기질문법을 도입하여, 학생들이 로봇 프로그래밍 활동의 각 단계별로 사용할 수 있는 자기질문 등을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bae, Y. K. (2006). Robot programming education model in ubiquitous environment for enhancement of creative problem-solving ability. Doctoral Thesis. The Graduate School of Korea National University of Education.
  2. Baek. S. S. (2006). Verification of Effect on a Metacognitive Strategy Instruction Model in Programming Language Learning. Master's Thesis. The Graduate School of Korea National University of Education.
  3. Brown. A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
  4. Brown, A. C., Bransford. J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campion, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  5. Choi. Y. H. (2003). Development of the program model for educational ROBOT. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 6(3), 75-90.
  6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989), Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading. writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  7. Dennen, V. P., & Bumer, K. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill. J. V. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communication and Technology. 3rd edition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Dick, W., Carey. L., & Carey, J. O. (2011). The Systematic Design of Instruction Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  9. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  10. Garofalo, T. & Lester. F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 16(3), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.2307/748391
  11. Hussain, S., Lindh, J, & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils' school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182-194.
  12. Jo, M. H., & Lee, Y. H. (1994), The direction of instructional design adopting cognitive apprenticeship. Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.9.1.147
  13. Kim, T. H., & Moon. S. K. (2010). Measuring the effectiveness of teaching introductory programming using LEGO mindstorms robots. Journal of Korean Association for Internet Information. 11(4), 169-173.
  14. Lee, E. J. (2010). A Study of Direct Teaching Strategy of Inquiry Skills Applying Meta-cognition. Master's Thesis. The Graduate School of Ewha Womans University.
  15. Lee, Y. J., & Seo, Y. M. (2013). The effects of programming learning using robot based on school-wide enrichment model on elementary school students' creative potential. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 16(4), 47-54.
  16. Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. ETR&D, 49(2), 23-40.
  17. Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: An Overoiew. http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm,Retrieved on May 10, 2014.
  18. Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 230-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949202500404
  19. Moon, W. S. (2008). Influential error factors of robot programming learning on the problem solving skill. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education. 12(2), 195-202.
  20. Park, E. S., & Moon, S. H. (2009). Development and application of a robot education program for logical thinking ability in elementary students. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Fducation, 22(1), 175-198.
  21. Polya, G. (2004). How to Solve it: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Pinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  22. Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (2004). Mastering the Instructional Design Process. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  23. Song, J. B. (2010). A Study on the Development of Ciassroom- Friendly Robot-Education Model and Program for the STEM Integration Education. Doctoral Thesis. The Graduate School of Korea National University of Education.
  24. The Ministry of Education (2012). Practical Arts(Technology & Home Economics) Curriculum
  25. Yoo, I. H., & Chae, J. H. (2008). A study on the programming education using robots for elementary school. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education. 12(3), 293-302.

Cited by

  1. Computational Thinking 기반의 초등학교 동아리 활동용 프로그래밍 교육 교재의 개발 vol.19, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2015.19.2.243
  2. 메타인지 전략에 기반한 코스웨어 설계 vol.20, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2016.20.1.101
  3. 국내 로봇활용 SW교육에 대한 연구 동향: 2006년~2016년을 중심으로 vol.17, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5392/jkca.2017.17.10.190
  4. Unleashing apprenticeship: from onboarding to professional development vol.42, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-06-2017-0056