Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Learning Interest and Self-Regulated Learning by Giftedness and Thinking Style

중등 과학영재와 일반학생의 사고양식 유형에 따른 학습흥미 및 자기조절학습의 차이 분석

  • Received : 2017.11.24
  • Accepted : 2018.01.22
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to categorize learning style groups and to analyze students' learning interest and self-regulated learning abilities, according to their learning style and giftedness. One hundred and twenty-three (123) science-gifted student and 296 regular students participated in this study, responding to learning style, self-regulated learning, and learning interest questionnaires. Data were analyzed, using 2-stage cluster analysis, $x^2$ test, two way-MANOVA test, and $Scheff{\acute{e}}$ test. The results are as follows: First, by 2-stage cluster analysis, four groups were categorized: 'high-score thinking style,' 'external-liberal,' 'executive-conservative,' and 'low-score thinking style.' In the gifted group, high-score thinking style (51.2%) was the most popular, then executive-conservative (30.2%), external-liberal (17.1%), and low-score thinking style (1.6%); in the regular student group, the executive-conservative group was the biggest, then high-score thinking style (20.6%), external-liberal (11.6%), and then the low-score thinking style (8.7%). Second, in terms of learning interest, the analysis by thinking style showed that the high-score thinking style group had higher learning interest compared to the executive-conservative and the low-thinking style group. The high-thinking style group's thoughtful interest also scored the highest compared with the others. The gifted students' thoughtful interest and investigative interest also were higher than regular students '. Third, in terms of the self-regulated learning, the analysis by thinking style showed that the high-score thinking style group showed higher scores on all sub-variances than other groups, especially having highest control-belief scores. Also, gifted students had higher scores on control-belief and searching information. Based on these results, the ways for effective education and support were discussed.

본 연구에서는 영재성에 따라 사고양식에 따른 학습자 유형 분포의 차이를 분석하고, 사고양식 유형과 영재성에 따른 학습흥미와 자기조절학습 차이를 분석하고자 하였다. 교육청 과학영재 과정을 이수하는 중학생 129명, 일반학생 310명이 사고양식 도구 65문항, 자기조절학습 검사 24문항, 학습흥미 검사 45문항에 응답하였고, 2단계 군집분석, $x^2$ 검증, 이원다변량분석(2 way-MANOVA), $Scheff{\acute{e}}$ 사후검증 등을 통해 데이터를 분석하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 위계적 군집분석 결과, 학생들은 4개의 군집, '높은 사고형', '외부-자유형', '행정-보수형', '낮은 사고형'으로 분류되었다. 영재학생 집단에서는 높은 사고형(51.2%), 행정-보수형(30.2%), 외부-자유형(17.1%), 낮은 사고형(1.6%)순으로, 일반학생집단에서는 행정-보수형(59.0%), 높은 사고형(20.6%), 외부-자유형(11.6%), 낮은 사고형(8.7%)순으로 많았다. 둘째, 사고양식에 따른 학습흥미 분석 결과, 높은 사고형은 모든 학습흥미에서 행정-보수형 및 낮은 사고형보다 높은 수준을 나타내었으며 특히, 사고적 흥미가 다른 집단에 비해 가장 높았다. 영재성에 따른 학습흥미의 분석 결과, 영재학생이 일반학생에 비하여 사고적 흥미와 탐구적 흥미가 유의하게 높은 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 사고양식에 따른 자기조절학습 분석 결과, 높은 사고형은 모든 자기 조절 하위 구인에서 행정-보수형 및 낮은 사고형보다 높은 수준을 나타냈으며, 특히, 통제신념은 모든 집단 중 가장 높았다. 또한 영재가 일반학생에 비하여 통제신념과 정보탐색 수준이 유의하게 높은 것으로 나타났다. 이와 같은 결과를 바탕으로 사고양식 유형에 따른 효과적인 교육 및 지원을 위한 방안을 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Cascallar, E., Boekaerts, M., & Costigan, T. (2006). Assessment in the Evaluation of Self-Regulation as a Process Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 297-306 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9023-2
  2. Chae, Y., & Lee, S. (2015). An analysis of differences in motivation, self-regulation strategy use, learning style preference among high, medium, low achievers in an online gifted program. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 25(6), 905-926. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2015.25.6.905
  3. Chan, D. (2001). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500106
  4. Chang, Y. (2017). The direction of data science education in the fourth industrial revolution era: Focusing on understanding of artificial intelligence and data initiative. The Journal of Integrated Humanities, 9(1), 155-180.
  5. Cho, B. H. (2004). A study on standardization of learning interest inventory for elementary school children. The Journal of elementary education, 17(2), 227-252.
  6. Choi, K., Lee, S., & Chae, Y. (2017). Development of evaluation criteria for online problem-based science learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 37(5), 879-889.
  7. Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 333-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90029-9
  8. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1981). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
  9. Dai, D. Y., & Feldhusen, J. F.(1999). A validation study of the thinking style inventory: Implications for gifted education. Poeper Review, 21(4), pp. 302-307.
  10. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  11. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  12. Griggs, S. A., & Dunn, R.(1984). Selected case studies of the learning style preferences of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(3), 115-129.
  13. Grigorenko, E.L., & Sternberg, R.J. (1995). Thinking styles. In: D.H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner(Eds.), International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence, New York: Plenum Press.
  14. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299706300301
  15. Hair, J. F., Jr., & Black, W. C. (2000). Cluster analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics(pp. 147-205). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  16. Han, K., & Kim, H. (2010). The Relationship between Thinking Styles and Learning Styles of Gifted Children in Elementary School. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 20(1), 289-316.
  17. Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001
  18. Hong, J., & Moon, H. (2017). Study on social issue with semantic network analysis of news on 4th industrial revolution. Korean Academic Society of Business Adiministration, 180-201.
  19. Jin, S., & Ko, H. (2004). Based on Sternberg's thinking styles classification: Thinking styles of gifted and nongifted students in elementary schools. Journal of Special Education, 11(2), 157-177.
  20. Jun, H., & Cha, Y (2009). The effect of the self-regulated learning strategies on the elementary school students's creativity and academic achievement. Journal of School Education Research, 5(1), 141-163.
  21. Jung, H. C., Cho, S., Seo, H. A, & Shin, M. K. (2004). An exploratory study on the self-directed research ability of the gifted. CR 2004-43. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.
  22. Kim, J. H., & Park, Y. H.(2003). Validation of self-directed learning ability diagnostic scale for elementary higher graders, Journal of Educational Evaluation, 16(1), 183-200.
  23. Kim, M. (2013). A comparison of self-regulated learning ability of high schoolers. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 19(2), 289-311.
  24. Kim, M., Yoon, C., & Cho, S. (2005). Cognitive and affective characteristics of Korean junior high school gifted students : A comparison with nongifted students. Asian Journal of Education, 6(3), 25-58.
  25. Kim, M. S., Cho, S., Yoon, C., & Jin, S. (2004). Cognitive and Affective Characteristics of and Teaching Strategies for the Korean Junior High School Gifted Students. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.
  26. Kim, M. S., & Yeo, S. I. (2014). Comparison of thinking styles between gifted elementary students in science and invention. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(3), 558-565. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.3.558
  27. Kim, S. H., Kim, K. Y., & Lee, C. H.(2005). Comparison of features of mathematically gifted, scientifically gifted and common students in cognitive, affective and emotional aspects. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education Series A: The Mathematkcal Education, 44(1), 113-124.
  28. Kim, S. O., Seo, H. A. (2011). Self-regulated learning ability related to science inquiry skill and affective domain of science in middle school students. Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 307-323. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2011.35.2.307
  29. Kim, S. Y. (2012). The difference of self-regulated learning with respect to achievement for the middle school students. Journal of Secondary Education, 60(1), 243-264. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2012.60.1.243
  30. Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.
  31. Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). Personality and goal-striving process: The influence of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on performance and enjoyment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 256-265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.256
  32. Lee, H. (2014). A Comparison of the science gifted and regular elementary students in levels of and structural relation between offline learning characteristics and online learning attitude: focusing on school attitude, self-regulated learning and learning interest. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 52(1). 303-331.
  33. Lee, J., Park, S., & Kim, Y. (2011). Thinking styles and their relationship with self-regulated learning ability and scientific inquiry ability of the scientifically gifted students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 21(3), 773-796. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2011.21.3.773
  34. Lee, M. (1997). The effects of the self-regulated learning strategies training on children's problem-solving ability and self-efficacy. Graduate School of Korea National University of Education, Master's thesis.
  35. Lee, S. (2017). Educational psychology in the age of the fourth industrial revolution. The Korea Educational Review, 23(1), 231-260.
  36. Lee, S., You, M., & Choi, B. (2008). The differences of attribution tendency and self-regulated learning strategy between gifted students and general students in elementary school. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 18(3), 425-442.
  37. Lee, S., & Hong, J. (2011). A comparison of psychological, physical and environmental characteristics of the general students and gifted students, and among gifted students' specific gifted areas. The Korea Educational Review, 17(1), 351-371.
  38. Lim, J., Ryu, K., & Kim, B. (2017). An Exploratory Study on the Direction of Education and Teacher Competencies in the 4th Industrial Revolution. The Journal of Korean Education. 44(2), 5-32.
  39. Moon, B. S. (2000). A difference of academic self-regulation between gifted and nongifted children. The Journal of Elementary Education, 14(1). 181-197.
  40. Na, D. J., & Kim, J. C.(2004). The structural difference between science-gifted students and ordinary students in the triarchic intelligence, thinking styles, and academic performance. The Korean Journal of Education Psychology, 18(1), 115-130.
  41. Oh, H. S. (2003). The effects of planning strategies on self-directed learning and motivation for learning. Graduate School, Sogang University, Master's thesis.
  42. Park, S. K., & Kim, K. H.(2005). Analysis on the Relationship between Gifted Science Students' Thinking Style Types and Academic Achievement and Science Concepts. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 25(2), 307-320.
  43. Park, K., Ryu, C., & Choi, J. (2017). An Analysis of Learning Objective Characteristics of Educational Programs of Centers for the University Affiliated Science-Gifted Education Using Semantic Network Analysis. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 27(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2017.27.1.17
  44. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
  45. Pintrich, P. R., De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning component of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
  46. Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 373-404). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  47. Renzulli, J. S., Rizza, M. G., & Smith, L. S. (2002). Learning Styles Inventory Version 3.0 Technical Manual. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  48. Seong, T. (2017). Suggestions for the human character and education in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 1-21.
  49. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653136
  50. Schmitt, M. C., & Newby, T. J. (1986). Metacognition: Relevance to instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 9(4), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02908316
  51. Shin, J. Lee, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. (2006). The research on classification of leaners and development of e-learning system model based on learning behavior in e-learning environment. Seoul: KERIS.
  52. Shin, M., & Ahn, D. (2014). Factors influencing self-regulated strategies: On autonomy support and beliefs of intelligence ability of gifted and non-gifted students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 24(5), 877-892. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2014.24.5.877
  53. Shin, Y. H., Kim, A. (2005). Studies on the relationships among academic self-regulation, failure tolerance, and self-esteem in the middle school gifted and non-gifted students. Journal of Educational Studies, 35(3), 65-79.
  54. Shirey, L. L., Reynolds, R. E. (1988). Effect of interest on attention and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.159
  55. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014) The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  56. Yang, M. H. (2000). The Study on the development and validation of self-regulated learning model. Graduate School, Seoul National University, Doctoral dissertation.
  57. Yun, K. M., & Yoo, S. H. (2011). A comparison of career patterns among the gifted in science, the gifted in human and social science and average middle school students by Holland career theory. Journal of Secondary Education, 59(4), 1001-1029. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2011.59.4.1001
  58. Yun, M. (1997). A study on the thinking styles and academic performance. Graduate School, Korea University, Master's thesis.
  59. Yun, S. H. (2005). A Study on the instructional model based on thinking style of information gifted. Graduate School of Korea National University of Education, Master's thesis.

Cited by

  1. 초등학생의 통합 창의성, 과학 유머 창의성, 과학 유머 만들기의 교육적 효과에 대한 인식의 관계 vol.38, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2019.38.2.191
  2. 집단지성을 활용한 폴리매스(Polymath) 활동 사례 vol.37, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.7858/eamj.2021.032
  3. 집단지성을 활용한 폴리매스(Polymath) 활동 사례 vol.37, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.7858/eamj.2021.032
  4. 집단지성을 활용한 폴리매스(Polymath) 활동 사례 vol.37, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.7858/eamj.2021.032