한국교육문

27 2, 91-112, 2009. Blended Learning * ** Blended Learning Blended Learning. D 6 4,... (, ). :,,, : 2009/09/09 : 209/10/01 : 2009/10/06 * ** ( : finder0723@paran.com)

92 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. I. 1. (e-learning) -..,,,, (Dansereau, 1985). Blended Learning (,, 2003). - Blended Learning... Blended Learning.,?,??.. 2.,., Blended

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 93 Learning (, 2007). Blended Learning. (1996).. Witkin (1977) -. -., Cole Chan (1987).,. Ⅱ. 1. Blended Learning Blended Learning, /,,. Mantyla (2001) Blended Learning, Fox (2002), e-learning,

94 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009.. Reay (2001) Blended Learning, Masie (2002),,,. Smith (2002), Singh (2001) Blended Learning,. Blended Learning 1. < 1> Blended Learning Smith (2001) Mantyla (2002) Fox (2002) O'Dricoll(2002), e-learning, (content delivery mechanism) 1) 2) Driscoll (2002) 3) 4) * : (2004) 2.,,,.

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 95 (Cognitive Style),., (, 1996)., Witkin (field independent)- (field dependent)., Kagan (reflection)- (impulsivity)., (relational)- (analytic) Kagan (conceptional style preference)., Garder (constricted)- (flexible). (attentional style)., Klein (leveling)- (sharpening). -. Witkin (1977) - - (preference),,,. -. 3. (feedback), Mayer (1983),,,, (, 1998). (1991),, Cronbach (1977),

96 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009.,. (1999),,,..,.. (Smith & Ragan,1993). 4. (2000), (2002)... (, 1996)..

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 97. Ⅲ.. 연구가설 Ⅰ. 인지양식에따라학습동기와학업성취도에차이가있을것이다. 연구가설 Ⅰ-1. 장독립적인학습자가장의존적인학습자보다학습동기가더높을것이다. 연구가설 Ⅰ-2. 장독립적인학습자가장의존적인학습자보다학업성취도가더높을것이다. 연구가설 Ⅱ. 피드백유형에따라학습동기와학업성취도에차이가있을것이다. 연구가설 Ⅱ-1. 동기유발적피드백과과제지향적피드백에따라학습동기에차이가있을것이다. 연구가설 Ⅱ-2. 동기유발적피드백과과제지향적피드백에따라학업성취도에차이가있을것이다. 연구가설 Ⅲ. 인지양식과피드백유형에따라학습동기와학업성취도에차이가있을것이다. 연구가설 Ⅲ-1. 장독립적인학습자에게는동기유발적피드백이학습동기를향상시키는데더효과적일것이다. 연구가설 Ⅲ-2. 장독립적인학습자에게는동기유발적피드백이학업성취도를향상시키는데더효과적일것이다. 연구가설 Ⅲ-3. 장의존적인학습자에게는과제지향적피드백이학습동기를향상시키는데더효과적일것이다. 연구가설 Ⅲ-4. 장의존적인학습자에게는과제지향적피드백이학업성취도를향상시키는데더효과적일것이다.

98 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. Ⅳ. 1. D 6 4 120. 6 Blended Learning, 6., 5,6 (,, 2004). 2... G1 X1 O1 G2 X2 O1... G3 X1 O1 G4 X2 O1 (G1, G2): 장독립적인학습자집단, (G3, G4): 장의존적인학습자집단, O1: 사후검사, X1: 동기유발적피드백, X2: 과제지향적피드백,.

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 99 3.. Blended Learning. E-learning,. Blended Learning. Blended Learning [6-1 ], [6-1 ]. 1 40 off 2 (6-1 ) 1,2,3,4 40 on 3 < 2> Blended Learning www.kkulmat6.com.ne.kr 2,3 5,6 20 + 20 off + on..,..,.,..

100 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. < 3>,..... ex),,.. ). 1 2 3,. 동기유발적피드백과제지향적피드백 정답일때 정답입니다. 정답입니다. 오답일때 틀렸습니다. 조금만더노력하면 다음에는꼭맞을꺼에요. 틀렸습니다. ex) 주장하는글은처음, 가운데, 끝세부분으로나누어져있다. 각각어느부분에해당하는지눌러보세요. 문제 ) 주장한내용을정리하여쓴다. 1 처음 2 가운데 3 끝 처음에는문제점을지적하는내용이고가운데는주장하는까닭과근거, 마지막에는주장하는내용과실천을당부하는말이포함되어야한다. 4.. (Children's Embedded Figure Test : CEFT) Krap Kontadt (2005). 20. 10 10.

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 101 r=.97. 10. 1, 0... KR 2005-35 3 3... 4. < 4 >.. 6, 6 12, Likert 5. Cronbach a=.90.. KR 2005-35. 10 10, 100.

102 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. 5. SPSS 12.0, (Analysis of Variance). (One-Way ANOVA), (Two-Way ANOVA). Ⅴ. 1. D 6 4 62 51.7% 58 48.3%., 4 (One-Way ANOVA). 5., (F=1.86, p=1.4) 4. 4. < 5> N df F p A 56.67 13.22 30 B 62.33 20.12 30 ( ) C 57.00 24.52 30 3 1.86 1.4 D 67.33 21.64 30 60.83 20.52 120

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 103 2. 6.. 20 10.08,. 2.69 (35 ), 3.02 (32 ) 2.85. 3.29 (25 ), 3.18 3.23. < 6> N 35 2.69 0.45 32 3.02 0.24 Total 67 2.85 0.39 25 3.29 0.31 28 3.18 0.31 53 3.23 0.31. Two-Way ANOVA( ) 7. 7 0.01 (F=36.20, p=.000) Eta2 (Cohen, 1988; Myers & Wells, 2003).238. 0.05.. 0.01 (F=11.99, p=.001), Eta2 (Cohen, 1988; Myers & Wells, 2003).094.

104 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. < 7> df F Eta2 p 4.92 2 2.41 19.53.316.000**. 4.14 1 4.30 36.20.24.000**..674 1.52 2.85.024.094 1.39 1 1.39 11.99.094.001** * 1.39 1 1.39 11.99.094.001** 13.44 116.11 19.74 119 *p<.05, **p<.01, () (Mean Square) Ⅰ-1, Ⅲ-1, Ⅲ-3. Ⅱ-1.,,. 1. 1...

Blended Learning 에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업 성취도에미치는효과 105 [ 1] 3. 8. 62.57 (35 ), 72.19 (32 ) 67.16. 91.6 (25 ), 88.21 89.81. < 8> N 62.57 16,51 35 72.19 17.55 32 67.16 17.56 67 91.60 10.68 25 88.21 13.35 28 89.81 12.17 53. (Two-Way ANOVA) 9

106 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009.. 9 0.01 (F=65.91, p=.000), Eta2 (Cohen, 1988; Myers & Wells, 2003).362. 0.05.. 0.05 (F=5.49, p=.021), Eta2 (Cohen, 1988; Myers & Wells, 2003).045. df F Eta2 p 15627.26 2 7813.63 33.59.39.000**. 15177.36 1 15177.36 65.91.36.000**. 449.90 1 449.90 1.26.01.264 1247.25 1 1247.25 5.49.05.021* * 1247.25 1 1247.25 5.49.05.021* 26362.16 116 227.26 43236.67 119 < 9> *p<.05, **p<.01, () (Mean Square) Ⅰ-2, Ⅲ-2, Ⅲ-4. Ⅱ-2.,,. 2. 2.

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 107...... [ 2] Ⅵ. (M=2.69), (M=3.02). (M=3.29), (M=3.18). Two-Way ANOVA( ), p>.01

108 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. (F=36.20, p=.000). 0.05. p>.01 (F=11.99, p=.001). Ⅰ-1, Ⅲ-1, Ⅲ-3 Ⅱ-1. Ⅱ-1. (M=62.57), (M=72.19), (M=91.6), (M=88.21). Two-Way ANOVA( ), p<.01 (F=65.91, p=.000). p<.05. p<.05. Ⅰ-2, Ⅲ-2, Ⅲ-4. Ⅱ-2. Blended-Learning. Blended-Learning. Blended-Learning,. Blended-Learning, Blended-Learning. Blended-Learning,..,.

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 109 20..,. Blended-Learning.

110 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. (2003). Blended learning., 151, 54-57. (2007). Blended learning, :.. (1983).. :. (2002)... (2000). e-learning e-learning. HRD info., (2003). : Keogkr., 9(4), 33-72. (1999)... (2004). (blended learning)., 42(2), 399-431. (1991). CAI.. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology : A Cognitive View, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Wiston. Bardwell, R. (1981). Feedback: How Does it Function? Journal of Experimental Psushology, 50, 4-9. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction(Cambrige, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1966). 50. Carrier, C. A., Davidson, G., & Williams, M.D. (1984). Selection of options by field independent and dependent children in a computer-based concept lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11(2), 49-54. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Cronbach, L. J. (1977). Evaluation for Course Improvement. In Robert W. Garger, S. & Guild, P. (1984). Learning Style: The Crucial Difference. (Curriculum review. p.10).

Blended Learning에서학습자의인지양식에따라피드백유형이학습동기및학업성취도에미치는효과 111 Heath.(ed). New Curricula N.Y: Harper and Row. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in Written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 211-232. Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive Approach. NY: Scott & Foresman. Myers, J. L. & Well, A. D. (2003). Research Design and Statistical Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Saunders, P. & Werner, K. (2002). Finding the right blend for effective learning. <http://www.wmich.edu/teachlearn/new/blended.htm> Sinth, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54. Skinner, B. F. (1968) The Technology of Teaching. NY : Appleton Century-Crofts. Smith, C. L. (1985). Relationship of microcomputer-based instruction and learrning style. Journal of Educational Technology, 13(4), 256-270. Smith, J. M. (2001). Blended Learning: An old friend gets a new name, <http://www.gwsae.org/executiveupdate/2001/march/blended.htm> Saracho, O. (1983). Cultural differences in the cognitive style of Mexican American students. Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception International, 18(1), 3-10. Witkin, H. A. (1977). Cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. In S. Messick(Ed.), Individuality in Learning. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass. Witkin, H. A. & Berry, J. B. (1976). Personality through Perception. NY: Harper.

112 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. ABSTRACT The Effects of Feedback Types and Learner's Cognitive Style on Learning Motivation and Achievement in Blended Learning Jung-Nam Kim (Doctoral Student, Chung-Ang University) Sung-Moon Jo (Doctoral Student, Chung-Ang University) The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of feedback types and learner's cognitive style on learning motivation and achievement in Blended Learning. The participants were four classes of six grade in D elementary school of Po-Hang area(120 students). The 2*2 factor design(cognitive style and feedback type) was adopted and the motivational feedback and task oriented feedback programs were invented to provide. The results indicated that the difference of learning motivation and achievement between the field independent cognitive style and field dependent cognitive style was statistically significant but the effect of feedback type was not statistically significant. The interaction effect of feedback type and cognitive style, however, was statistically significant. This results suggest that students' learning motivation and achievement can be differed from whether they are provided with appropriate feedback according to learner's cognitive style. In other words, when students who have field independent cognitive style are provided with the motivational feedback and the task oriented feedback is provided to students who have field dependent cognitive style, their learning motivation and achievement will be improved. Even though some suggestions are offered, it is not easy to generalize this results due to the limitations of the research. Consequently, future researches that consider the variables missed and overcome limitations of this study give more informations and applications in real Blended-Learning educational situation than existing and the current thesis. Key Words: Blended Learning, feedback types, learning motivation, academic achievement