Identifying learner behaviors, conflicting factors, and facilitating factors in a digital learning community

국문 초록 (Abstract)

협력학습이 개별학습보다 유의미하게 높은 성취도와 파지(retention)를 보인다는 연구결과들이 제시되면서(Dyer, 1993; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988; Johnson & Johnson, 1996), 협력학습은 온라인 학습으로 확대 적용되고 있다. 디지털 학습공동체(DLC : Digital Learning Community)는 컴퓨터 매개 커뮤니케이션(CMC : Computer-Mediated Communication)을 활용한 협력학습의 한 형태로, 학습자가 학습 활동에 참여함으로써 실제 업무 환경에서 요구되는 협력 기술과 의사소통 기술을 향상시킬 수 있는 기회를 제공받는다는 점에서 주목 받고 있다(Bennett, 2005). 그러나, DLC가 제공하는 많은 혜택에도 불구하고, 학습자들은 자신의 학습에 독립적이고 싶어하는 마음과 학습공동체에서 소외될까 두려워하는 복합된 감정으로 긴장(tensions)을 경험한다(Dirkx & Smith, 2005).
최근 DLC기반 협력학습 현상을 이해하고 평가하려는 일련의 연구가 이루어져 왔으나 DLC에 관여하는 학습자들의 행위 패턴을 충분히 설명하고 있지 못하며, 더욱이 DLC 협력학습 과정에서 일어나는 갈등요소 및 강화요소를 파악하는데는 제한적이다. 따라서, 본 연구는 DLC에서 진행된 협력학습 활동에 관한 실증적 자료를 수집하고 근거이론(Grounded Theory)에 의해 자료를 분석하여 DLC에서 학습자 행위 패턴을 파악하고, 사회문화적 분석 틀로 사용되어온 활동시스템(Activity System)에 의해 자료를 재구조화해 봄으로써 성공적 DLC기반 학습 환경 설계 및 운영 전략을 위한 시사점을 도출하는데 목적이 있다.
이와 같은 연구 목적을 반영하여 본 연구에서 살펴본 연구 문제는 다음과 같다.
1. 근거이론을 통한 분석:
1.1 DLC에서 나타나는 학습자 행위의 패턴, 갈등 및 강화요소는 무엇인가?
1.2 성과가 높은 그룹은 학습자 행위, 갈등 및 강화요소 측면에서 성과가 낮은 그룹과 어떤 차이를 보이는가?
2. 활동시스템을 통한 분석:
2.1 활동시스템에 의해 분석한 DLC의 학습자 행위, 갈등 및 강화요소는 어떻게 나타나는가?
2.2 성과가 높은 그룹은 활동시스템에 의한 분석에서 성과가 낮은 그룹과 어떤 차이를 보이는가?
이상과 같은 연구 문제를 알아보기 위하여 본 연구에서는 서울의 한 대학에서 DLC기반 협력학습이 이루어지는 과목을 선택하여 두 학기에 걸쳐 자료를 수집하였다. 1학기에는 네 그룹(19명)을 선택하여 학습자들이 협력학습 과정 중에 온라인으로 교환한 팀프로젝트방의 게시물을 수집, 분석하였으며, 그룹 성과가 가장 높았던 두 그룹과 가장 낮았던 두 그룹을 선택하여 비교 분석하였다(연구 1). 또한, 발견된 현상이 다른 과목에서도 동일하게 발견되는지 검증하기 위해 2학기에 개설된 과목에서 여섯 그룹(24명)을 선택하여 분석하였다(연구 2). 2학기에는 성찰적 서면 인터뷰를 실시하여 보다 직접적으로 학습자의 학습 경험에 대한 자료를 수집하여 분석하였다.
본 연구의 결과를 연구 문제에 따라 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 분석 결과 DLC기반 협력학습 과정에서 나타나는 학습자 행위요소는 7개의 패턴(정보 탐색, 관련 자료 추출, 아이디어 생성, 공동 작업, 분업, 규칙 만들기, 평가)으로 규명되었다. 연구 1과 2에서 각각 29개와 25개의 행위요소가 발견되었으며, 유목화된 결과는 동일하였다. 7개의 카테고리 중에서 가장 높은 빈도를 보이는 행위는 연구 1과 2 모두에서 정보 탐색과 공동 작업으로 나타났다. 또한, 협력과정에서 나타나는 갈등요소는 6개의 카테고리(작업의 비효율, 생소함, 의사소통의 어려움, 역할관련 문제, 스케쥴 상충, 기술적 이슈)로 규명되었으며, 강화요소는 5개의 카테고리(효율적 작업, 효과적 의사소통, 팀원의 자질, 그룹 응집성, 목표 지향성)으로 분석되었다. 갈등요소 중에서는 작업의 비효율과 생소함이, 강화요소 중에서는 그룹 응집성이 가장 높은 빈도를 보이는 것으로 나타났다.
둘째, 성과가 높은 그룹과 낮은 그룹을 비교한 결과 두 그룹에서 크게 다른 행위 요소가 발견되지는 않았으나 성과가 높은 그룹이 낮은 그룹에 비해 전반적으로 많은 행위요소를 보였다. 갈등요소에서는 전반적으로 성과가 높은 그룹이 낮은 그룹보다 오히려 더 높은 갈등요소 빈도를 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 갈등요소에는 공동의 학습 목표를 달성하는데 결과적으로 긍정적인 작용을 할 수 있는 요소와 방치할 경우 부정적 학습경험이나 부족한 산출물을 만들어 낼 수 있는 요소가 있음이 발견되었다. 반면, 강화요소는 성과가 낮은 그룹에서 더 높은 빈도를 보였는데 이는 대부분 높은 그룹 응집성으로 나타난 결과였으며 그룹 응집성과 그룹 성과는 직접적 관계가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
셋째, DLC기반 협력학습 과정에서 발견된 학습자 행위요소를 활동시스템으로 재구조화해 본 결과 4개의 하부시스템 중에서 소비시스템이 가장 활성화되는 것으로 나타났고, 그 다음 생산시스템, 교환시스템, 분배시스템의 순으로 활성화되는 것으로 나타났다. 이 현상은 연구 1과 2, 성과가 높은 그룹과 낮은 그룹 모두에서 공통적으로 나타났다. 갈등요소들을 활동시스템에 조명해 본 결과 활동시스템의 구성요소들 중 활동의 주체(subjects)와 사용되는 도구(tools)간에 가장 많은 갈등요소들이 발견되었다. 다음으로 높은 갈등요소의 빈도는 연구 1에서는 주체와 목표(objects)간에, 연구 2에서는 주체와 공동체(community)간에 나타났다. 또한, 강화요소들을 활동시스템에 조명해 본 결과 활동시스템의 구성요소들 중 활동의 주체와 공동체간에서 가장 높은 빈도의 강화요소가 나타났는데, 예를 들면, 격려, 친밀감, 공동체 의식등이 이에 속한다.
끝으로, 성과가 높은 그룹과 낮은 그룹을 활동시스템에 의해 비교해 본 결과 협력과정 중 활성화되는 하부시스템의 순서는 두 그룹이 동일한 것으로 분석되었다. 가장 높은 빈도를 보이는 갈등요소는 두 그룹 모두가 활동의 주체와 도구간으로 나타났는데, 예를 들면, 기술 부족, 비효율적 방법의 사용, 자원 부족, 시스템 이슈 및 파일문제로 인한 공유의 어려움등이 이에 속한다. 강화요소 또한 두 그룹 모두 주체와 공동체간에서 가장 높은 빈도를 보이는 것으로 분석되었다. 한편, 협력학습의 세 단계 즉 기획, 수행, 정리 단계로 구분하여 비교해 본 결과 성과가 높은 그룹은 소비시스템이 프로젝트의 수행단계에서 절정을 이루다가 정리 단계에서 줄어드는 반면, 성과가 낮은 그룹은 수행단계를 거쳐 정리단계에서도 계속 증가하는 것으로 나타났다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The digital learning community (DLC) is an emerging instructional approach that embraces the characteristics of collaborative learning and computer-mediated communication in networked environments. The DLC draws attention because it provides students with opportunities to extend their learning experiences by sharing new ideas and exchanging critical and constructive feedback, and to improve collaboration and communication skills that are required on the job.
Despite the promising benefits of the DLC, learners experience tensions from mixed feelings of wanting to learn independently and a fear of being isolated from the community. Although there have been studies to understand and evaluate collaborative learning in DLCs, they do not fully explain learner behaviors and were also limited in terms of identifying conflicting factors and facilitating factors that emerged during group work. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the patterns of online learner behaviors and to investigate conflicting factors and facilitating factors in a DLC. At the same time, this study sought to determine whether high performing groups show different patterns of behaviors, conflicting factors, and facilitating factors from their counterparts. The researcher incorporated grounded theory to capture real phenomena of a DLC and restructure the data in the socio-cultural framework of an activity system.
Data were collected over two semesters in a university. Participants included four groups (19 students) in the first semester. Two groups were selected from the top two performing groups and the other two from the bottom two performing groups. In order to validate the results in a different learning context, six groups (24 students) from another class in the second semester were selected. Data collected included online transcripts in the group discussion board, documents and reflective interviews.
The analysis identified seven categories of learner behaviors in a DLC: information seeking, extraction of relevant information, idea generation, co-construction, division of tasks, making/conforming to rules, and evaluation. The two most frequently observed categories were information seeking and co-construction. Comparing the high performing groups with the low performing groups, no difference was found in terms of types of learner behaviors. One evident difference was that the high performing groups revealed more incidents of learner behaviors in both studies. When the learner behavior codes were aligned in four subsystems of an activity system, the consumption subsystem was the most highly activated subsystem, followed by the production, exchange, and distribution subsystems, in that order. A salient difference between the high and low performing groups was that the frequency of the behaviors in the consumption subsystem was in decline at the project completion phase in the high performing groups, whereas that of the low performing groups was increasing.
Six different categories of conflicting factors emerged: inefficiency of work, unfamiliarity, difficulty in communication, issues of roles, conflicting schedules, and technical difficulties. The inefficiency of work category was one of the two most frequently observed categories. Indicators of inefficiency of work categories were lack of skills, applying inefficient methods, lack of resources, lack of group rules, difficulty with finding the relevant information, and sharing unrelated information. When the observed conflicting factors were matched with the components in the activity system, the most frequently observed conflicting factors resided between subjects and tools components.
The analysis identified five categories of facilitating factors: efficiency of work, effective communication, the competence of team members, group cohesiveness, and goal orientation. The most frequently observed category was group cohesiveness and this category was composed of intimacy, sense of community, encouraging others, and trust. When the observed facilitating factors were placed in relevant components in the activity system, the most frequently observed facilitating factors were located between subjects and community components.
The present study serves as a foundation for future research. First, in order to effectively implement an emerging learning approach such as a DLC, the decisions should be grounded in empirical data. The present study sought evidence of patterns of learner behaviors, conflicting factors, and facilitating factors over two semesters of college classes. The insights gained from the study suggest directions for a design of a successful DLC learning environment and strategies for implementing a DLC.
Second, collaboration is meaningful when the participants gain its resulting benefits. This study revealed different aspects of group learning processes between high and low performing groups. The research findings from the comparison presented common and different trends of two groups.
Lastly, this study serves as a case study of how an activity system can contribute to providing prescriptions in the design of a learning environment instead of remaining as a merely descriptive tool. This study incorporated the definite functions of subsystems and components of an activity system and utilized them in data analysis. Consequently, designers or practitioners of learning environments can focus the issues that demand resolution.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION = 1
• A. Purpose and Background = 1
• B. Research Questions = 6
• C. Definition of Terms = 6
• Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND = 11
• A. Digital Learning Community (DLC) = 11
• B. Activity Theory = 17
• C. Related Studies = 25
• Ⅲ. METHODS = 37
• A. Participants = 38
• B. Tools = 40
• C. Procedures = 48
• D. Data Analysis = 51
• Ⅳ. RESULTS = 55
• A. Study 1 = 55
• 1. Number of Postings = 55
• 2. Coding Results Based on the Grounded Theory = 55
• 3. Results Based on Activity System = 83
• B. Study 2 = 95
• 1. Number of Postings = 95
• 2. Coding Results Based on the Grounded Theory = 96
• 3. Results Based on Activity System = 114
• Ⅴ. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION = 127
• A. Conclusion and Discussion = 127
• B. Implications, Limitations and Contributions = 133
• REFERENCES = 139
• APPENDICES = 148
• ABSTRACT (Korean) = 175

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. Mind as action, Wertsch, James V, Oxford University Press, Mind as action, , 1998

2. Naturalistic inquiry, Lincoln, Yvonna S, Sage Publications, , 1985

3. Introduction to group dynamics, Knowles, Malcolm Shepherd, Association Press, , 1959

4. School preparing for the future, Lim, Kang, , 2002

5. The NVivo qualtative project book, Bazeley, Richards, , 2000

6. Revolution of qualitative research, Park, , 2004

7. Cognition and communication at work, Engestrom, Yrjo@, Cambridge University Press, , 1996

8. Cooperation and the use oftechnology, Johnson, , 1996

9. A slice of life in my virtual community, Rheingold, , 1992

10. Activity, consciousness, and personality, Leont'ev, A. N, Prentice-Hall, "Activity consciousness, , 1978

11. Computer conferencing and content analysis, Henri, , 1992

12. Moderating educational computer conferences, Paulsen, , 1995

13. The social psychology of telecommunications, Short, John, Wiley, , 1976

14. The role of the online instructor/facilitator, Berge, The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator, , 1996

15. A paradigm shift for online community research, Corry, , 2001

16. An analysis of the constant comparative method, Grove, , 1988

17. Designing constructivist learning environments, Jonassen, , 1999

18. Learning to learn in online collaborative groups, Smith R, Dirkx, , 2005

19. Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.), 서아영, 신경식, Yin, Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.), , 2003

20. Cultural psychology: A once and Future Discipline, Cole, Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline, , 1996

21. Collaborating online : learning together in community, Palloff, Rena M., Jossey-Bass, , 2005

22. Computer-mediated communication:facilitating dialogues, McGee, Dimock, , 1994

23. A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition, Engestr?m, Cole, , 1993

24. A critical inquiry into webmediatedcollaborative learning, Webb, Cecez-Kecmanovic, , 2000

25. Conceptualizing a framework for design of onlinecommunities, Hung, , 2003

26. Developing lifelong learnersThrough undergraduate education, Candy, O¡?Leary, Crebert, , 1994

27. Online communities: Design usability supporting sociability, Preece, , 2000

28. Methods for analyzing collaboration in online communications, Hathorn, Ingram, , 2004

29. Online learning communities: Investigating adesign framework, Brook, Oliver, , 2003

30. A development researchagenda for online collaborative learning, Reeves, Oliver, Herrington, , 2004

31. Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencingapplications, Mason, , 1992

32. Internet-based experiential learning in international marketing:, Alon, Cannon, Internet-based experiential learning ininternational marketing:, , 2000

33. Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes, Vygotskii, L. S, Harvard University Press, Mind in society: The development of higherpsychological processes, , 1978

34. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.), LeCompte, M. D, , 1993

35. The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes, McIsaac,M., Tu,C., , 2002

36. A new taxonomy for evaluation studies of online collaborative learning, Treleaven, , 2004

37. Supporting collaborative project teams using computerbasedtechnologies, Bennett, , 2005

38. Group cognition : computer support for building collaborative knowledge, Stahl, Gerry, MIT Press, , 2006

39. Online Group Projects: Preparing the Instructors to Preparethe Students, Talyor, , 2005

40. Bridging tools¡? for change:evaluating a collaborative learning network, Charlier, Bonamy, Saunders, , 2001

41. An examination of social presence to increase interaction inOnline classes, Tu, , 2002

42. Basics of qualitative research : grounded theory procedures and techniques, Strauss Anselm L, Sage Publications, Basics of qualitative research: Groundedtheory procedures and techniques, , 1990

43. Recognising and promoting collaboration in an onlineasynchronous discussion, Murphy, , 2004

44. Building learning communities in online courses: the importance of interaction, Swan, , 2002

45. Models to evaluate online learningcommunities of asynchronous discussion forums, Cheung, Hew, , 2003

46. Appropriating and negotiating knowledge:Technologies for a community of learners, Chen, Hung, , 2000

47. Learning by expanding : an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, Engestrom, Yrjo@, Cambridge University Press, , 2015

48. Activity theory and its applications to information systemsresearch and development, Kuutti, , 1991

49. Learning communities inclas srooms : A reconceptualization of educational pr actice, Collin s, Bielaczy c, Learning communities in classrooms: Areconceptualization of educational practice, , 1999

50. Mapping the process: Anexamplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis, Harry, Klinger, Sturges, , 2005

51. The process of collaborative knowledgeconstruction identified by the activity theory, Lee, Han, , 2005

52. The theory of communicative action ? reason and therationalisation of society (Vol. I), Habermas, , 1984

53. Educational design as a quest forcongruence: The need for alternative learning design tools, Wang, Chen, Hung, , 2006

54. An investigation of the effects of cooperative learning oncomputer monitored problem solving, Dyer, , 1993

55. Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments, Jonnassen, , 2000

56. Sense of community perceived cognitive learning, andpersistence in asynchronous learning networks, Rovai, "Sense of community perceived cognitive learning, , 2002

57. Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory SituatedAction Models, and Distributed Cognition, Nardi, "Studying context: A comparison of activity theorysituated action models, , 1996

58. Activity and interaction of students in anelectronic learning environment for problem-based learning, Eurelings, Ronteltap, , 2002

59. Using activity theory as an analytical lens forexamining technology professional development in schools, Yamagata-Lynch, , 2003

60. Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice, Engestr?m, , 1993

61. From qualitative to quantitative continuum: Exploring the possibility with the aid of the CAQDAS (Nvivo 2), Park, , 2004

62. Applying activity theory to computersupportedcollaborative learning and work-based activities in corporatesettings, Collis, Margaryan, , 2004

63. Online offline and in-between: Analyzing medicated-actionamong American and Russian students in a global online class, Johri, , 2005

64. Cooperative CBI: the effects ofHeterogeneous versus homogeneous groups on the learning ofprogressively complex concepts, Hooper, Hannafin, , 1988

65. From traditional to constructivistepistemologies: A proposed theoretical framework based on activitytheory for learning communities, Tan, Hung, Koh, , 2006

66. Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing, Gunawardena, Anderson, Lowe, , 1997