대학생이 지각하는 Merrill의 제1교수원리가 수업에 적용된 정도가 학습자의 인지적 참여에 미치는 영향 = The effect of students` perceived Course-level implementation of First Principles of Instruction on cognitive engagement

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Merrill identified a set of basic principles of instructional design that are included in most instructional design theories and models and called First Principles of Instruction. Merrill also argued that the extent to which the principles are implemented in a course determines effectiveness, efficiency and student engagement. Given the theoretical and practical importance of First Principles of Instruction, this dissertation answers the question of whether the degree to which the First Principles are implemented in courses makes a difference in students’ cognitive engagement. Cognitive engagement is an indicator of how students engage in their learning process in classroom context, and the levels of cognitive engagement are conceptualized by the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. As the levels of cognitive engagement are thought to be a result of interactions between students and learning contexts, previous studies have explored how certain practices within a course promote student cognitive engagement, but placed less emphasis on the integration of instructional design principles. HLM analysis found that the degree to which First Principles are implemented in courses as a class-level predictor did affect students’ deep cognitive strategy use and self-regulated strategy use, but did not affect surface cognitive strategy use. That is, greater implementation of First Principles in courses was significantly predictive of higher uses of students’ deep levels of engagement, but not a significant predictor of the surface levels of engagement.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이혜정, "연구중심대학의 강의 질 향상 정책 및 전략 연구" 한국교육학회 47 (47): 145-174, 2009

2 Frick, T. W., "Theory-based course evaluation: implication for improving student success in postsecondary education" 2008

3 Corno, L., "The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation" 18 : 88-108, 1983

4 Duncan, T. G., "The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire" 40 (40): 117-128, 2005

5 Nijhuis, J., "The extent of variability of learning strategies and students’ perceptions of the learning environment" 18 : 121-134, 2008

6 Kyndt, E., "The direct and indirect effect of motivation for learning on students’ approaches to learning through the perceptions of workload and task complexity" 30 (30): 135-150, 2011

7 Marton, F., "The Experience of Learning" Scottish Academic Press 36-55, 1984

8 Bangert, A. W., "The Development of an instrument for assessing online teaching effectiveness" 35 (35): 227-243, 2006

9 Gardner, J., "Testing the efficacy of Merrill's First Principles of Instruction in improving student performance in introductory biology courses" Utah State University 2011

10 Pintrich, P. R., "Student perceptions in the Classroom: Causes and Consequences" Lawrence Erlbaum 149-183, 1992

11 Carini, R. M., "Student engagement and student learning : Testing the linkage" 47 (47): 1-32, 2006

12 Vermunt, J. D., "Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance" 49 (49): 205-234, 2005

13 Pintrich, P., "Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire(MSLQ)" 53 : 801-813, 1993

14 Vermetten, Y., "Powerful learning environment? How do university students differ in their response to instructional measures" 12 : 263-284, 2002

15 d'Apollonia, S., "Navigating student ratings of instruction" 52 (52): 1198-1208, 1997

16 Snijders, T. A. B., "Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling" Sage 1999

17 Pintrich, P. R., "Motivational and self-regulated learning component of classroom academic performance" 82 : 33-40, 1990

18 김연순, "Merrill의 수업기본원리를 적용한 면대면 수업의 설계 및 효과" 한국교육공학회 29 (29): 599-636, 2013

19 Ahlfeldt, S., "Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use" 24 (24): 5-20, 2005

20 Merrill, M. D., "Learners in a Changing Learning Landscape: Reflections from a Dialogue on New Roles and Expectations" Springer 267-275, 2008

21 Nijhuis, J., "Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies" 8 : 67-93, 2005

22 Reigeluth, C. M., "Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory Vol. II" Lawrence Erlbaum 5-29, 1999

23 Nelson, L. M., "Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory Vol. II" Lawrence Erlbaum 69-89, 1999

24 Jonassen, D., "Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory Vol. II" Lawrence Erlbaum 69-89, 1999

25 Gardner, H., "Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory Vol. II" Lawrence Erlbaum 69-89, 1999

26 Schank, R. C, "Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory Vol. II" Lawrence Erlbaum 69-89, 1999

27 Merrill, M. D., "Instructional Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base Vol. III" Routledge Publishers 41-56, 2009

28 Greene, B. A., "Influences on course performance : Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 21-1" 21 (21): 181-192, 1996

29 DeBacker, T. K., "Influences on cognitive engagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure" 76 : 535-551, 2006

30 Frick, T. W., "Improving course evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher education" 58 : 115-136, 2010

31 Dupeyrat, C., "Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement : A test of Dweck's model with returning to school adults" 30 : 43-59, 2005

32 Walker, C. O., "Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement" 16 : 1-12, 2006

33 Raudenbush, S. W., "Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods" Sage 2002

34 Merrill, M. D., "First principles of instruction: Identifying and designing effective, efficient and engaging instruction" Pfeiffer 2013

35 Merrill, M. D., "First Principles of Instruction" 50 (50): 43-59, 2002

36 Jang, H., "Engaging students in learning activities : It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure" 10 (10): 588-600, 2010

37 Copper, M. H., "Educational Media and Technology Yearbook Vol. 34" Springer 121-140, 2009

38 Nie, Y., "Differential relations of traditional and constructivist instruction to students' cognition, motivation, and achievement" 20 : 411-423, 2010

39 Eley, M., "Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students" 23 : 231-254, 1992

40 Ferrer-Cajaa, E., "Cross-Validation of a Model of Intrinsic Motivation With Students Enrolled in High School Elective Courses" 71 (71): 41-65, 2002

41 Wolters, C., "Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms" 26 : 27-47, 1998

42 Frick, T. W., "College student percpetions of teaching and learning quality" 57 : 705-720, 2009

43 Rotgans, J., "Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom" 16 (16): 465-479, 2011

44 Lyke, J. A, "Cognition in context : Students’ percpetions of classroom goal structures and reported cognitive strategy use in the college classroom" 47 (47): 477-490, 2006

45 Pintrich, P. R., "Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents' motivation and self-regulated learning" 14 (14): 139-161, 1994

46 van Merriënboer, J. J. G., "Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID model" 50 (50): 39-64, 2002

47 Wilson, K., "Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs" 30 (30): 87-101, 2005

48 Wolters, C., "Advancing achievement goal theory : Using goal structure and goal orientation to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement" 96 : 236-250, 2004