복합적 학습 과제에서 강조점 조작 계열화 유형과 학습 내용 제시 방법이 인지부하, 정신모형, 학습 전이에 미치는 영향

Abstract

본 연구의 목적은 복합적 학습 과제에서 강조점 조작 계열화 유형과 학습 내용 제시 방법이 인지부하, 정신모형, 학습 전이에 미치는 영향을 규명하는데 있다. 연구 목적을 달성하기 위해 설정한 독립 변인은 강조점 조작 계열화 유형(완전 강조 계열화, 우선순위 변경 계열화)과 학습 내용 제시 방법(동시적, 순차적)이며, 이에 따른 종속 변인은 인지부하, 정신 모형 형성 정도, 학습 전이 정도이다. 본 연구의 목적을 달성하기 위해 설정한 연구 문제는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 복합적 학습 과제에서 강조점 조작 계열화 유형과 학습 내용 제시 방법이 학습자의 인지부하에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가? 둘째, 복합적 학습 과제에서 강조점 조작 계열화 유형과 학습 내용 제시 방법이 학습자의 정신모형 형성에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가? 셋째, 복합적 학습 과제에서 강조점 조작 계열화 유형과 학습 내용 제시 방법이 학습자의 학습 전이에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가? 연구 문제를 규명하기 위해 다음과 같은 연구 절차에 따라 연구를 진행하였다. 첫째, 연구에 앞서 본 연구의 가설 설정 및 이론적 배경을 탄탄히 하기 위해 자료 수집을 먼저 한 후, 자료 수집을 토대로 연구의 목적을 명확히 하였다. 둘째, 기획력을 향상시키기 위해 고려해야 할 과제들이 무엇인지 관련 분야 전문가와 함께 검토하고, 이들 내용을 학습 과제 계열화 시 접목시켰다. 셋째, 기획서 작성이라는 복합적 학습 과제를 계열화하고, 연구 도구의 타당도를 높이기 위해 전문가의 검증을 받아 프로그램화하였다. 넷째, 서울 중심부에 소재한 A, B사의 마케팅, 기획 직군의 사원 레벨의 총 42명을 연구 대상으로 삼았으며, 집단의 동질성을 파악하고 교차순서설계(cross-sequential design) 방법을 적용하여 실험을 진행하였다. 실험 이후에는 연구 문제에 대한 효과성을 검증하였다. 이러한 과정을 통해 다음과 같은 연구 결과를 도출할 수 있었다. 첫째, 복합적 학습 과제에서 강조점 조작 계열화 유형은 학습자의 인지부하를 최적화할 수 있으며, 학습 내용 제시 방법 또한 인지부하를 최적화하는 것으로 나타났다. 실험 결과, 우선순위 변경 계열화 집단의 인지부하 수준의 평균이 완전 강조 계열화 집단의 인지부하 수준의 평균보다 유의미하게 낮았다(F(1,20)=12.26, p=.002). 학습 내용 제시 방법의 경우, 순차적으로 학습 내용을 제시한 집단이 동시적으로 학습 내용을 제시한 집단보다 인지부하 수준이 유의미하게 낮았다(F(1,20)=15.34, p=.001). 이는 복합적 학습 과제를 수행할 때 모든 것을 강조하는 것보다는 정말 필요한 내용을 변경해 가며 강조하는 것이 학습자들이 몰입하여 학습할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 과제 수행 전에 개념적 내용을 학습하고, 학습에 필요한 절차들은 학습 과정 중에 제시하는 것이 주의 분산 효과를 방지하여 인지부하를 감소시킬 수 있음을 의미한다. 둘째, 복합적 학습 과제에서 강조점 조작 계열화 유형은 정신 모형 형성에 유의미한 차이를 보였으나, 학습 내용 제시 방법에 있어서는 유의미한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 실험 결과, 우선순위 변경 계열화 방법을 통해 학습한 집단의 정신모형 형성의 평균 수준이 완전 강조 계열화 방법을 통해 학습한 집단의 정신모형 형성의 평균 수준보다 유의미하게 높았다(F(1,20)=7.71, p=.012). 그러나, 학습 내용 제시 방법에 있어서는 유의미한 차이가 도출되지 않았다(F(1,20)=.01, p=.93). 이를 통해 복합적 학습 과제를 수행할 때에는 실생활과 연계된 과제들이기 때문에 한꺼번에 너무 많은 내용을 제시하기 보다는 과제 수행에 필요한 내용을 변경하는 방식을 사용하였을 때 학습자들이 필요한 개념을 획득할 수 있음을 의미한다. 셋째, 복합적 학습 과제에서 강조점 조작 계열화 유형과 학습 내용 제시 방법은 학습 전이 수준에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 실험 결과, 우선순위 변경 계열화 방법을 통해 학습한 집단의 학습 전이 평균 수준이 완전 강조 계열화 방법을 통해 학습한 집단의 학습 전이 평균 수준보다 유의하게 높았다(F(1,20)=7.97, p=.011). 학습 내용 제시 방법의 경우, 순차적으로 학습 내용을 제시한 집단의 평균이 동시적으로 학습 내용을 제시한 집다 순차적으로 학습 내용을 제시한 집단의 평균이 동시적으로 학습 내용을 제시한 집단의 평균보다 유의하게 높았다(F(1,20)=6.65, p=.018). 이를 통해 복합적 학습 과제에 대한 교수 설계를 시행할 때에는 학습 전이를 고려하여 우선순위 변경 계열화 방법과 순차적 학습 내용 제시 방법을 사용하는 것이 효과적임을 알 수 있다. 이상의 연구 결과를 바탕으로 복합적 학습 과제 수행 시 학습자들의 원활한 학습을 위해서는 다음과 같은 결론을 내일 수 있다. 첫째, 복합적 학습은 학습 과제 자체가 복잡하기도 하지만, 정답이 없는 실제적 과제를 다루는 것이므로 학습자들이 학습을 원활히 수행할 수 있도록 이를 지원할 수 있는 전략이 필요하다. 그 중 하나의 방법이 학습 과제를 계열화하는 것이라 할 수 있다. 특히 실제적 학습이 이루어지는 동안에는 복잡한 과제들이 얽혀 있을 수 있으므로 한꺼번에 많은 내용을 강조하여 제시하게 되었을 때 학습자들의 인지부하 수준이 높아질 수 있다. 이에 결과적으로는 정신모형 형성이나 학습 전이 수준에도 좋지 않은 영향을 미침을 확인할 수 있었다. 따라서 복합적 학습 안에서 학습 과제를 계열화할 때에는 전체를 지속적으로 강조하기 보다는 문제 해결을 위해 특히 강조해야 할 중요 부분만을 우선순위에 맞게 변경하여 강조하는 것이 중요하다. 둘째, 학습 과제 계열화가 잘 진행되었다 하더라도, 학습 내용을 언제 어떻게 제시하느냐가 학습의 성패를 좌우한다 할 수 있다. 따라서 학습 내용을 제시할 때에는 지원적 학습 내용을 먼저 제시하고, 상황에 맞게 절차적 학습 내용을 제시하는 것이 바람직하다. 왜냐하면, 동시적으로 지원적 학습 내용과 절차적 학습 내용을 제시하게 되면, 학습자들은 한꺼번에 많은 정보를 접하게 되어 작업 용량에 한계가 생겨 해당 내용을 저장할 수 없게 되기 때문이다. 그러므로 학습 내용을 제시할 때에는 해당 정보가 필요할 때 적절히 제시하고 특히 지원적 학습 내용을 먼저 제시하고 절차적 학습 내용을 나중에 제시하는 것이 중요하다. 그럼에도 불구하고 복합적 학습에서는 개념만을 다루지 않기 때문에 학습 내용 제시 방법에 따른 정신모형 형성에는 큰 영향을 미치지 않았다. 결국 복합적 학습 상황에서 학습 과제 하에서 학습의 성과를 높이기 위해서는 Ifenthaler와 Eseryel(2013)이 주장한 것과 같이 복합적 학습 시스템을 이해하고, 전문적 지식을 적용할 수 있도록 과제를 계열화하여, 조정하고 통합하는 것이 중요하다. 이는 van Merriënboer와 Kirschners(2007)가 학습 과제들을 잘 조정, 통합하여 계열화하고 이를 적시에 제시해야한다는 주장과도 동일한 맥락이다. 따라서 복합적 학습 과제에서의 원활한 학습을 위해서는 학습 과제를 계열화하고, 학습 내용 제시를 적시에 제공하여 학습 성과 수준을 높일 수 있는 전략 마련이 필요하다.|The purpose of this study is to clarify what effects emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types in complex learning tasks have on cognitive loads, mental models, and learning transfer. To achieve the purpose, emphasis manipulation sequencing types (full emphasis manipulation and variable priority sequencing) and learning information presentation types (simultaneous procedure and sequential procedure) have been taken as independent variables, and accordingly cognitive loads, levels of mental model setup, and levels of learning transfer. The research questions established for achieving the purpose are as follows. First, what effects do emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types have on learners’ cognitive loads in complex learning tasks? Second, what effects do emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types have on learners’ mental model setup in complex learning tasks? Third, what effects do emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types have on learners’ learning transfer in complex learning tasks? To answer the research questions, conducted the study in the following research procedure. First, after collecting data first in order to give a firm ground to the hypothesis of this study and its theoretical backgrounds, made its purpose clear based on the collected data. Second, examined with some experts what tasks to consider for increasing the ability to plan, and grated the contents of the examination to learning task sequencing. Third, sequenced a complex learning task, planning composition, and programmed it with some experts’ verification for increasing the validity of study tools. Fourth, the study took a total of 42 rank-and-file level workers in the marketing and planning fields from companies A and B located in the center of Seoul to carry out the experiment by applying a cross-sequential design after characterizing the homogeneity of the group. After the experiment, its effectiveness for the research questions was verified. Through such a process, the following results were drawn. First, the emphasis manipulation sequencing types can optimize learners’ cognitive loads in the complex learning task, and the learning information presentation types also can. As a result of the experiment, the average level of cognitive loads in the variable priority sequencing group turned out to be significantly lower than that in the full emphasis sequencing group (F(1,20)=12.26, p=.002). As for the learning infromation presentation types, the level of cognitive loads in the group that was sequential procedure was significantly lower than that in the other group that was presented with learning infromations simultaneously (F(1,20)=15.34, p=.001). This means not only that the emphasis on really necessary contents case by case rather than on everything in performing a complex learning task allow learners to be immersed in their learning, but also that to have learners learn conceptual contents before carrying out a task and to present procedures necessary for the learning in the middle of the learning course can help prevent distractions to reduce cognitive loads. Second, the emphasis manipulation sequencing types showed significant differences in mental model setup in the complex learning task, but there was no significant differences appearing in the learning information presentation types. As a result of the experiment, it turned out that the average level of mental model setup in the group that engaged in learning in terms of the variable priority sequencing type was significantly higher than that in the other group that engaged in learning in terms of the full emphasis sequencing type (F(1,20)=7.71, p=.012). However, no significant differences were drawn in the learning information presentation types (F(1,20)=.01, p=.93). This means that learners can acquire necessary concepts when adopting the way to change contents necessary for task completion rather than presenting too many contents one-fell-swoop in engaging in a complex learning task because such a task is associated with real life. Third, it appeared that the emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types had positive effects on levels of learning transfer. As a result of the experiment, it turned out that the average level of learning transfer in the group that engaged in learning in terms of the variable priority sequencing type was significantly higher than that in the other group that engaged in learning in terms of the full emphasis sequencing type (F(1,20)=7.97, p=.011). As for the learning information presentation types, the level of cognitive loads in the group that was presented with learning informations in an order was significantly lower than that in the other group that was presented with learning informations simultaneously (F(1,20)=6.65, p=.018). From this, we can tell that it is more effective to use the variable priority sequencing and presentation of sequential procedure type in consideration of learning transfer when carrying out a teaching design of a complex learning task. Based on the results of this study so far, it can make the following conclusions for smooth learning in engaging in a complex learning task. First, as complex learning deals with practical tasks though the task itself is complicated in complex learning, we need strategies for supporting learners so as to help them smoothly complete their learning. One method among others is learning task sequencing. In particular, as complicated tasks can be entangled during the course of practical learning, the level of learners’ cognitive loads can get higher when a great amount of contents are emphasized and presented one-fell-swoop. Thus, as a result, we were able to confirm that it had negative influence on levels of mental model setup and learning transfer. Thus, it is important in sequencing learning tasks in a complex learning to make an emphasis on crucial parts to especially emphasize in accordance of their priorities for problem solving rather than continuously emphasizing the whole contents. Second, even when learning task sequencing is successful, the success of learning can be said to depend on when and how learning informations are presented. Thus, it is desirable in presenting learning contents to show supportive learning informations first, and then present procedural learning informations in accordance with the situation. This is because learners are faced with much information one-fell-swoop and cannot store relevant contents due to limitations in working memory when supportive and procedural learning informations are presented simultaneously. Thus, it is important in presentation of learning information to present relevant information when necessary and in particular to present supportive learning informations first and then procedural learning informations. Nevertheless, because complex learning did not have great influence on mental model setup because it did not deal only with concepts. After all, as Ifenthaler and Eseryel (2013) have claimed, in order to increase learning performance under learning tasks in a complex learning situation, it is important to understand the complex learning system, sequence the tasks so as to apply expertise, and adjust and integrate the tasks. This is in line with van Merriënboer and Kirschners’ (2007) claim that one should well adjust, integrate, and sequence learning tasks to present them in time. Thus, for the sake of smooth learning in complex learning tasks, it is necessary to provide strategies for increasing levels of learning performances by sequencing learning tasks and providing learning informations in time.; The purpose of this study is to clarify what effects emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types in complex learning tasks have on cognitive loads, mental models, and learning transfer. To achieve the purpose, emphasis manipulation sequencing types (full emphasis manipulation and variable priority sequencing) and learning information presentation types (simultaneous procedure and sequential procedure) have been taken as independent variables, and accordingly cognitive loads, levels of mental model setup, and levels of learning transfer. The research questions established for achieving the purpose are as follows. First, what effects do emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types have on learners’ cognitive loads in complex learning tasks? Second, what effects do emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types have on learners’ mental model setup in complex learning tasks? Third, what effects do emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types have on learners’ learning transfer in complex learning tasks? To answer the research questions, conducted the study in the following research procedure. First, after collecting data first in order to give a firm ground to the hypothesis of this study and its theoretical backgrounds, made its purpose clear based on the collected data. Second, examined with some experts what tasks to consider for increasing the ability to plan, and grated the contents of the examination to learning task sequencing. Third, sequenced a complex learning task, planning composition, and programmed it with some experts’ verification for increasing the validity of study tools. Fourth, the study took a total of 42 rank-and-file level workers in the marketing and planning fields from companies A and B located in the center of Seoul to carry out the experiment by applying a cross-sequential design after characterizing the homogeneity of the group. After the experiment, its effectiveness for the research questions was verified. Through such a process, the following results were drawn. First, the emphasis manipulation sequencing types can optimize learners’ cognitive loads in the complex learning task, and the learning information presentation types also can. As a result of the experiment, the average level of cognitive loads in the variable priority sequencing group turned out to be significantly lower than that in the full emphasis sequencing group (F(1,20)=12.26, p=.002). As for the learning infromation presentation types, the level of cognitive loads in the group that was sequential procedure was significantly lower than that in the other group that was presented with learning infromations simultaneously (F(1,20)=15.34, p=.001). This means not only that the emphasis on really necessary contents case by case rather than on everything in performing a complex learning task allow learners to be immersed in their learning, but also that to have learners learn conceptual contents before carrying out a task and to present procedures necessary for the learning in the middle of the learning course can help prevent distractions to reduce cognitive loads. Second, the emphasis manipulation sequencing types showed significant differences in mental model setup in the complex learning task, but there was no significant differences appearing in the learning information presentation types. As a result of the experiment, it turned out that the average level of mental model setup in the group that engaged in learning in terms of the variable priority sequencing type was significantly higher than that in the other group that engaged in learning in terms of the full emphasis sequencing type (F(1,20)=7.71, p=.012). However, no significant differences were drawn in the learning information presentation types (F(1,20)=.01, p=.93). This means that learners can acquire necessary concepts when adopting the way to change contents necessary for task completion rather than presenting too many contents one-fell-swoop in engaging in a complex learning task because such a task is associated with real life. Third, it appeared that the emphasis manipulation sequencing types and learning information presentation types had positive effects on levels of learning transfer. As a result of the experiment, it turned out that the average level of learning transfer in the group that engaged in learning in terms of the variable priority sequencing type was significantly higher than that in the other group that engaged in learning in terms of the full emphasis sequencing type (F(1,20)=7.97, p=.011). As for the learning information presentation types, the level of cognitive loads in the group that was presented with learning informations in an order was significantly lower than that in the other group that was presented with learning informations simultaneously (F(1,20)=6.65, p=.018). From this, we can tell that it is more effective to use the variable priority sequencing and presentation of sequential procedure type in consideration of learning transfer when carrying out a teaching design of a complex learning task. Based on the results of this study so far, it can make the following conclusions for smooth learning in engaging in a complex learning task. First, as complex learning deals with practical tasks though the task itself is complicated in complex learning, we need strategies for supporting learners so as to help them smoothly complete their learning. One method among others is learning task sequencing. In particular, as complicated tasks can be entangled during the course of practical learning, the level of learners’ cognitive loads can get higher when a great amount of contents are emphasized and presented one-fell-swoop. Thus, as a result, we were able to confirm that it had negative influence on levels of mental model setup and learning transfer. Thus, it is important in sequencing learning tasks in a complex learning to make an emphasis on crucial parts to especially emphasize in accordance of their priorities for problem solving rather than continuously emphasizing the whole contents. Second, even when learning task sequencing is successful, the success of learning can be said to depend on when and how learning informations are presented. Thus, it is desirable in presenting learning contents to show supportive learning informations first, and then present procedural learning informations in accordance with the situation. This is because learners are faced with much information one-fell-swoop and cannot store relevant contents due to limitations in working memory when supportive and procedural learning informations are presented simultaneously. Thus, it is important in presentation of learning information to present relevant information when necessary and in particular to present supportive learning informations first and then procedural learning informations. Nevertheless, because complex learning did not have great influence on mental model setup because it did not deal only with concepts. After all, as Ifenthaler and Eseryel (2013) have claimed, in order to increase learning performance under learning tasks in a complex learning situation, it is important to understand the complex learning system, sequence the tasks so as to apply expertise, and adjust and integrate the tasks. This is in line with van Merriënboer and Kirschners’ (2007) claim that one should well adjust, integrate, and sequence learning tasks to present them in time. Thus, for the sake of smooth learning in complex learning tasks, it is necessary to provide strategies for increasing levels of learning performances by sequencing learning tasks and providing learning informations in time.