Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 1225-6692(Print)
ISSN : 2287-4518(Online)
Journal of the Korean earth science society Vol.34 No.2 pp.148-161
DOI : https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2013.34.2.148

소집단 활동에서 과학 영재들의 집단 내 의사소통 지위와 언어네트워크

정덕호·조규성·유대영*
전북대학교 과학교육학부/과학영재교육원, 565-756, 전라북도 전주시 덕진구 백제대로 567
본 연구의 목적은 과학영재들의 소집단 활동에서 집단 내 의사소통 지위와 언어네트워크와의 관계를 알아보기 위한 것이다. 이를 위하여 과학영재들을 대상으로 5명을 한 단위로 하는 7개 소집단을 구성하고, 이들에게 지구의 밀도구하기라는 주제로 토론활동을 하였다. KrKwic과 UCINET 6.0 for Windows를 활용하여 집단 내 의사소통 지위와 언어네트워크를 분석하였다. 그 결과 집단 내 선도자의 언어네트워크는 방관자들에 비해 높은 단어 사용 빈도, 낮은 컴포넌트 비율, 높은 밀도를 나타내었다. 이는 선도자들이 방관자들에 비해 응집된 지식을 소유하고 있으며, 문제해결을 위해 방관자들보다 많은 양의 지식을 인출하고 있음을 의미한다. 이런 결과는 과학영재들의 인지수준의 평가와 소집단 활동에서의 집단 구성에 활용할 수 있을 것이다.

Communication Status in Group and Semantic Network of Science Gifted Students in Small Group Activity

*Corresponding author: giftedyoo@jbnu.ac.kr

Tel: +82 63 270 3631

Fax: +82 63 270 2802
, Duk Ho Chung, Kyu Seong Cho, and Dae Young Yoo*

Division of Science Education/Science Education Institute for the Gifted,
Chonbuk National University, Jeonbuk, 561-756, Korea

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between the communication status in group andthe semantic network of science gifted students. Seven small groups, 5 members in each, participated in small groupactivities, in which they discussed the calculation of earth density. Both the communication status in group and thesemantic network of science gifted students were analyzed using KrKwic, Ucinet 6.0 for Windows. As a result, thesemantic network of prime movers in group represented more frequently used words, lesser rate of component, and higherdensity than that of out lookers. It means that the prime movers have coherent knowledge compared to out lookers, andthey output more knowledge for problem solving than out lookers. Therefore, the results of this study may be applied toevaluating the cognitive level of science gifted students and group organization for small group activity.

Reference

1.Anderson, J.R, 1983, A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261 295.
2.Bales, R F., 1999, Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, 396 p.
3.Barsalou, L.W., 1983, Ad hoc categories. Memory and congnition, 11, 211 227.
4.Benne, K.D. and Sheats, P., 1948, Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41 49.
5.Bennett, J., Hogrth, S., Lubben, F., Cambell, B, and Robinson, A., 2010, Talking Science: The Research Evidence on the Use of Small Group Discussions in Science Teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 69 95.
6.Berger, J., Wagner, D.G., and Zelditch, M.Jr., 1992, A working strategy for constructing theories: State organizing processes. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Studies in metatheorizing in sociology. Thousand Oaks, California, USA, 39 53.
7.Chung, M.H. and Oh, H.S., 2007, Human capital, social capital, and work group performance. Korean Journal of Management, 15, 91 122. (in Korean)
8.Cohen, E.G., 1994, Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1 35.
9.Collins, A.M. and Loftus, E.F., 1975, A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407 428.
10.Driskell, J E. and Mullen, B., 1990, Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta analytic review and test of theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 541 553.
11.Fiske, S.T. and Goodwin, S A., 1994, Social cognition research and small group research, a West Side Story or ...? Small Group Research, 25, 147 171.
12.Godfrey, D.K., Jones, E.E, and Lord, C.G., 1986, Self promotion is not ingratiating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106 115.
13.Granovetter, M.S., 1973, The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360 1380.
14.Hare, A.P., 1994, Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25, 433 448.
15.Huyn, Y.S., 2010, An Structural Equation Model Analysis among Social Networks, Knowledge Sharing and Learning Transfer in Community of Practices. Journal of Korean HRD Research, 5, 39 59. (in Korean)
16.Jeon, K.M., Yeo, K.H, and Noh, T.H., 2000, The relationships between verbal behaviors and chemistry problem solving ability in cooperative learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 20, 234 243. (in Korean)
17.Jhun, Y.S. and Hwang, H.J., 2010, Analysis on student to student verbal interaction during small group open inquiry activities. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 21, 227 246. (in Korean)
18.Johnson, A.G., 1995, The Blackwell dictionary of sociology: A user's guide to sociological language. Malden, Massachusetts, USA, 125 p.
19.Kang, B.M., 2010, Constructing Networks of Related Concepts Based on Co occurring Nouns. Korean Semantics, 32, 1 28. (in Korea)
20.Kim, K.J. and Chung, B.K., 2008, A study on the moderating effects of information system characteristic between social capital and knowledge sharing. Journal of Human Resource Management Research, 15, 1 18. (in Korean)
21.Kim, YH., 2011, Social Network Analysis. Parkyoungsa, Seoul, Korea, 281 p. (in Korean)
22.Lee, H.J., Lee, D I., and Lee, J.H., 2010, Development of franchise education program through semantic network analysis. Management Education Review, 14, 105 128. (in Korea)
23.Lee, J.K. and Ha, J.S., 2012, Semantic network analysis of science gifted middle school students' understanding of fact, hypothesis, theory, law, and scientificness. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32, 823 840.
24.Lee, S.Y., Kim, C.J., Choe, S.U., Yoo, J.H., Park, H.J., Kang, E.H., and Kim, H.B., 2012, Exploring the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32, 805 822. (in Korean)
25.Leffler, A., Gillespie, D.L., and Conaty, J.C., 1982, The effects of status differentiation on nonverbal behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 153 161.
26.Lim, H.J. and Noh, T.H., 2001, Verbal interactions in heterogeneous small group cooperative learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 21, 668 676. (in Korean)
27.Lim, C.I., Yoon, S.K., and Yeon, E.K., 2007, A study of group size for learners' active online discussions. Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 89 118. (in Korean)
28.Linn, M.C., and Burbules, N.C., 1993, Construction of Knowledge and Group Learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, USA, 91 119.
29.Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2011, Science Curriculum. Notification No. 2011 361 of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2 p. (in Korean)
30.Nam, K.D., An, M.Y., Lee, J.T., Lee, J.H., Choi, H.S., and Hong, K.W., 2008, Group Dynamics. In D. R. Forsyth (Ed.), Group Dynamics 4th Eds. Nelson Education: Canada, Sigmapress, Seoul, Korea, 14 p.
31.Nye, J.L., 1994, Discussion: The social perceiver as a social being. Small Group Research, 25, 316 322.
32.Park, H.W. and Leydesdorff, L., 2004, Understanding the KrKwic: A computer program for the analysis of Korean text. Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society, 6, 1377 1388.
33.Park, J.Y. and Lee K.Y., 2012, The impact of grouping methods on free inquiry implementation: The case of two middle schools adopting different grouping methods. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32, 686 702. (in Korea)
34.Portner, P. and Partee, B.H., 2002, Formal semantics: The essential readings. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 486 p.
35.Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T., 1995, Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129 143.
36.Rogers, R., 1984, Do the gifted think and learn differently? Airview of recent research and its implications of instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 17 39.
37.Sabella, M.S., 1999, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland: Using the context of physics problem solving to evaluate the coherence of student knowledge. http://www.physics.umd.edu/ (November 3rd 2012).
38.Shaw, M.E., 1964, Communication networks. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 111 147.
39.Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W., 1956, An outline of social psychology. Harper and Row, New York, USA, 144 p.
40.Stryker, S. and Burke, P.J., 2000, The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284 297.
41.Turner, J.C., 1982, Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 15 40.
42.Wageman, R., 2001, The meaning of interdependence. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, 197 217.
43.You, J.Y. and Noh, T.H., 2012, An analysis of verbal interaction among science gifted students in inquiry learning based on analogical experimental design strategy emphasizing understanding and checking stages. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32, 671 685. (in Korean)