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.162-172
DOI : https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2013.34.2.162

플래시 파노라마 기반 가상야외답사의 활용이 중학생의 공간 시각화 능력, 개념 이해와 인식에 미치는 영향

이 기 영*
강원대학교 과학교육학부, 200-701, 강원도 춘천시 강원대학길 1
이 연구에서는 플래시 파노라마 기반 가상야외답사(VFT)를 활용한 야외 지질 답사 활동의 효과를 공간 시각화능력, 개념 이해와 인식 측면에서 분석하고자 하였다. 17명의 강원도 소재 중학교 학생을 대상으로 Kim and Lee(2011)에 의해 제안된 플래시 파노라마 기반 VFT 활용을 위한 3단계 모형을 적용하여 제주도 일대에서 2박 3일간 실제 지질 답사 활동을 수행하였다. 전실험 연구 설계를 적용하여 단일 집단에 대하여 사전과 사후의 공간 시각화 능력과 화산 개념 이해 변화를 각각 분석하였으며, 사후 설문을 통해 VFT 활용 효과에 대한 학생들의 인식을 조사하였다. 플래시 파노라마 기반 VFT 활용 모형을 적용하여 야외 답사 활동을 수행한 결과, 공간 시각화 능력에서는 ‘공간 관계능력이, 화산 개념 이해에서는 ‘지식’과 ‘이해’에서 유의미한 증가를 나타내었다. 또한, 공간 시각화 능력과 화산 개념 이해에서 대부분의 학생들의 향상 지수가 양(+)으로 산출되었다. 한편, 참가 학생들은 플래시 파노라마 기반 VFT 활용에 대해서 높은 흥미와 만족도를 나타내었으며, 야외 답사 활동에서 플래시 파노라마 기반 VFT의 활용에 대해 매우 긍정적으로 인식하는 것으로 분석되었다. 또한 플래시 파노라마 기반 VFT 활용이 인지적, 지리적 요소에서 실제 야외 답사 활동에 많은 도움이 되는 것으로 인식하였다.

The Effects of Flash Panorama-based Virtual Field Trips on Middle School Students’ Spatial Visualization Ability, Conceptual Understanding, and Perceptions

*Corresponding author: leeky@kangwon.ac.kr

Tel: +82 33 250 6752

Fax: +82 33 242 9598
, Ki-Young Lee*

Division of Science Education, Kangwon National University, Gangwon 200-701, Korea

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of flash panorama based virtual field trips (VFT) as asupporting tool for geological field activity on middle school students’ spatial visualization ability, conceptualunderstanding, and perceptions. A total of 17 middle school students participated in a three day long actual geologicalfield trip around Jeju Island where a three phase instructional model is applied for utilization of flash panorama basedVFT, which was proposed by Kim and Lee (2011). With one group pretest posttest pre experimental design, data werecollected using questionnaire and were analyzed to find out a change in students’ spatial visualization ability and volcanicconcept understanding, and their perceptions about the utilization of flash panorama based VFT. Findings are as follows:First, the effect of utilizing flash panorama based VFT in actual field trip revealed that there was meaningful increase in‘spatial relation’ category of spatial visualization ability and ‘knowledge’ and ‘comprehension’ domains of volcanicconcept understanding. Second, majority of students showed positive gain index in both spatial visualization ability andvolcanic concept understanding. Lastly, participating students showed much interest and high satisfaction, and positiveperception on the use of VFT. They also perceived that the utilization of flash panorama based VFT could help incarrying out an actual field trip in terms of cognitive and geographical factors.

Reference

1.Arrowsmith, C., Counihan, A., and McGreevy, D., 2005, Development of a multi-scaled virtual field trip for the teaching and learning of geospatial science. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 1, 42-56.
2.Back, Y.G., 2010, Teaching and learning in virtual reality space. Hakjisa, Seoul, 324 p. (in Korean)
3.Cantwell, L.B., 2004, A comparison of learning: integration of a virtual and traditional field trip into an introductory environmental geology course. Thesis of the degree of Master of Earth Science, Montana State University. 140 p.
4.Cowden, P.A., DeMartin, J.D., and Lutey, W.E., 2006, Stepping inside the classroom: A look into Virtual Field Trip and the constructivist educator. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from http://www.pdf-finder.com/pdf/VIRTUALFIELD-TRIPS.html
5.Falk, J.H., Martin, W.W., and Balling, J.D., 1978, The novel field trip phenomenon: Adjustment to novel settings interferes with task learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 127-134.
6.Ford, C.E., 1998, Supporting Fieldwork Using the Internet. Computers & Geosciences, 24 649-651.
7.Garner, L. and Gallo, M., 2005, Field Trips and Their Effect on Student Achievement in and Attitudes Toward Science: A Comparison of a Physical Versus a Virtual Field Trip to the Indian River Lagoon. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34, 14-17.
8.Hake, R., 1998, Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
9.Hesthammer, J., Fossen, H., Sautter, M., Saether, B., and Johansen, S.E., 2002, The use of information technology to enhance learning in geological field trips. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50, 528-538.
10.Holland, K., 2006, How Does a Virtual Field Trip Compare to the Real Thing? Online Classroom, November 2006, 2.
11.Kali, Y., 2003, A virtual journey within the rock-cycle: A software kit for the development of systems-Thinking in the context of the earth's crust. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51, 165-170.
12.Kim, H.B., Jeong, J.W., and Ryu, C.R., 2011, Pre-service Earth Science Teachers Understanding about Volcanoes. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 32, 871-880. (in Korean)
13.Kim, C.R., 2012, Development and its Application of Creative Activity Resource Map Materials on Cheolwon Area using Virtual Field Trip. Thesis of the degree of Master of Science Education, Kangwon National University. 93 p. (in Korean)
14.Kim, G.W. and Lee, K.Y., 2011, Developing Web-based Virtual Geological Field Trip by Using Flash Panorama and Exploring the Ways of Utilization: A Case of Jeju Island in Korea. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 32, 212-224. (in Korean)
15.Lee, C.Z. and Hong, S.E., 2003, Web Contents Development of Virtual Geologic Field Survey for High School Students: Focusing on the Songaksan and Jisagae area of Jeju island. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 24, 172-180. (in Korean)
16.Orion, N., 1989, Development of a high school geology course based on field trips. Journal of Geological Education, 37, 13-17.
17.Orion, N., 1993, A Model for the Development and Implementation of Field Trips as an integral Part of the Science Curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 325-331.
18.Orion, N. and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that Influence Learning during a Scientific Field Trip in a Natural Environment: Journal of Research in Science Education, 31, 1097-1119.
19.Parham, T., Cervato, C., Gallus, W., Larsen, M., Hobbs, J., Stelling, P., Greenbowe, T., Gupta, T., Knox, J.A., and Gill, T.E., 2010, The InVEST Volcanic Concept Survey: Exploring Student Understanding About Volcanoes. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58, 177-187.
20.Qiu, W. and Hubble, T., 2002, The advantages and disadvantages of virtual field trips in Geoscience Education. The China Papers, October 2002, 75-79.
21.Shroder, J.F., Bishop, M.P., Olsenholler, J., and Craiger, J., 2002, Geomorphology and the World Wide Web. Geomorphology, 47, 343-363.
22.Spicer, J.I. and Stratford, J., 2001, Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.
23.Stainfield, J., Fisher, P., Ford, B., and Solem, M., 2000, International virtual field trips: A new direction? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24, 255-262.
24.Titus, S. and Horsman, E., 2009, Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57, 242-254.
25.Warburton, J. and Higgitt, M., 1997, Improving the preparation for filedwork with IT: two examples from physical geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21, 333-347.
26.Wong, M.Y., 2002, A comparative study on the effectiveness of virtual field trip and real field trip concerning biology teaching in secondary school. Dissertation of the degree of Master of Science in Information Technology in Education, The University of Hong Kong. 133 p.