´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ ÀüÀÚÀú³Î

´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ

29±Ç 1È£ (2021³â 3¿ù)

COVID-19 ¿µÇâÀ¸·Î ÀÎÇÑ Çѱ¹ ÀÌ°ø°è ´ëÇлýÀÇ ¿µ¾î ¿Â¶óÀμö¾÷¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÎ½Ä ¿¬±¸

Â÷ÇöÁö ¡¤ ±è¼ºÈñ

Pages : 49-69

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2021.29.1.49

PDFº¸±â

¸®½ºÆ®

Abstract

Cha, Hyun Ji & Kim, Sunghee. (2021). A study on the perceptions of Korean university students majoring in science and engineering of an online English class during COVID-19. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 29(1), 49-69. This study investigated how Korean college students majoring in science and engineering perceived their general English course held online for one semester during the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey in which 166 students participated was conducted at the end of the first semester of 2020. The results were as follows. First, most of the participants preferred pre-recorded online lectures delivered by their professors. The most common reason given was the flexibility of being able to watch them repeatedly without any concerns about time and place. Second, the preferred evaluation method was to submit only assignments without testing, since students believed this could prevent cheating. Third, the drawbacks of online classes were identified as difficulties in acquiring learning strategies from professors, problems with fair evaluation, overloading assignments, and difficulties in self-motivation due to the absence of peers. Fourth, while the majority of the students had negative opinions about online classes, there were a few positive answers. Thus, this study indicates that the participants had different preferences for and abilities to adapt to online classes. Therefore, students should reflect on their needs for online classes in the future. Discussing customized online classes tailored to each individual who takes part may be one requirement.

Keywords

# ¿Â¶óÀÎ ¿µ¾î ¼ö¾÷(online English class) # ¿Â¶óÀÎ ¼ö¾÷ À¯Çü (types of online class) # ¿Â¶óÀÎ Æò°¡ ¹æ¹ý(online evaluating method) # ÀνÄ(perceptions) # COVID-19

References

  • ±èÁ¤·Ä. (2000). À¥±â¹Ý ÀÚ±â ÁÖµµÀû ¿µ¾îÇнÀ¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸. ¿Ü±¹¾î±³À°, 7(1), 143-163.
  • ¹ÎÇý¸®, ¼­À±°æ, À±ÈñÁ¤, ÀÌ»óÈÆ, ±è°æÀÌ. (2020). ¿Â¶óÀÎ ¼ö¾÷¡¤°­ÀÇ A2Z. ¼­¿ï:ÇÐÀ̽ýÀ.
  • ¹ÚÀº°æ. (2020). COVID-19 È®»ê¿¡ µû¸¥ ¿Â¶óÀÎ ±³¾ç¿µ¾î ¼ö¾÷¿¡¼­ ÇлýµéÀÌ ´À³¢´Â ºÒ¾È°¨¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀνÄÁ¶»ç. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 320-338.
  • ¹ÚÁ¾ÇÊ, À±Çöö, ½Å¹Îö, ±èÀçÇö, ¹ÚÁ¤Ã¶. (2019). ±³½ÇÀÇ ¹Ì·¡ ±¸±Û Ŭ·¡½º·ë. ºÎõ: ÇÁ¸®·º.
  • ½Å¼±¾Ö, ±è¿ÁºÐ, ¹ÚÁöÀÎ, ±èÀºÁø, Á¤Å¿í. (2020). Æ÷½ºÆ® COVID-½Ã´ë ´ëÇÐ ¼ö¾÷ÀÇ ¹æÇ⼺ Ž»ö: Áß°£°­ÀÇ Æò°¡ µ¥ÀÌÅÍ ¸¶ÀÌ´×°ú Àǹ̿¬°á¸Á ºÐ¼® °á°ú¸¦ Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î. ±³À°¹®È­¿¬±¸, 26(5), 195-228.
  • ¿ÀÀçÈ£. (2020). COVID-19°¡ ¾Õ´ç±ä ¹Ì·¡, ±³À°ÇÏ´Â ½Ã´ë¿¡¼­ ÇнÀÇÏ´Â ½Ã´ë·Î. À̽´&Áø´Ü, 421, 1-25.
  • À̺¸°æ. (2020). COVID-19·Î ÀÎÇÑ ºñ´ë¸é ±³¾ç¿µ¾î ¼ö¾÷ÀÇ ÇнÀÀÚ ¹ÝÀÀ¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸. ±³¾ç±³À°¿¬±¸, 14(4), 97-112.
  • ÀÌÁ¾¿¬. (2004). ´ëÇÐ ÀÌ·¯´× °­ÁÂÀÇ ÇнÀ ¸¸Á·µµ ¹× ¼ºÃëµµ ÁõÁøÀ» À§ÇÑ ÄÜÅÙÃ÷ Àü´ÞÀü·«ÀÇ ¼±Åùæ¾È-ÇнÀÀÚÀÇ »çÀüÁö½Ä°ú ÀÚ±âÁÖµµ¼ºÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î. ±³À°°øÇבּ¸, 20(4), 185-214.
  • ÀÌÇöÁÖ. (2012). ºí·»µðµå ·¯´×À» ÅëÇÑ ´ëÇлý ¿µ¾îÇнÀ¿¡¼­ÀÇ »óÈ£ÀÛ¿ë°ú ÀÚ±âÁÖµµÀû ÇнÀÀÇ È¿°ú. ±³À°Á¤º¸¹Ìµð¾î¿¬±¸, 18(1), 1-24.
  • Á¤µ¿ºó, °­½Ã°æ. (2008). ºí·»µðµå ·¯´×À» È°¿ëÇÑ ÀÚ±â ÁÖµµÀû ÃÊµî ¿µ¾î¾²±â ±³¼ö-ÇнÀ È¿°ú. ¾ð¾î¿¬±¸, 23(4), 577-599.
  • Á¤¼ºÈñ. (2020). ÇнÀÀÚ°¡ ¿øÇÏ´Â Àü°ø ¿µ¾î ºí·»µðµå ·¯´× ¼ö¾÷ À¯Çü Á¶»ç ¿¬±¸. ÇнÀÀÚÁ߽ɱ³°ú±³À°¿¬±¸, 20(21), 1337-1363.
  • Ãֹ̾ç. (2019). ´ëÇÐ ¼ö¾÷¿¡¼­ ½º¸¶Æ® LMSÀÇ »óÈ£ÀÛ¿ë È¿°ú. µðÁöÅÐÀ¶º¹ÇÕ¿¬±¸, 17(3), 395-404.
  • ÇϸíÁ¤, ÀÌÀ¯Áø. (2017). ½º¸¶Æ®Æù ¾ÛÀ» È°¿ëÇÑ ½º¸¶Æ® ·¯´× »ç·Ê¿¬±¸. ¿¹¼úÀι®»çȸ À¶ÇÕ ¸ÖƼ¹Ìµð¾î ³í¹®Áö, 7(12), 335-343.
  • ÇϸíÁ¤. (2020). ±¸±Û ¹ÌÆ®¿Í ¿¬µ¿ÇÑ ±¸±Û Ŭ·¡½º ¼ö¾÷¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇнÀÀÚ ÀνÄ. ¹®È­¿Í À¶ÇÕ, 42(10), 223-252.
  • Çѽ¿ì, ±èº¸¿µ. (2020). COVID-19 ÀÌÈÄ ´ëÇÐ ¿Â¶óÀÎ ±³À°¿¡ °üÇÑ ÇнÀÀÚµéÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀ Á¶»ç ¿¬±¸. ¹®È­¿Í À¶ÇÕ, 42(10), 155-172.
  • ÇÑÁöÈñ, ÀÓÈñÁ¤. (2011). µðÁöÅÐ ¿µ¾î±³Àç ±â¹ÝÀÇ ºí·»µðµå ·¯´×ÀÌ ÃʵîÇлýÀÇ Àб⼺Ãëµµ¿Í ÀÚ±âÁÖµµÀû ÇнÀ´É·Â¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ. Çö´ë¿µ¾î±³À°, 12(3), 384-405.
  • Ä«¿ìÄ¡ Á¸, Ÿ¿î Á¦À̽¼. (2020). ±³½ÇÀÌ ¾ø´Â ½Ã´ë°¡ ¿Â´Ù. ¼­¿ï: ¾îÅ©·Î½ºÃâÆDZ׷ì.
  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.Report available at: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered.html
  • Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & López Pérez, M. V. (2014). Evaluation of a blended learning language course: Students¡¯ perceptions of appropriateness for the development of skills and language areas. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(6), 509-527.
  • Chen, P. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of webbased learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54, 1222-1232.
  • De Paepe, L., Zhu, C., & Depryck, K. (2018). Online Dutch L2 learning in adult education: Educators¡¯ and providers¡¯ viewpoints on needs, advantages and disadvantages. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 33(1), 18-33.
  • Jin, S.-H. (2014). Implementation of smartphone-based blended learning in an EFL undergraduate grammar course. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 17(4), 11-37.
  • Marjerison, R., Rahman, J., & Li, Z. (2020). Students¡¯ attitudes towards distance education: A comparative study between Sino-foreigncooperative universities and typical universities in China. Journal of Instructional Pedagogics, 25(3), 1-26.
  • Parsons, D. (2014). The future of mobile learning and implications for education and training. In M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Increasing access through mobile learning (pp. 217-229). Commonwealth of Learning Press.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital native, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
  • Richardson, J. W., Hollis, E., Pritchard, M., & Lingat, J. E. M. (2020). Shifting teaching and learning in online learning spaces: An investigation of a faculty online teaching and learning initiative. Online Learning, 24(1), 67-91.