Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of the Types of Teachers' Questioning in Verification Laboratory Instruction and Discovery Laboratory Instruction

확인실험수업과 발견실험수업에서의 교사 발문 유형 분석

  • Received : 2013.09.22
  • Accepted : 2013.11.26
  • Published : 2013.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the types of teachers' questioning between verification laboratory instruction and discovery laboratory instruction. Results were that there was no difference in questioning types in verification laboratory instruction and discovery laboratory instruction. Most teachers in two types of laboratory instruction used closed questionings more than open-ended questioning. This shows that teachers' laboratory instruction processes are focusing on 'get the content' rather than consideration of the characteristics of laboratory instruction types. Such results show that the teachers in verification laboratory instruction and discovery laboratory instruction provide little opportunity for children to improve in scientific thinking. Therefore, teachers should make good plans with a questioning strategy that can be adapted to the types and characteristic of laboratory instruction. If teacher's questioning is practiced well in the science class, it can improve students' scientific thinking and science laboratory instruction.

이 연구는 확인실험수업과 발견실험수업에서 교사 발문 유형을 분석하여 두 수업유형별 교사 발문이 어떠한 차이가 있는지 알아보는데 그 목적이 있다. 이 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 확인실험수업과 발견실험수업에서 교사들이 사용하고 있는 발문 유형의 차이는 나타나지 않았다. 또한 두 실험수업유형 모두에서 폐쇄적 발문의 사용이 많았다. 이는 교사들이 두 실험수업유형의 특징을 고려하지 않은 채, 단지 개념습득에 핵심적인 주안점을 두고 실험수업을 진행하고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 이러한 결과는 실제 확인실험수업과 발견실험수업에서 아동들의 과학적 사고를 증진시키는 기회를 적게 제공하고 있음을 나타내며 이를 보완할 수 있는 개방적 발문의 사용이 적어 아동들의 과학적 사고를 촉진시키고 있지 않음을 시사하고 있다. 따라서 교사들은 과학 실험을 위한 수업 전략 수립할 때, 실험수업유형별 특성에 적합하고 실험수업유형을 보완할 수 있는 발문 전략을 잘 계획해야 할 것이며, 이를 잘 활용한다면 과학실험수업 개선에 도움이 될 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 성태제(2007). 타당도와 신뢰도(제2판). 서울: 학지사, pp. 154-163.
  2. 양일호, 김석민, 조현준(2007a). 초.중등학교 실험 수업의 유형 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 27(3), 235-241.
  3. 양일호, 정진우, 허명, 김석민(2006a). 실험수업 유형 분류틀 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 342-355.
  4. 양일호, 정진우, 허명, 김영신, 김진수, 조현준, 오창호 (2006b). 초등학교 과학 실험 수업 분석. 초등과학교육, 25(3), 281-295.
  5. 양일호, 조현준, 유영란(2007b). 확인실험수업에서 나타나는 초등교사들의 교수 행동 절차 분석. 초등과학교육, 26(4), 418-427.
  6. 조연순, 우재경(1998). 초등 과학 수업에서 교사의 발문과 반응 유형 분석. 교육과학연구, 27, 51-69.
  7. Blosser, P. E. (1991). How to ask the right questions [electronic resource]. NSTA
  8. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students'responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
  9. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171
  10. D'Andrade, R. G., & Wish, M. (1985). Speech act theory in quantitative research on interpersonal behavior. Discourse Processes, 8(2), 229-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538509544615
  11. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543-547. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p543
  12. Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1891-1914. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701587028
  13. Gallagher, J. J. (1965). Productive thinking of gifted children. U. S. Office of education, department of health, education and welfare, cooperative research project No. 965. Urbana: University of Illinois.
  14. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American educational research journal, 31(1), 104-137. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031001104
  15. Harlen, W. (1999). Effective Teaching of Science. A Review of Research. Using Research Series, 21. Scottish Council for Research in Education, 15 St. John Street, Edinburgh EH8 8JR, Scotland.
  16. Harwood, W. S., Reiff, R., & Phillipson, T. (2002). Scientist' conceptions of scientific inquiry: Vocies from the grant. Proceeding of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
  17. Hodson, D. (2004). Practical work in school science: Exploring some directions for change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 755-760.
  18. Koufetta-Menicou, C., & Scaife, J. (2000). Teachers' Questions--Types and Significance in Science Education. School Science Review, 81(296), 79-84.
  19. Lehnert, W. G., & Lehnert, W. G. (1978). The process of question answering: A computer simulation of cognition. L. Erlbaum Associates.
  20. Millar, R., Le Marehal, J. F., & Tiberghien, A. (1998). A map of the variety of labwork. Labwork in Science Education-Working Paper, 1.
  21. Penick, J. E., Crow, L. W., & Bonnsteter, R. J. (1996). Questions are the answers. The Science Teacher, 63(1), 26-29.
  22. Sahin, A. (2007). Teachers'classroom questions. School Science and Mathematics, 107(1), 369-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2007.tb17759.x
  23. Van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227-269. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3

Cited by

  1. Effects on the Academic Achievement and the Logical Thinking of Instructionusing 3W Questioning Strategy in High School Biology vol.43, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2015.43.3.251
  2. 일반물리실험에서 반성적 사고를 강조한 실험보고서 적용 가능성 탐색 vol.40, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2016.40.3.203
  3. The Analysis on Types of Questionings in Elementary School Moral Textbooks vol.1, pp.114, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15801/je.1.114.201706.307
  4. Blosser의 과학 발문 분류 체계 적용의 제한점 탐색 vol.42, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5467/jkess.2021.42.2.221