한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제34권5호
  • /
  • Pages.499-510
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학 박물관 도슨트의 관람 안내 담화 내에 나타난 스캐폴딩 양상 분석

Analysis of Scaffolding Phase in the Discourse during Docent-led Tours in a Science Museum

  • 투고 : 2014.07.28
  • 심사 : 2014.08.30
  • 발행 : 2014.08.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 과학관에서 도슨트가 관람객들과의 상호작용을 통해 학습을 안내하는 과정을 스캐폴딩의 관점에서 이해하고자 하는 것이다. 이를 위해 문헌 조사와 전문가 검토 및 토의를 통해 스캐폴딩 분석틀을 개발하였고, 과학 박물관에서 실제로 도슨트의 담화 속에서 스캐폴딩이 어떻게 드러나고 있는지를 밝히기 위해 담화 분석을 실시하였다. 선행 연구 종합 결과, 목적(purpose)과 상호작용(interaction)이라는 두 개의 차원을 추출하였고, 여기에 영역(domain) 차원을 추가하였다. 각 차원별로 구성 항목들을 정리하여 하나의 도식으로 정리하였는데, 목적 차원에는 전략적, 사회적, 개념적, 도구적, 언어적, 메타인지적인 여섯 가지 범주로, 상호작용 차원에는 정적, 동적인 두 개의 범주로, 영역 차원에는 영역일반적, 영역특화적의 두 개 범주로 구성되었다. 이렇게 개발된 분석틀을 적용해 보기 위해서, 서대문 자연사박물관에서 안내를 진행하는 두 명의 도슨트를 섭외하였다. 설문조사와 인터뷰를 실시하는 한편, 관람안내 과정을 촬영하고 대화내용을 전사하여 분석하였다. 도슨트의 스캐폴딩 전개 양상은 총 다섯 가지로 분류할 수 있었다. 전시물이 충분한 설명을 제공하지 않는 경우, 전시물이 패널을 통해 충분한 정보를 제공하는 경우, 관람객에 의해 오해의 여지가 많은 전시물인 경우, 작동체험형 전시물인 경우, 불확실한 내용을 포함하는 전시물인 경우가 이에 해당된다. 각각의 경우 도슨트는 전략적, 개념적, 언어적, 도구적, 메타인지적 스캐폴딩을 주로 제공하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 상황에 따라 정적인 스캐폴딩과 동적인 스캐폴딩이 종합적으로 사용되며, 이로 인해 도슨트에 의한 관람이 효율적임을 알 수 있었다. 이상의 연구 결과로부터, 관람객의 과학 학습을 이해하는 데 있어서 개발된 스캐폴딩 분석틀이 유용하다는 점을 확인하는 한편, 도슨트는 상황에 따라 능동적으로 스캐폴딩을 제공할 수 있다는 점을 재확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구결과를 바탕으로 향후 과학관에서 도슨트 외에 다양한 관람 안내 도구들이 제공하는 스캐폴딩 분석도 가능할 것으로 예상하며 더 나아가 다양한 과학 교육의 상황에서 스캐폴딩을 어떠한 방식으로, 얼마나 제공해야 하는지에 대한 아이디어를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대하는 바이다.

The purpose of this research is to understand interactive learning during docent-led tours in a science museum focusing on scaffolding. We developed a scaffolding framework by collating the work of other researchers in related fields. The results show that scaffolding included three dimensions: purpose, interaction, and domain. The purpose dimension, divided into six categories, is related to the intention of the scaffolder and what the scaffolding are for: strategic, social, procedural, conceptual, verbal, and metacognitive. The interaction dimension reflects students' interaction with the scaffolder in two ways: dynamic (situation specific) and static (planned in advance). The domain dimension is related to two contents: domain-general and domain-specific (such as science). The scaffolding framework was applied to dynamic interactions between docents and visitors. The data was collected from elementary school students' family visits with the guidance of two docents at the Seodaemun Museum of Natural History. The data collected consisted of surveys, interviews, video-recordings, and transcripts. The analysis shows that five guiding contexts and scaffolding phases were recognized; 1) strategic scaffolding in a poorly illustrated exhibit; 2) conceptual scaffolding in a thoroughly explanative exhibit; 3) verbal scaffolding in misleading interpretation; 4) procedural scaffolding in a manipulative exhibit; and 5) metacognitive scaffolding with inaccurate content. In addition, the results show that the docents used the dynamic and static scaffolding synthetically so that the docent-led tour was effective. In conclusion, this study presents the usefulness of understanding visitors' science learning through the scaffolding framework, as well as the how docents can scaffold actively.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition-Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9
  2. Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2005). Promoting environmentally sustainable attitudes and behaviour through free-choice learning experiences: what is the state of the game?. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500081145
  3. Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1-12.
  4. Choi, J., Kim, C., Lee, C., Lim, J., Lee, S., Byun, H., Sin, M., & Lee, S. (2004). Perceptions of students, teachers and parents regarding natural history and natural history museums. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(5), 869-885.
  5. Draper, L. (1984). Friendship and the museum experience: The interrelationship of social ties and learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkely.
  6. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  7. Falk, J., and Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
  8. Grinder, A., & McCoy, E. (1985). The good guide: A sourcebook for interpreters, docents, and tour guides. Scottsdale, AZ: Ironwood Publishing.
  9. Han, S. (1999). Vygotsky and education: Cultural historical approach. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
  10. Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
  11. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2001), What is scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 13-26). Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
  12. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. In J. Hammond & P. Gibbons (Eds.), Special issue: Re-thinking ESL pedagogy: Socio-cultural approaches to teaching and learning. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30.
  13. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  14. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
  15. Jang, S. (2005). The effects of scaffolding types on the problem solving phase in web-based problem solving instruction (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  16. Kim, C., Shin, M., & Lee, S. (2010). Understanding informal science learning. Seoul: Bookshill.
  17. Kim, H., & Kim, K. (2011). A study on methods for activation of docent program at domestic science museums. Korea Scinece & Art Forum, 9, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.17548/ksaf.2011.12.9.1
  18. Kim, M. & Hannafin, M. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56, 403-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.024
  19. Kong, A. (2002) Scaffolding in a learning community of practice: A case study of a gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the students. 47th Annual International Reading Association Convention, San Francisco.
  20. Lee, M. (2012). Effects of scaffolding types on performance phase and the outcome in Web-based project-based learning (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  21. Lee, S. (2009). Effects of link scaffolding with semantic networking tool on writing tasks in e-learning environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  22. Leinhardt, G, Tittle, C., & Knutson, K. (2002). Talking to oneself: Diary studies of museum visits. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.) Learning conversations in museums (pp. 103-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Littleton, K. (2013). Adaptation and authority in scaffolding and teacher-student relationships: Commentary on the special issue 'conceptualizing and grounding scaffolding in complex educational contexts'. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 52-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.01.003
  24. McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201
  25. McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013488
  26. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
  27. NRC (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
  28. Paris, S. (2002). Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  29. Park, J. (2012). The role of worksheets in a science center from the perspective of scaffolding metaphor and ZPD: focused on the Inchon Science Center. (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  30. Park, S. (2013). Exploring science learning using smartphones in science museums: Focused on the feature of scaffolding. (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  31. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
  32. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?. Educational psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
  33. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
  34. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
  35. Rosiek, J. (2003). Emotional scaffolding an exploration of the teacher knowledge at the intersection of student emotion and the subject matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103257089
  36. Rowe, S. (2002). The role of objects in active, distributed meaning-making. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  37. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  38. Shin, H. (2011). Science learning through interaction with learning affordance of exhibition at a science center (Unpublished master thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  39. Smit, J., & Van Eerde, D. (2013). What counts as evidence for the long-term realisation of whole-class scaffolding? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.006
  40. Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  41. Stone, C. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404
  42. Tabak, I., Smith, B., Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (1996). Combining general and domain-specific strategic support for biological inquiry. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 288-296.
  43. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3
  44. Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2000). Scaffolding for success: reflective discourse and the effective teaching of mathematical thinking skills. Research in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520065
  45. Van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 32-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.001
  46. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizenm J. (2012). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 193-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.009
  47. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
  48. Williams, S., & Baxter, J. (1996) Dilemmas of discourse-oriented teaching in one middle school mathematics classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1086/461847
  49. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of the Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

피인용 문헌

  1. Environmental Education Program Development using Storytelling for Learning with Natural Heritage Exhibition vol.30, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.17965/kjee.2017.30.3.307
  2. '모두를 위한 과학교육'을 실현하기 위한 과학 학습 정체성에 대한 사회문화적 접근 연구 동향 분석 vol.38, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.2.187