DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Qualitative Analysis on Mixed Research in the field of Mathematics for Elementary Students

초등 수학교육 관련 혼합 연구에서 적용된 질적 연구 방법에 대한 분석

  • Received : 2016.01.12
  • Accepted : 2016.01.29
  • Published : 2016.01.31

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze how the qualitative research is applied to mixed method research and thereby to gain an insight to suggest reasonable ways of employing qualitative method in order to accomplish intended goal of research, especially in the field of mathematics education. For that purpose, this study carefully selects and analyzes 5 article that used mixed method and were published by Education of Primary School Mathematics Journal in 2012. Unlike those a few previous studied on mixed method that focused on producing general trend by simply showing quantitative information on what the frequence of used research topic, content, methods combination, quantitative methods, and qualitative methods, this study provides detailed result of qualitative analysis on mixed studies. In sum, this study concludes with practical and in-depth suggestions on how to improve validity of mixed research and qualitative research in the field of mathematic of education.

본 연구는 수학교육에서 혼합 연구방법(양적 연구방법과 질적 연구방법을 혼합한)을 활용한 연구에서 질적 연구 방법이 어떻게 적용되고 있는지를 분석하고, 질적 접근의 적용이 연구 목적 성취에 기여할 수 있는 시사점을 탐색하고 논의하고자 한다. 이러한 연구 목적을 달성하기 위하여, 본 연구에서는 한국수학교육학회의 초등수학교육 학회지에 2012년 게재된 전체 16편의 논문 중, 혼합 연구법을 활용한 논문 5편을 분석 대상으로 선정하였다. 비교 항목별 분석 결과를 양화된 수치로 간략하게 제시하던 기존의 혼합 연구물에 대한 분석 연구와는 달리, 본 연구는 질적 연구자의 관점에서, 자료 수집 및 자료 분석 방법, 연구 참여자 및 샘플링 선정 등을 중심으로 심도 있게 분석하여 그 결과와 시사점을 질적으로 제시하고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 권경인.양정연 (2014). 상담 분야 혼합연구 동향분석. 교육연구논총 35(1), 103-124.(Kwon, K. & Yang, J. (2014). Trends in mixed methods research in counseling. CNU Journal of Educational Studies 35(1), 103-124.)
  2. 김동중.배성철.김원.이다희.최상호 (2014). 수학교육연구 및 혼합 연구방법 동향: 최근 10년간 발표된 국내 학술지 논문을 중심으로. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 E <수학교육 논문집> 28(3), 303-320.(Kim, D., Bae, S., Kim, S., Lee, S., & Choi, S. (2014). Trends of mathematics education research and mixed methods - Focusing on domestic mathematics Education Journals for the last 10 years. Communications of Mathematical Education 28(3), 303-320.)
  3. 나장함 (2006). 질적 연구의 다양한 타당성에 대한 비교 분석 연구. 교육평가연구 19(1), 265-283.(Na, J. (2006). A comparison analysis of validity issues in qualitative research. Journal of Education Evaluation 19(1), 265-283.)
  4. 박상완 (2014). 현직교사교육 연구 동향 분석: 특징과 과제. 한국교원교육연구 31(2), 227-254.(Park, S. (2014). A study on the research trends of in-service teacher education in Korea: Implications and tasks. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education 31(2), 227-254.)
  5. 박선형 (2010). 교육행정학의 혼합방법연구 활성화를 위한 예비적 논의. 교육행정학연구 28(2), 27-54.(Park, S. (2010). Exploring theoretical issues of the development of mixed methods research in educational adminstration. The Journal of Educational Administration 28(2), 27-54.)
  6. 성용구 (2013). 혼합연구 설계의 타당성을 높이기 위한 단계별 전략. 열린교육연구 21(3), 129-151.(Sung, Y. (2013). The strategies for raising the validity of mixed method research design. The Journal of Yeolin Education 21(3), 129-151.)
  7. 이원석 (2011). 혼합 연구방법에서의 패러다임(paradigm)의 혼합. 교육문제연구 39, 195-211.(Lee, W. (2011). Mixing paradigms in mixed methods. The Journal of Research in Education 39, 195-211.)
  8. Depaepe, F., De Corte, E. & Verschaffel, L. (2010). Teacher's approaches towards word problem solving: Elaborating or restricting the problem context. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(2), 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.016
  9. Maxwell, J. (1992) Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review 62, 279-300. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826
  10. Milles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  11. Mousoulides, N. G., Christou, C., & Sriraman, B. (2008). A modeling perspective on the teaching and learning of mathematical problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 10(3), 293-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802218132
  12. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analysis. Quality and Quantity 41, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-1098-1
  13. Palm, T. (2007). Impact of authenticity on sense making in word problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics 67(1), 37-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9083-3
  14. Patton, M. G. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  15. Patton, M. G. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  16. Shapiro, E. (1973). Educational evaluation: Rethinking the criteria of competence. School Review 81, 523-549. https://doi.org/10.1086/443101
  17. Verschaffel, L. ; Greer, B. & De Corte, E. (2002). Everyday knowledge and mathematical modeling of school word problems. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tools use in mathematics education (pp. 257-276). Dordrecht, Netherlands; Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cited by

  1. 초등수학교육에 적용된 혼합연구법의 특성 및 시사점에 대한 연구 vol.20, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2017.20.2.177