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 Pre-service Science Teachers' Responsive Teaching Types and Barriers of Practice

예비과학교사들의 반응적 교수 유형 및 실행의 제약점 분석

  • Received : 2020.02.26
  • Accepted : 2020.04.08
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we implemented an education program to improve the responsive teaching ability of pre-service science teachers, and analyzed the responsive teaching practices revealed during the program process. Through this, we derived the types and characteristics of responsive teaching practice, identified factors that made it difficult for pre-service teachers to practice, and obtained empirical data on under what conditions the responsive teaching capacity of pre-service teachers was developed. For this purpose, a practice-based teacher education program was designed and carried out for 14 pre-service teachers who had no experience in responsive teaching. The program consists of four steps; observation of class, practice through rehearsal, application in practicum, and post-reflection on educational practice. In particular, qualitative analysis was conducted on the types of responsive teaching and their detrimental factors revealed during application in practicum. As a result of the analysis, four types were derived; discriminator type, communicator type, guide type, and facilitator type. Each type was identified as having a common responsive teaching step element. The education program implemented in this study was effective for pre-service teachers to recognize the importance of student-participation class and the educational effect of responsive teaching. However, three barriers that prevented pre-service teachers from responsive teaching practice were also analyzed. First was the pressure to achieve specific learning goals within a given class time. Second was the rigid belief of the fixed curriculum. Third was the obsession that the teacher should lead the class. Based on these results, it was suggested that in order to improve the responsive teaching ability of pre-service teachers, it is necessary to support the recognition of breaking out of the thinking the time constraint, the flexibility of the curriculum, and the role of teacher as a class supporter.

본 연구에서는 예비과학교사들의 반응적 교수 역량을 향상시키기 위한 교육프로그램을 실행하고 프로그램 과정 중에 드러난 반응적 교수 실행을 분석하였다. 이를 통해 반응적 교수 실행의 유형과 유형별 특징을 도출하고, 예비과학교사들이 반응적 교수를 실행을 어렵게 만드는 요인을 확인하여 예비교사들의 반응적 교수 역량이 어떠한 조건 하에서 개발되는지에 대한 경험적 데이터를 얻고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 반응적 교수법에 대한 경험이 없는 14명의 예비과학교사들을 대상으로 실천기반 교사교육 프로그램을 설계하여 운영하였다. 프로그램은 수업관찰을 통한 의미구성, 리허설을 통한 연습, 교육실습에서 적용, 교육실습 사후성찰로 이루어졌으며, 특히 교육실습에서의 적용 단계에서 드러난 예비과학교사들의 반응적 교수 유형과 실행의 저해요인에 대해 질적 분석을 하였다. 분석 결과, 변별자 유형, 전달자 유형, 안내자 유형 및 촉진자 유형 등 4가지 유형이 도출되었고 각 유형은 공통적인 반응적 교수 단계 요소를 가지고 있는 것으로 확인되었다. 본 연구에서 실행된 교사교육 프로그램이 예비과학교사들이 학생 참여형 수업의 중요성과 반응적 교수의 교육적 효과를 인식하는 데는 효과가 있었으나, 예비과학 교사들의 반응적 교수 실행의 걸림돌이 되는 3가지 저해요인도 분석되었다. 첫째는 주어진 수업 시간 내에 정해진 학습 목표를 달성해야 한다는 압박이고, 둘째는 교육과정에 대한 경직성이며, 셋째는 교사가 수업을 이끌어가야 한다는 강박감이었다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 예비교사들의 반응적 교수 역량을 향상시켜 주기 위하여 시간제약에 대한 사고의 탈피, 교육과정에 대한 유연성, 수업지원자로서 교사역할 인식을 가질 수 있도록 지원할 필요가 있음을 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bain, R. B. (2006). Rounding up unusual suspects: Facing the authority hidden in the history classroom. Teachers College Record, 108(10), 2080-2114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00775.x
  2. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373-397. https://doi.org/10.1086/461730
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
  4. Choi, K., Park, J. Y., Choi, B. S., Nam, J., Choi, K. S., & Lee, K. S. (2004). Analysis of verbal interaction between teachers and students in middle school science classroom. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 24(6), 1039-1048.
  5. Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor in elementary science students' discourse: The role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Science Education, 100(6), 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
  6. Empson, S. B., & Jacobs, V. R. (2008). Learning to listen to children's mathematics. In T. Wood (Series Ed.) & D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education : Volume 2, (pp. 257-281). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
  7. Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding "core practices" and "practice-based" teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533800
  8. Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2017). Exploring Responsive Teaching's Effect on Students' Epistemological Framing in Small Group Argumentation, Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 37(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0063
  9. Ha, H., Lee, Y., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring the Teachers' Responsive Teaching Practice and Epistemological Framing in Whole Class Discussion After Small Group Argumentation Activity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(1), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.11
  10. Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 485-529. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1504_2
  11. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F. & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
  12. Hammer, D. & Sikorski, T. R. (2015). Implications of complexity for research on learning progressions. Science Education, 99(3), 424-431. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21165
  13. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169-202. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.2.0169
  14. Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting Preservice Science Teachers' Ability to Attend and Respond to Student Thinking by Design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
  15. Kavanagh, S. S., Metz, M., Hauser, M., Fogo, B., Taylor, M., & Carlson, J. (2019). Practicing responsiveness: Using approximations of teaching to develop teachers' responsiveness to students' ideas. Journal of Teacher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022487119841884
  16. Kim, T. H. (2019). A Qualitative case study to Understand Learner-centered Social studies education: Focused on the Perception of Teacher at A middle and high school. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 19(8), 441-464. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2019.19.8.441
  17. Kwak, Y. (2002). Impacts and Tasks of Teacher Education Programs Revealed by Preservice Teachers: Students' Intact Beliefs. The Journal of The Korean Earth Science Society, 23(4), 309-323.
  18. Kwak, Y., & Shin, Y. (2019). Analysis of Enacted Curriculum through Classroom Observation of Integrated Science Teaching in 2015 Revised Curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 379-388. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.3.379
  19. Lee, J. (2017). An Analysis of Preservice Teachers' Lesson Plays: How Do Preservice Teachers Give Feedbacks to Students in an Imaginary Classroom Discourse?. School Mathematics, 19(1), 19-41.
  20. Lee, J. & So, K. (2017). Middle School Teachers' Understanding of "Student-Participatory Class". Journal of Educational Studies, 48(2), 141-165. https://doi.org/10.15854/jes.2017.06.48.2.141
  21. Levin, D. M., Grant, T., & Hammer, D. (2012). Attending and responding to student thinking in science. The American Biology Teacher, 74(3), 158-162. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2012.74.3.6
  22. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
  23. Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.930707
  24. Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the coconstruction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21007
  25. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 378-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113493807
  26. Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2015-74 [issue 9].
  27. Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254-278. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.254
  28. Nam, Y., Yi, H., Kim, H., & Jeong, J. H. (2019). Suggestions of Ways to Improve Teaching Practicum Based on the Experiences of Pre-Service Teachers. Journal of Educational Innovation Research, 29(1), 65-89. https://doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.29.1.201903.65
  29. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
  30. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1990). Student Engagement: When Recitation Becomes Conversation.
  31. Oh, J., & Oh, P. S. (2017). An exploration of the possibility of implementing 'responsive teaching' (RT) in elementary science classrooms. Elementary Science Education, 36(3), 227-245.
  32. Oh, P. S. (2015). A Theoretical Review and Trial Application of the 'Resources-Based View' (RBV) as an Alternative Cognitive Theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 971-984. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.0971
  33. Park, J., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Exploring Teachers' Responsive Teaching Practice in Argumentation-Based Science Classroom:Focus on Structural and Dialogical Aspects of Argument. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.69
  34. Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. The University of Texas at Austin.
  35. Richards, J., & Elby, A. (2014). Incorporating disciplinary practices into characterizations of progress in responsive teaching. Journal of Learning Sciences, 1-29.
  36. Richards, J., & Robertson, A. D. (2016). A review of the research on responsive teaching in science and mathematics. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics(pp.36-55). New York, NY, Routledge.
  37. Robertson, A. D., Atkins, L. J., Levin, D. M., & Richards, J. (2016). What is responsive teaching? In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics(pp.1-35). New York, NY: Routledge.
  38. Russ, R. S., & Luna, M. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21063
  39. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155
  40. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers' "learning to notice" in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005
  41. Yoon, H. G., Park, J., Song, Y., Kim, M., & Joung, Y. J. (2018). Analyzing Studies on Teacher Professional Vision: A Literature Review. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(6), 765-780. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.6.765

Cited by

  1. 반응적 교수를 위한 교사교육 프로그램을 통한 화학교사의 교수 유형 및 장애 요인 분석 vol.65, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2021.65.4.268