Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Teaching Types and Obstacles of Chemistry Teachers through Teacher Educational Programs for Responsive Teaching

반응적 교수를 위한 교사교육 프로그램을 통한 화학교사의 교수 유형 및 장애 요인 분석

  • 김정수 (부평여자고등학교) ;
  • 백성혜 (한국교원대학교 화학교육과)
  • Received : 2021.01.22
  • Accepted : 2021.05.24
  • Published : 2021.08.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to subdivide responsive teaching types proposed in the previous study in order to observe the change in the responsive teaching types in teacher educational programs, and to identify factors that impede changes in responsive teaching types. To this end, an educational program including introduction of responsive teaching, case analysis of responsive teaching, individual assignments and group discussions on facilitator type educational scenarios is provided for chemistry teachers who participated in a chemistry education course established in a graduate school of education. Based on previous research, when the teacher's teaching method was analyzed as evaluator, transfer, guide and facilitatore, a type that could not be classified was observed. In this study, responsive teaching types were added by adding two types: explorer and interpreter. In addition, through individual assignments and group discussion data, we could observe the factors that hinder teachers' responsive teaching changes. The obstacles that impede the change to responsive teaching were classified into teacher factors, student factors, and environmental factors. Among the obstacles, teacher factors include a belief in teacher-led instruction, a belief in the role of a teacher as a transfer of knowledge, a belief that the curriculum should be followed, a lack of understanding of the teacher about students, and a lack of the teacher's ability to lead student-led expansion. The student factor was distrust of the student's competence. Also, as an environmental factor, there was an educational environment such as multi-students class. Effective teacher education on responsive teaching can be achieved only when the perception related to these obstacles can be removed.

이 연구의 목적은 화학교사들의 반응적 교수 유형의 변화를 관찰하기 위하여 선행연구에서 제안한 반응적 교수 유형을 세분화하고, 반응적 교수 유형의 변화에 장애를 주는 요인을 알아보는 것이다. 이를 위하여 교육대학원 과정으로 개설한 화학교육 강좌에 참여한 화학교사들을 대상으로 반응적 교수법에 대한 소개, 반응적 교수법 사례 분석, 촉진자 유형의 교육시나리오에 대한 개별 과제 및 조별 토론 등이 포함된 교육프로그램을 제공하였다. 선행연구를 바탕으로 교사의 교수법은 변별자 유형, 전달자 유형, 안내자 유형, 촉진자 유형으로 분석하였을 때, 분류가 안되는 유형이 관찰되었으므로, 이 연구에서는 탐색자 유형과 해석자 유형 등 2가지 유형을 추가하여 화학교사들의 반응적 교수 유형을 세분화하였다. 또한 개별 과제 및 조별 토론 자료를 통해 교사들의 반응적 교수법 변화에 장애를 주는 요인을 관찰할 수 있었다. 연구에서 찾아낸 장애 요인으로는 교사 요인, 학생 요인, 환경 요인 등이 있었다. 장애 요인 중 교사 요인으로는 교사 주도 수업에 대한 신념, 지식 전달자로서 교사의 역할에 대한 신념, 교육과정에 따라야 한다는 신념, 학생에 대한 교사의 이해 부족, 학생 주도 확장을 이끄는 교사의 역량 부족 등이 나타났다. 학생 요인으로는 학생의 역량에 대한 불신이 있었다. 또한 환경 요인으로는 다인수 학급과 같은 교육 환경이 있었다. 이러한 장애 요인을 제거하기 위한 노력이 함께 이루어질 때 반응적 교수법에 대한 효과적인 교사교육이 이루어질 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2019S1A5C2A04081191/NRF-2019R1A2B5B01069840).

References

  1. Cho, M.; Paik, S.-H. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2020, 40, 177. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.2.177
  2. Jo, N.-Y.; Paik, S.-H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2020, 64, 304. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2020.64.5.304
  3. Maskiewicz, A. C.; Winters, V. A. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2012, 49, 429. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21007
  4. Kavanagh, S. S.; Metz, M.; Hauser, M.; Fogo, B.; Taylor, M.; Carlson, J. Journal of Teacher Education; Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022 487119841884.
  5. Hammer, D. Cognition and Instruction 1997, 15, 485. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1504_2
  6. Pierson, J. L. The Relationship Between Patterns of Classroom Discourse and Mathematics Learning; The University of Texas at Austin: 2008.
  7. Levin, D. M.; Grant, T.; Hammer, D. The American Biology Teacher 2012, 74, 158. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2012.74.3.6
  8. Levin, D. M.; Hammer, D.; Coffey, J. E. Journal of Teacher Education 2009, 60, 142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
  9. Kang, H.; Anderson, C. W. Science Education 2015, 99, 863. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
  10. Lineback, J. E. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2015, 24, 419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.930707
  11. Robertson, A. D.; Atkins, L. J.; Levin, D. M.; Richards, J. What is Responsive Teaching? 2016; New York, Routledge. pp 1-35.
  12. Colley, C.; Windschitl, M. Science Education. 2016, 100, 1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21243
  13. Oh, J.; Oh, P. S. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education 2017, 36, 227. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2017.36.3.227
  14. Ha, H.; Kim, H. B. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education 2017, 37, 63. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.1.0063
  15. Ha, H.; Lee, Y.; Kim, H. B. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2018, 38, 11. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.1.11
  16. Park, J.; Kim, H. B. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2018, 38, 69. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.1.69
  17. Kim, B.; Kim, H. B. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2019, 39, 739. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.6.739
  18. Hammer, D.; Goldberg, F.; Fargason, S. Review of Science Mathematics and ICT Education 2012, 6, 51.
  19. Empson, S. B.; Jacobs, V. R. Learning to Listen to Chil- dren's Mathematics. In Tirosh, D.; Wood, T. Eds.; Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education, Volume 2, pp 257-281. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. 2008.
  20. Brodie, K. Teaching and Teacher Education 2011, 27, 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.014
  21. Duschl, R. A.; Osborne, J. Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education 2002, 38, 40.
  22. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P.; Rodriguez, A. B.; Duschl, R. A. Science Education 2000, 84, 757. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  23. Ministry of Education. The National Curriculum for the Primary and Secondary Schools, 2015 revision 2015.
  24. Kim, H.; Han, C.; Bae, M. S.; Kwon, O. N. J. Korean Soc. Math. Ed. Ser. A: The Mathematical Education 2017, 56, 341.
  25. Choi, K.; Park, J.-Y.; Choi, B.-S.; Nam, J.; Choi, K. S.; Lee, K.-S. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2004, 24, 1039.
  26. Nam, J.; Lee, S. D.; Lim, J.-H.; Moon, S. B. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 2010, 30, 953. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2010.30.8.953
  27. Oh, P. S.; Ahn, Y. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society 2015, 36, 390. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2015.36.4.390
  28. Song, H.-Y.; Kim, Y. Biology Education. 2016, 44, 13. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2016.44.1.13
  29. Gonzalez-Howard, M.; McNeill, K. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2019, 56, 821. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530
  30. Wendell, K.; Swenson, J.; Dalvi, T. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2019, 56, 956. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21541
  31. Sherin, M. G.; Star, J. R. Reflections on the Study of Teacher Noticing. In Sherin, M. G.; Jacobs, V. R.; Philipp, R. Eds.; Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes. 2011, 66.
  32. Santagata, R.; Zannoni, C.; Stigler, J. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 2007, 10, 123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9
  33. Sherin, M. G.; Han, S. Y. Teaching and Teacher Education 2004, 20, 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.08.001
  34. van Es, E. A.; Sherin, M. G. Teaching and Teacher Education 2008, 24, 244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005
  35. Jo, N.-Y.; Kim, E.; Paik, S.-H. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society 2019, 63, 123. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2019.63.2.123
  36. McDonald, M.; Kazemi, E.; Kavanagh, S. S.; Journal of Teacher Education 2013, 64, 378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113493807
  37. Monte-Sano, C.; Budano, C. Journal of The Learning Sciences 2013, 22, 171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.742016
  38. Noh, T.; Kim, Y.; Yang, C.; Kang, H. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education 2011, 31, 1214. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.8.1214
  39. Park, S.; Oliver, J. Research in Science Education 2008, 38, 261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6