한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제42권2호
  • /
  • Pages.227-238
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

한 초등 과학 교사의 정서적 반응적 교수의 실천 사례 연구

A Case Study of an Elementary Science Teacher's Emotionally Responsive Teaching

  • 투고 : 2022.01.07
  • 심사 : 2022.03.10
  • 발행 : 2022.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

과학 교사의 주요한 역할 중 하나는 학생들이 과학 수업의 주체로서 활발하게 참여할 수 있도록 돕는 것이다. 이와 관련하여 본 연구에서는 한 초등학교 과학 전담 교사가 어떻게 학생들의 정서적 자원을 활용하여 정서적 반응적 교수를 수행하였고 그 결과는 무엇이었는지 기술하였다. 연구의 참여자는 교사 자신과 그가 가르치고 있는 6학년 학생들이었으며, '다양한 생물과 우리 생활' 단원의 수업에 교사의 정서적 반응적 교수가 적용되었다. 교사의 개인 일지, 수업 녹화본, 학생들과의 면담을 포함한 다양한 종류의 자료를 수집하였으며, 이들을 질적인 방법으로 분석하고, 셀프 스터디의 방식으로 연구 결과를 기술하였다. 교사는 학생들의 세 가지 정서적 자원(캐릭터 그리기, 티셔츠 디자인, 랩)을 활용하여 정서적 반응적 교수를 수행하였다. 교사의 정서적 반응적 교수는 학생들의 긍정적인 정서 및 활발한 수업 참여, 지식의 탐색과 정당화를 포함하는 인식적 실천, 일상생활의 맥락을 고려한 지식의 재구성이라는 효과를 가져왔다. 이에 따라 정서적 반응적 교수가 초등학생들의 과학 수업 참여를 촉진하면서 정서적, 인식적, 개념적 측면에서 유의미한 학습 결과를 가져올 수 있음을 논의하였다. 따라서 정서적 반응적 교수의 특징과 세부 교수 전략들을 이해하기 위한 후속 연구가 수행되어야 할 것이다.

One of the main roles of the science teacher is to help students become active agents in their learning of science. This study described how an elementary science teacher used students' emotional resources to conduct emotionally responsive teaching and what were the learning outcomes of this approach. The participants of the study included the teacher himself and his 6th grade students, and emotionally responsive teaching was applied in the science unit of 'Various Living Things and Our Human Lives'. Multiple types of data, including the teacher's teaching logs, video recordings of the lessons in the unit, and interviews with the students, were collected. The data were analyzed qualitatively, and the results were described using a self-study method. The teacher took advantage of three kinds of students' emotional resources (i.e., character drawing, t-shirt design, and raps) to organize his emotionally responsive teaching. The learning outcome included the students' positive emotions and active participation in science lessons, their epistemic practices such as explorations and justifications of knowledge, and the students' reconstruction of knowledge in consideration of their everyday lives. It was suggested that emotionally responsive teaching can promote elementary school students' active participation in science learning, resulting in meaningful learning outcomes in emotional, cognitive, and conceptual aspects. Further studies should thus be conducted to understand the characteristics of emotionally responsive teaching and its detailed teaching strategies.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Adjapong, E. S. (2017). Bridging theory and practice: Using hip-hop pedagogy as a culturally relevant approach in the urban science classroom. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, NY.
  2. Adjapong, E. S., & Emdin, C. (2015). Rethinking pedagogy in urban spaces: Implementing hip-hop pedagogy in the urban science classroom. Journal of Urban Learning Teaching and Research, 11, 66-77.
  3. Arghode, V., Yalvac, B., & Liew, J. (2013). Teacher empathy and science education: A collective case study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 89-99.
  4. Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50-73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269
  5. Bellocchi, A., Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., King, D., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2014). Emotional climate and high quality learning experiences in science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1301-1325. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21170
  6. Berland, L. K., Russ, R. S., & West, C. P. (2020). Supporting the scientific practices through epistemologically responsive science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(3), 264-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2019.1692507
  7. Childers, G., Governor, D., Osmond, D., & Britton, S. (2021). Science Cafes: Exploring adults' motivation to learn science in a community space. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09982-2
  8. Cho, M. H., & Paik, S.-H. (2020). Analysis of pre-service science teachers' responsive teaching types and barriers of practice. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(2), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.2.177
  9. Choi, J., Jo, K., Joung, Y. J., & Kim, H. (2017). Exploration, conflicts, challenges, and changes: A teacher educator's self-study for secondary physics instruction course. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(5), 739-756. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.5.0739
  10. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20440
  11. 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
  12. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. CA, US: Sage publications.
  13. Davidson, S. G., Jaber L. Z., & Southerland, S. A. (2020). Emotions in the doing of science: Exploring epistemic affect in elementary teachers' science research experiences. Science Education, 104(6), 1008-1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21596
  14. Deborah, D.-K., Eleonora, V.-R., & James, C. M. (2019). Integrating social-emotional learning and culturally responsive teaching in teacher education programs: The Massachusetts experiences so far. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4), 150-168.
  15. Den Boer, A. R. (2019). Using critical literacy and emotionally responsive teaching to discuss racism in a literature circle unit. Master's thesis, University of Northern Iowa, Ceder Falls, Iowa, US.
  16. Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  17. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
  18. Forman, E. A., & Ford, M. J. (2014). Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in science. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.009
  19. Furberg, A., & Silseth, K. (2021). Invoking student resources in whole-class conversations in science education: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1954521
  20. Gupta, A., Elby, A., & Danielak, B. A. (2018). Exploring the entanglement of personal epistemologies and emotions in students' thinking. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14, 010129. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.14.010129
  21. 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
  22. Ha, H., Lee., Y., & Kim, H.- B. (2019). 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
  23. Hagenah, S. (2021). Laughing and learning together: Intersections of socioemotional activity with science talk. Science Education International, 32(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i1.2
  24. 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.
  25. Han, M. H. (2019). Facilitating participation: A science subject teacher's practical knowledge for helping students' construction of positive emotion. Journal of the Korean Elementary Science Education, 38(2), 244-262. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2019.38.2.244
  26. Han, M. H. (2020). Epistemic empathy of a teacher and emotional regulation of elementary students during human respiratory system modeling. Biology Education, 48(3), 368-380. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2020.48.3.368
  27. Han, M. H., & Gutierez, S. B. (2021). Passive elementary student's constructed epistemic emotions and patterns of participation during small group scientific modeling. Science Education, 105(5), 908-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21665
  28. Han, M. H., & Kim, H.- B. (2018). An introverted elementary student's construction of epistemic affect during modeling participation patterns. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(2), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.2.171
  29. Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21202
  30. Jo, K., Kim, H., Choi, J., & Joung, Y. J. (2016). Exploration on the features and possibility of self-study in science education research: Based on the theoretical background and previous researches. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 36(3), 457-470. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.3.0457
  31. Kapon, S., Laherto, A., & Levrini, O. (2018). Disciplinary authenticity and personal relevance in school science. Science Education, 102(5), 1077-1106. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21458
  32. Kim, B., & Kim, H.- B. (2020). Exploring characteristics and limitations of a novice teacher's responsive teaching practice in small group scientific argumentation: Focus on framing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(6), 739-753. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.6.739
  33. Kim, J. S., & Paik, S.- H. (2021). Analysis of teaching types and obstacles of chemistry teachers through teacher educational programs for responsive teaching. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 65(4), 268-278. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2021.65.4.268
  34. King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2015). Emotionally intense science activities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1886-1914. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1055850
  35. King, D., Ritchie, S. M., Sandhu, M., Henderson, S., & Borand, B. (2017). Temporality of Emotion: Antecedent and successive variants of frustration when learning chemistry. Science Education, 101(4), 639-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21277
  36. Korean Science Education Standards for the Next Generation(KSES). (2019). Scientific literacy for all Koreans: Korean science education standards for the next generations. Seoul: KOFAC.
  37. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817-869). Dordrecht: Springer.
  38. Loughran, J. J. (2007). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7-39). Dordrecht: Springer.
  39. Manz, E. (2015). Resistance and the development of scientific practice: Designing the mangle into science instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 33(2), 89-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.1000490
  40. Naughton, G. M., & Hughes, P. (2008). Doing Action Research in Early Childhood Studies: A Step by Step Guide. NY: Open University Press.
  41. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press.
  42. Oh, J., & Oh, P. S. (2017). An exploration of the possibility of implementing 'Responsive teaching' (RT) in elementary science classrooms. Journal of the Korean Elementary Science Education, 36(3), 227-245. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2017.36.3.227
  43. Radoff, J., Robertson, A. D., Fargason, S., & Goldberg, F. (2018). Responsive teaching and high-stakes testing: Does deviating from the curriculum to pursue students' ideas mean they will perform poorly? Science and Children, 55(9), 88-91.
  44. 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.
  45. Robertson, A. D., & Elliott, L. J. A. (2020). Truth, success, and faith: Novice teachers' perceptions of what's at risk in responsive teaching in science. Science Education, 104(4), 736-761. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21568
  46. Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (Eds.) (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. New York, NY: Routledge.
  47. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571-1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21267
  48. Russ, R. S., & Berland, L. K. (2019). Invented science: A framework for discussing a persistent problem of practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(3), 279-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1517354
  49. Russ, R. S., Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., & Hutchison, P. (2009). Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking. Science Education, 93(5), 875-891. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20320
  50. Schwarz, C. V., Braaten, M., Haverly, C., & de los Santos, E. X. (2021). Using sense-making moments to understand how elementary teachers' interactions expand, maintain, or shut down sense-making in science. Cognition and Instruction, 39(2), 113-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1763349
  51. Schwarz, C. V., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B. J. (2017). Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices. Arlington, VA, U.S.: NSTA Press.
  52. Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
  53. Stroupe, D. (2016). Beginning teachers' use of resources to enact and learn from ambitious instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 34(1), 51-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2015.1129337
  54. Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Braaten, M., Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118, 1-58.
  55. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1017
  56. Williams, W. S., & Koplow, L. (2018). Becoming strong enough to hold their stories: Emotionally responsive educator preparation. The New Educator, 14(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688x.2017.1412002