Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Teaching Behavior Elements and Analysis of Instructional Types Generated in Elementary Science Teacher's Classroom

초등 과학 교사들의 수업에서 나타나는 교수 행동 요소와 수업 유형 분석

  • Published : 2004.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the elements of teaching behavior and classify instructional types through the teacher's classroom observation in elementary school science classrooms. 18 elementary school teachers were selected at Seoul city and Kyungkido. The topic of lesson was 'How the weight of object is changed according to the shape to sink in the water'. Each class was recorded and analyzed that. The teaching behavior elements were used inductional analysis method. The instruction types were classified into instructional organization, teaching strategies in teaching-learning processes, the level of openness of inquiry at science classroom. The validity and reliability of the data were analyzed by 7 science educators. The results of the analysis of the teachers discourse showed that there are 23 types of teaching behavior elements. Used teaching behavior elements revealed the differences from each teacher. There were 7 types among the 12 types of class and the most common types of instruction were unsystematic, teacher-centered, and guided-inquiry. The result showed that guided inquiry type was found more than open inquiry type and teacher-centered instructional, content-centered instructional, superficial inquiry process showed characteristic.

이 연구는 초등 과학 수업에서 나타나는 교사들의 교수 행동 요소를 탐색하고, 그들의 수업 유형을 분류하는데 목적이 있다. 서울과 경기도에 근무하는 초등학교 교사 18명을 선정하여, 6학년 2학기 1단원 2차시"물 속에 잠긴 모양에 따라 물체의 무게가 어떻게 달라지는지 알아보기" 수업을 녹화하였다. 녹화한 수업 비디오는 전사하여 분석 자료로 삼았다. 교수 행동 요소는 귀납적 분석 방법을 사용하여 약호화 체계를 개발하였다. 수업 유형은 전체적인 수업의 조직, 교수학습 과정에서의 교수 방법, 학생들에게 주어진 탐구의 구조와 조직에 따른 개방성을 기준으로 분류하였다. 자료 분석의 타당도와 신뢰도를 확보하기 위하여, 본 연구자 및 과학교육전문가 3명과 과학교육 박사과정 3명이 수업에서 나타난 교수 행동 요소와 수업 유형을 분석하였다. 연구 결과 교사들의 과학 탐구 수업에서 나타나는 교수 행동 요소는 모두 23가지였으며, 각 교사들에게서 관찰된 교수 행동 요소와 제시되는 순서는 많은 차이가 있었다. 수업 유형은 모두 7가지가 발견되었으며, 가장 많이 발견된 유형은 비조직적 교사 중심의 안내된 탐구(UTG)였다. 학생들의 탐구적 사고를 요구하는 교수 행동 요소보다는 교사의 안내된 탐구 수행과 이와 관련된 교수 행동 요소가 많았으며 교사 중심의 수업, 내용 중심의 수업 전개, 형식적인 탐구 과정 거치기라는 특징이 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육부(1997). 교육부 고시 제 1997-15호
  2. 교육인척자원부(2001). 초등학교 교사용 지도서. 과학 4-2. 대한교과서주식회사
  3. 권재술(1994). 학교 과학교육의 과제와 과학교육 연구의 방향. 한국과학교육학회지. 14(1), 103-108
  4. 박성혜(2000). 초등학교 교사들의 과학 교수 방법에 영향을 미치는 과학에 대한 학문적 배경，과학 교수에 대한 태도, 과학 교수 효능에 대한 신념의 상호 관계성 조사(I) - 양적 연구를 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(4), 542-561
  5. AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science).(1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press
  6. Abrams, E.(1998). Talking and doing science: Important elements in a teaching-for-understanding approach. In Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press
  7. Appleton, K.(1995). Problem solving in science lessons-how students explore the problem space. Research in Science Education, 25, 383-393 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357384
  8. Huber, R. A., & Moore, C. J.(2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science and Mathematics, 101(1), 32-42 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18187.x
  9. Kelly, J.(2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: a case for content, pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 755-777 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044080
  10. Lee, K. W. L., Tan, L. L., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Chin, C.(2000). Science teachers and problem solving in elementary schools in Singapore. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(1), 113-126 https://doi.org/10.1080/713694953
  11. Lin, H. S.(1995). The development of beginning chemistry teachers' teaching techniques. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA
  12. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajicik, J. S., & Soloway, E.(1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341-358 https://doi.org/10.1086/461870
  13. Michelsohn, A. M., & Hawkins, S.(1994). Current practice in science education of prospective elementary school teachers. In S. Raizen & A. Michelsohn (Eds) The Future of Science in Elementary Schools: Educating Prospective Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  14. Newton, P., Driver, R, & Osborne, F.(1999). The place of argumentation. in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  15. NRC(National Research Council),(1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press
  16. Ramsey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staves, J. R (1996). A quality study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80, 283-315 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199606)80:3<283::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-A
  17. Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M,(1994). Mathematization of experience in a grade 8 open-inquiry environment: An introduction to the representational practices of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 293-318 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310308
  18. Sapiro, B. L.(1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: Learning about 'the face of science that does not yet know'. Science Education, 80(5), 535-560 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5<535::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-C
  19. Slater, T. F., Carpenter, J. R., & Safko, J. L.(1996). Dynamics of a constructivist astronomy course for in-service teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education, 44, 523-528 https://doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-44.5.523
  20. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J.(1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, 2nd ed., 312
  21. Tafoya, E., Sunal, D., & Knecht, P.(1980). Assessing inquiry potential: A tool for curriculum design makers. School Science and Mathematics. 80, 43-48 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1980.tb09559.x