한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제24권1호
  • /
  • Pages.171-182
  • /
  • 2004
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지

Analysis of Preservice Elementary Teachers' Lesson Plans

  • 발행 : 2004.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The purpose of this study is to analyze lesson plans from third to sixth grades of science and to find out teaching strategies in respects of learning functions provided by preservice elementary teachers in education university. On the whole, to control students' learning process preservice teachers used more shared-regulation strategy than strong teacher-regulation one. Teaching activities for regulative learning function were most used in strategy of strong teacher-regulation, and in strategy of shared-regulation those for cognitive learning functions were most used. But teaching activities for affective learning functions were used a little considered in both teaching strategies. In introduction step of instruction, affective and regulative learning functions were more instructed by strong teacher-regulation strategy and cognitive learning functions were more instructed by shared-regulation strategy. The affective, cognitive, and regulative learning functions were largely planned by shared-regulation teaching strategy in development. The regulative learning functions were planned by strong teacher-regulation strategy than by shared-regulation strategy and affective learning functions were considered a little bit in consolidation. There was a tendency that strong teacherregulation strategy was increased in lessons for fifth and sixth grade.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023008004
  2. De Corte, E. (1995). Fostering cognitive growth: a perspective from research on mathematics learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 30, 37-46 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3001_4
  3. Dick, W. & Carey, L. M. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed). New York: Harper Collins
  4. Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds) (1993). Designing environments for constructive learning: New York: Springer Verlag
  5. Hodson, D. & Hodson, J. (1998). From Constructivism To Social Constructivism: A Vygotskian Perspective on Teaching and Learning Science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33-41
  6. Lee, G. (2002). A study on the effective use of lesson plans focus on the instructional systematic design. Educational Research (Educational Graduate School, Daejin University), 4(1), 1-18
  7. Lee, K., Lim, J. , Kim. J., & Jeong, H. (1979). A practical study on the improvement of instructional system in the student teaching centered on lesson plan format. Journal of Educational Research(College of Education, Kyunpook National University), 21, 1-33
  8. Marin, N., Benarroch, A., & Gomez, E. J. (2000). What Is the relationship between social constructivism and Piagetian Constructivism? An analysis of the characteristics of the Ideas within both theories. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 225-238 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289840
  9. Gangne, R. M. (1970). The condition of learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
  10. Glaser, R. (1991). The maturing of the relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learning and Instruction, 1, 129-144 https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(91)90023-2
  11. Paik, S., Kim, H., Che, W. Kwon, K., & Noh, T. (1999). Effects of concept change teaching model considering students' learning motivations. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 19(2), 305-314
  12. Pate, C. & Karen, P. (1991). Second Year Results of the TRIVET Program (Techniques of Responsive Intervention To Validate Effective Teaching): A School-University Partership in the appraisal of classroom. ED335319
  13. Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: future directions for research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29, 137-148 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2903_3
  14. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  15. Short, E. J. & Weisberg-Benchell, J. A. (1989). Self-concept and learning: the revised inventory of learning processes. Educational Psychology, 11, 343-362 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110310
  16. Shuell, T. J. (1993). Toward an integrated theory of teaching and learning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 291-311 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2804_1
  17. Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of Eucational Psychology (pp. 726-764). New York : Simon and Schuster Macmillan
  18. Thorley, N. R. & Stofflett, R. T. (1996). Representation of the conceptual change model in science teacher education, Science Education, 80(3), 317-339 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199606)80:3<317::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-H
  19. Vermunt, J. D. & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0
  20. Wagner, E. D. & McCombs, B. L. (1995). Learner- centered psychological principles in practice: designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35(3), 32-35
  21. White, B. Y. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2