Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Exploration of relations between middle school science teachers' perception of students' learning styles and their teaching styles

중학생의 학습양식에 대한 과학 교사들의 인식과 교수양식과의 연관성 탐색

  • Published : 2009.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate relations between middle school science teachers' perception of students' learning styles and their teaching style. Data were collected by in-depth individual interviews with 20 experienced science teachers (14 years of teaching experience in average). Results indicated four categories of the relations: i.e. teachers implemented their teaching style (1) matching students' learning styles, (2) supplementing students' insufficient learning styles, (3) teacher-centered, but matching the diverse students' learning styles, and (4) based on their values and convictions. In general, teaching styles of the teachers did not match with their perceptions of students' learning styles. Instead, their teaching styles seemed to be more affected by their personal values and convictions.

학생들의 능력이나 적성 등을 고려하여 교육 방법을 다양화하기 위해서는 학생들이 학습 시에 나타나는 차이점이 무엇인지를 살펴보고 이에 적합한 교수 학습 방법이 무엇인지 탐색해 볼 필요가 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 과학 학습에서 나타나는 중학생들의 학습양식 유형에 대한 과학교사들의 인식을 살펴보고, 이러한 인식이 그들의 교수양식과 어떤 연관성이 있는지를 살펴보았다. 자료는 20명의 경력 교사들과의 개별면담으로 수집되었다. 연구결과, 학습양식에 대한 인식과 교수양식과의 연관성에 있어 크게 네 가지 유형을 보였다. 첫째, 학생들의 학습양식에 맞는 교수양식을 제공하는 유형, 둘째, 학생들의 부족한 학습양식을 채우거나 보충할 수 있는 형태의 교수 양식을 제공하는 유형, 셋째, 다양한 교수양식을 제공 하는 유형, 넷째, 교사의 신념에 따른 자신 있는 교수 양식을 학생들에게 제공하는 유형이었다. 본 연구에 참여한 대부분의 교사들은 자신이 가르치는 학생들의 다양한 학습양식에 대해 인식하고 있는 것과 달리, 학생들의 학습양식에 맞춘 교수양식을 제공하지 않는 것으로 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Charkins, R. J., O'Toole, D. M., & Wetzel, J. N.(1985). Linking teacher and student learning styles with student achievement and attitudes. The Journal of Economic Education, 16(2), 111-120 https://doi.org/10.2307/1182513
  2. Charmaz, K.(2000). Grounded theory : Objectivist and constructivist methods. In Handbook of qualitative research 2nd edition (pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
  3. Clandinin, D. J.(1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers' classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4), 361-385 https://doi.org/10.2307/1179683
  4. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M.(2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass
  5. Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J.(1990). Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019005002
  6. Domino, G.(1971). Interactive effects of achievement orientation and teaching style on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 427-431 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031628
  7. Dunn, R., Griggs, C. A., Olson, J. Beasley, M. & Gorman, B. S.(1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941181
  8. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K.(1975). Learning styles, teaching styles. NASSP Bulletin, 59(393), 37-49 https://doi.org/10.1177/019263657505939308
  9. Elbaz, F.(1981). The teacher's practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 43-71 https://doi.org/10.2307/1179510
  10. Elbaz, F.(1983). Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge, London: Croom Helm
  11. Ellis, S. S.(1979). Models of teaching: A solution to the teaching style/learning style dilemma. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 274-277
  12. Felder, R. M.(1993). Reaching the second tier. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290
  13. Felder, R. M. & Silverman, L. K.(1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681
  14. Fischer, B. B. & Fischer, L.(1979). Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 245-254
  15. Grasha, A. F.(1994). A Matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching, 42(4), 142-149 https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1994.9926845
  16. Hartley, J.(2002). 학습과 공부 : 연구 조망 (박희경 역), 서울: 시그마프레스 (원서출판 : 1998)
  17. James, N. E.(1962). Personal preference for method as a factor in learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 43-47 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047525
  18. Joyce, B. R. & Hodges, R. E.(1966). Instructional flexibility training. Journal of Teacher Education, 17(4), 409 https://doi.org/10.1177/002248716601700402
  19. Kagan, J.(1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 36(3), 609-628 https://doi.org/10.2307/1126908
  20. Keefe, J. W.(1987). Learning style theory and practice. Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 286 873).
  21. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G.(1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications
  22. Pizzo, J., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K.(1990). A sound approach to improving reading: Responding to students' learning styles. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 6(3), 249 - 260 https://doi.org/10.1080/0748763900060304
  23. Smith, L. H. & Renzulli, J. S.(1984). Learning style preferences: A practical approach for classroom teachers. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 44 https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848409543088
  24. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M.(2001). 근거이론의 단계 (신경림 역). 서울: 현문사 (원서출판: 1998)
  25. Thelen, H. A.(1959). Classroom grouping of students. The School Review, 67(1), 60-78 https://doi.org/10.1086/442476
  26. Witz, K. G.(2006). The participant as ally and essentialist portraiture. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 246 268 https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284365
  27. Witz, K. G.(2007). 'Awakening to' an aspect in the other: On developing insights and concepts in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(2), 235 258 https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406295634