한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제33권7호
  • /
  • Pages.1312-1328
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

중등 예비과학교사의 교육과정 설계에서 교육과정 자료의 활용 방식 분석

Analysis of Pre-service Secondary Science Teachers' Uses of Curriculum Materials in Curriculum Design

  • 투고 : 2013.09.15
  • 심사 : 2013.11.10
  • 발행 : 2013.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구에서는 사례연구를 통해 중등 예비과학교사의 교육과정 설계에서 교육과정 자료의 활용 방식을 조사하였다. 서울 소재 사범대학에 재학 중인 두 명의 예비과학교사가 연구에 참여하였다. 교수학습관에 대한 사전면담을 실시한 후, 교육실습 기간 동안 이루어진 각 예비교사의 수업을 관찰하였고, 모든 교수학습자료를 수집하였으며, 수업 실행 전후에 반구조화된 면담을 진행하였다. 예비교사들의 교육과정 자료의 활용 방식을 읽기, 평가, 응용의 측면에서 체계적으로 분석한 결과, 두 예비교사의 교육과정 설계에서 교육과정 자료의 활용 방식에 상당한 차이가 있었다. 교육과정 자료에 대한 읽기의 방식에 차이가 있었는데, 이는 두 예비교사의 교육과정 재구성에 대한 관점의 차이로부터 비롯되었다. 교육과정 재구성에 대한 관점의 차이는 교육과정 자료의 응용 방식에도 영향을 미쳐서 교육과정 재구성에 대해 적극적인 관점을 지닌 경우 '구성요소 추가'가, 소극적인 관점을 지닌 경우 '구성요소 변형'이 중요한 응용 방식이었다. 또한, 예비교사의 교수학습관에 따라 교육과정 자료를 평가하는 과정에서 학습자를 고려하는 수준에 차이가 있었다. 평가에서의 이러한 차이는 '교사중심활동의 증가'와 '학생중심활동의 증가' 응용에서의 질적인 차이로 연결되었다. 이에 대한 교육적 함의를 논의하였다.

In this study, we investigated preservice secondary science teachers' uses of curriculum materials in curriculum design through a case study. Two preservice science teachers at a college of education in Seoul participated in this study. We interviewed them about their beliefs on teaching and learning prior to their teaching students. We then observed their teaching and collected all of the teaching/learning materials. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted before and after the instructions. Their uses of curriculum materials were systematically analyzed in the aspects of reading, evaluating and adapting curriculum materials. The analyses of the results revealed that their uses of curriculum materials had a significant difference in curriculum design. There was a difference in the way of reading curriculum materials that derived from different perspectives of curriculum reconstruction. The perspectives of curriculum reconstruction also affected the way of adapting curriculum materials. While the 'adding' was an important adaptation in curriculum design with active perspectives, the 'changing' was an important one with passive perspectives. In addition, the degrees of evaluating curriculum materials from the learners' views depended on their beliefs on teaching and learning. It was also connected to qualitative differences of adaptation in 'increasing student control over an activity' and 'increasing teacher control over an activity'. Educational implications of these findings are discussed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 강현석, 방기용 (2012). 교육과정 재구성 저해 요인 분석을 위한 탐색. 수산해양교육연구, 24(1), 123-135.
  2. 권성기, 박승재 (1995). 교육대학생의 과학의 본성 개념과 구성주의 학습관의 연관성 및 변화 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 15(1), 104-115.
  3. 권종미, 정완호, 김영신 (2001). 과학과 교사용 지도서에 대한 교사의 인식과 개선 방향. 초등과학교육, 20(1), 75-90.
  4. 김경순, 윤지현, 박지애, 노태희 (2011). 중등 과학 예비교사들의 수업시연 계획 및 실행에서 나타난 교과교육학지식의 요소. 한국과학교육학회지, 31(1), 99-114.
  5. 김평국 (2005). 중등학교 교사들의 교과 내용 재구성 실태와 그 활성화 방향. 교육과정연구, 23(4), 91-130.
  6. 박기용, 배영직, 강이철 (2009). 교육실습에서 예비교사의 수업설계 과정에 관한 사례연구. 한국교원교육연구, 26(3), 169-197.
  7. 박성혜 (2008). 중등 교사양성과정의 교육실습에서 예비 교사들의 교과교육학지식 개발. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 8(1), 169-189.
  8. 박철용, 민희정, 백성혜 (2008). 교육실습을 통한 예비과학교사의 교수내용지식 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(6), 641-648.
  9. 서경혜 (2009). 교사들의 교육과정 재구성 실천 경험에 대한 사례연구. 교육과정연구, 27(3), 159-189.
  10. 손승희 (2006). 교과내용 재구성의 의미와 발전 방향. 충남대학교 교육연구논총, 27(2), 109-125.
  11. 손연아, 신종란, 민병미 (2007). 생물 예비 교사의 수업 시연에서 나타난 과학 수업 모형 적용 과정 분석. 한국생물교육학회지, 35(3), 495-507.
  12. 전주영, 홍영기 (2009). 교육과정 재구성 방법으로서 구조 중심 협동학습에 관한 사례 연구. 초등교육학연구, 15(2), 79-104.
  13. 조자경, 박기용, 강이철 (2009). 교사의 인식론적 신념과 수업설계 행위와의 관련성 탐색. 교육공학연구, 25(3), 1-33.
  14. Beyer, C. J. (2009). Using reform-based criteria to support the development of preservice elementary teachers' pedagogical design capacity for analyzing science curriculum materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
  15. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers'curricular planning: A comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 679-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2009.00464.x
  16. Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). NY: Routledge.
  17. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
  18. Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2006). Investigation of secondary science teachers'beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 938-962. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20110
  19. Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.002
  20. Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers'critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20110
  21. Dow, P. B. (1991). Schoolhouse politics: Lessons from the Sputnik era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  22. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00351.x
  23. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers'curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909-940. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20265
  24. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers'mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820-839. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20379
  25. Grossman, P. L., & Thompson, C. (2002). Visions of language arts: Curriculum materials as opportunities for secondary teacher learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  26. Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Lui, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “Lost at sea”: New teachers' experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00163
  27. Kwak, Y. (2001). Profile chance in preservice science teacher's epistemological and ontological beliefs about constructivist learning: Implications for science teaching and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
  28. Lloyd, G. M., & Behm, S. L. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers'analysis of mathematics instructional materials. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2005.10463342
  29. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 767-790. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20073
  30. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Akkoc H. (2009). Preservice teachers'instructional beliefs and examination of consistency between beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1173-1199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9157-z
  31. Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Defining, developing, and using curriculum indicators: Consortium for policy research in education (Report # RR-048), University of Pennsylvania.
  32. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers'use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
  33. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352-388. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034820
  34. Schwarz, C. V., Gunckel, K. L., Smith, E. L., Covitt, B. A., Bae, M., Enfield, M., & Tsurusaki, B. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20243
  35. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1990). Group investigation expands cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21.
  36. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers'use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802696115
  37. Slavin, E. R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  38. Spillane, J. P. (1998). Challenging instruction for "all students": Policy, practitioners, and practice. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, University of Northwestern.
  39. Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers' beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049132

피인용 문헌

  1. The Characteristics of Lesson Planning of Pre-service Secondary Science Teachers vol.34, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0187
  2. A Case Study of Preservice Secondary Science Teachers' Demonstration of STEAM Lessons vol.35, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0665
  3. 초등 예비교사의 지속가능발전교육 수업 계획과 특성 vol.27, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.17965/kjee.2014.27.3.384
  4. 중등 예비화학교사의 수업 계획에서 교사용 지도서의 활용 방식 분석 vol.36, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0681
  5. 네트워크 분석을 통한 국내 과학교육 질적 연구동향 분석 vol.10, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2017.10.3.290