Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Class Climates Assessment on the Teaching Style and Teaching Career of Instructor

교수자의 교수 스타일(Teaching Style)과 교육경험이 수업 분석에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2013.11.07
  • Accepted : 2014.01.09
  • Published : 2014.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research aims is to confirm the influence of a teacher's teaching style and teaching career on instructional analysis. Through this, the differences in the relevant elements' view points on a class and those in teachers' analysis view points on class criticism and instructional analysis at the education field can be investigated. For this study, the teaching styles of 198 elementary school teachers were categorized, their teaching careers were checked as teaching career and set them as covariate, and the differences in the view points on the analysis of the class climates were verified depending on each teaching style. As the research result, meaningful differences were found in four areas of the elements of class climates analysis, that is, creativity, vitality, precision, and gentleness. In the analysis of the class climates, the teachers with a professional style among the teaching styles gave the highest grades to creativity in the same class, those with a facilitating style to vitality, those with a role model style to precision, and those with a facilitating and role model style to gentleness. On the other hand, those with an authoritative and a delegating style were proved to give the lowest grades in general class climates. It means that teachers with different teaching styles have different viewpoints when analyzing a class, and those with a professional, a role model and a facilitating style have a relatively stronger intention to analyze a class through reflective introspection and permissive recognition.

본 연구의 목적은 교수자의 교수 스타일과 교육경험이 수업분석에 미치는 영향을 확인해 보는데 있다. 이를 통해 해당 요인들이 수업을 바라보는 관점에 차이가 있는지 확인할 수 있으며, 교육현장에서 교사들이 수업비평과 수업분석을 바라보는 분석관점의 차이를 확인할 수 있다. 연구대상은 초등학교에 근무하는 교사 198명을 대상으로, 교수 스타일을 분류하였다. 자료처리는 교육경험에 해당하는 교직경력을 확인하여 공변인으로 두고, 각각 교수 스타일에 따라 수업 분위기를 분석하는 관점의 차이를 확인하였다. 연구결과 수업분위기 분석의 요인인 창의성, 활기성, 치밀성, 온화성의 4가지 항목에서 유의한 차이를 나타냈다. 수업분위기 분석에서 교수 스타일 중 전문성은 동일한 수업에서 창의성에 높은 점수를 부여했으며, 촉진자 스타일은 활기성에 가장 높은 점수를, 역할모델은 치밀성에 가장 높은 점수를, 촉진자와 역할모델은 온화성에 가장 높은 점수를 부여했다. 반면 권위적인 스타일과 위임자 스타일은 전체적인 수업분위기에서 가장 낮은 점수를 부여하는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 교수 스타일에 따라 수업을 분석하는 관점이 다르며, 전문가, 역할모델, 촉진자 스타일이 수업분석에 있어 반성적인 성찰과 허용적인 인식을 통해 분석하려는 의도가 비교적 강한 것으로 볼 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. S. B. Park, Educational Assesment-Elliot W. Eisner qualitative research into education, Hakjisa Publisher, 2006.
  2. H. S. Chun, "A Study on the Development of Program for Classroom Teaching Support through Methods of Instruction Consulting", Social studies education, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp.109-134, 2008.
  3. Grasha, A. F. Teachning with style, Pittsburgh Alliance Publishers, 1996.
  4. Korthagen, F. Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
  5. H. S. Kang, Y. S. Kim, "A Study on the Improvement of Student Teachers' Teaching Skills through Self-Reflection", The Korean journal of biological education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp.72-86, 2003.
  6. Y. S. Gwak, "Research on the Current Science Teaching Evaluation System and Directions for Improving Teaching Evaluation", Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp.494-502, 2005.
  7. Baeck, W. I. Direction of Class Assesment Innovation for Teaching and Learning, Korea Educational Productivity Research Center Publisher, 2003.
  8. S. Kim, Y. R. Hur, "Instructional Supervision Using Class Climate Assessment", Korean journal of medical education, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp.289-297, 2004. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2004.16.3.289
  9. H. J. Kim,, J. S. Kim, S. U. Choi,, Y. M. Park, K. H. Lee, H. K. Lee, S. H. Jo, E. Y. Kim, M. A. Son, Research for plan of education to develop teaching ability of pre-service teacher, Research Report RRI 2010-16, Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation., 2010.
  10. Wragg, R. An introduction to classroom observation (2nd.). p. 160. Routlege Falmer Publishers, 1999.
  11. K. Y. Lim, H. K. Jo, Y. S. Kim, "Validation of a Scale for Teaching Style Diagnosis as a Self-Reflection Tool", Korean Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp.37-52, 2010.
  12. J. H. Shin, H. K. Lee, U. Hun, J. I. Jung, "A Needs Analysis of Improving In-service Teacher Training Program for Class Critique: Group Interviews for Teachers' Satisfaction", Korean Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp.365-385, 2011.
  13. H. K. Lee, "What is the class assesment?", Uri education, Vol. 223, pp.98-105, 2008.
  14. B. C. Kim, "The shift on teacher education paradigm", The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp.113-141, 2000.
  15. Conti, G. J. Identifying your teaching style. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods (2nd ed.), (pp. 73-91). Malabar, FL: Kreiger Publishing Company, 1998.
  16. Clowes, G. A. What characterizes an effective teacher?, School Reform News, 2002.
  17. S. E. Song, "A study of factors of affecting teaching skill of teacher in elementary school", Konkuk University, 2003.
  18. K. H. Kim, "The effects of computer assisted self-supervision on the improvement of teaching skill and teaching efficacy for beginning teachers", The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp.53-85, 2004.
  19. Borich Gary D. Effective Teaching Methods.5ed. Pearson Education Inc. USA, Critique, & Utilization, 4th Edition, W.B. Saunders Philadelphia Publishers, 2004.
  20. Teddlie, C. Stringfield, S. Schools make a difference: lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects, Teachers College Press, 1993.
  21. W. H. Park, Comparison of learning effects through preferred modality with those through non-preferred modality in theory of learning style. Busan University doctoral dissertation, 1986.
  22. Loughran, J. J. Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through modeling, Falmer Publisher, 1996.
  23. S. Feiman-Nemser, "From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching", Teachers College Record, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp.1013-1055, 2001. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00141
  24. Y. G. Byun, K. H. Kim, Instructional supervision and instructional analysis, Hakjisa Publishers, 2005.
  25. Maher, C. A. Video recordings as pedagogical tools in mathematics teacher education. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood(Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education: Vol 2. Tools and processes in mathematics teahcer education(pp. 65-83). The Netherlands: Sense, 2008.
  26. M. K. Jung, K. H. Kim, "Development on Instructional Analysis Program for Improvement of teacher's Instructional Profession", Journal of the korean association of information education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp.371-384, 2006.