Education of Primary School Mathematics (한국수학교육학회지시리즈C:초등수학교육)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Lesson Planning: How Do Pre-service Teachers Benefit from Examining Lesson Plans with Mathematics Teaching Practices as an Analytical Lens?

수업설계와 예비교사의 학습: 수학교수관행을 분석틀로 사용한 예비교사의 수업지도안 검토 활동이 어떤 도움이 되는지에 관한 고찰

  • Received : 2016.07.15
  • Accepted : 2016.07.28
  • Published : 2016.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article examines K-8 pre-service teachers' (PSTs) engagement in lesson plan modification using the eight Mathematics Teaching Practices (MTPs) in Principles to Actions, the most recent landmark publication of framework by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) in the U.S. The activity consisted of four phases that involved the analysis and modification of an existing lesson plan. Fifty-seven PSTs participated in the activity throughout the semester, and data from each phase was analyzed using the inductive content analysis approach. PSTs' initial conceptions of lesson planning reflected little on teaching practices (i.e., the MTPs) with more emphasis placed on the form - rather than function - of lesson elements. With the opportunity to interpret MTPs and analyze lesson plans using MTPs as an analytical lens, PSTs demonstrated various interpretations of MTPs, made efforts to incorporate MTPs into lessons, and attended to the interwoven nature of MTPs. This article also shares the challenges, conflicts, and tensions reported by PSTs during their participation of lesson plan modification; as such, the results from this study will inform the research examining the pedagogical (im)possibilities for utilizing MTPs in mathematics teacher training programs.

본고는 미국수학교사협의회(NCTM)의 대표적 최신 출판물인 원리에서 실천으로(Principles to Actions)에 제시된 8개 항목의 수학교수관행(Mathematics Teaching Practices: MTPs)을 분석의 틀로 이용하여, 초중등 예비교사들이 수업지도안 수정활동에 참여한 과정을 보고하고 있다. 이 과제는 주어진 수업지도안을 분석하고 수정하는 활동을 포함한 4단계의 과정으로 구성되었다. 57명의 예비교사들이 한 학기 간에 걸쳐 이 과제에 참여하였으며, 각 단계에서 수집된 자료는 귀납적 내용분석을 하였다. 예비교사들의 수업지도안 작성에 대한 초기개념은 수업관행(가령 MTPs)을 미약하게 반영하고 있었으며, 지도안 구성요소들의 기능보다는 형식을 더 강조하는 경향을 보였다. 그러나 MTPs를 수업지도안 분석의 틀로 이용하는 기회가 주어졌을 때, 예비교사들이 MTPs 에 대한 다양한 해석을 보여주었고, MTPs를 수업지도안에 포함시키려는 노력을 하였으며, MTPs 간의 상호연계성에 더 주목하는 경향을 보였다. 본고는 이 수업지도안 수정과정에서 예비교사들이 겪은 도전 및 갈등도 제시하고 있다. 이런 점에서 본 연구 결과는 교사교육 프로그램에서 MTPs의 효과적 사용 가능성 여부를 조사하는 연구에 시사점을 제시하고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박기용 (2007). 교수설계 모형과 실천 간의 차이와 원인 분석. 한국교육공학회, 23(4), 1-30.(Park, K. (2007). Instructional design model and practice: A survey of design practice. Educational Technology International, 23(4), 1 - 30.)
  2. 박기용 (2014). 중등 예비교사의 수업설계 학습 지원을 위한 수업모형 개발. 교육공학연구, 30(2), 285-306.(Park, K. (2014). Development of instructional model for secondary pre-service teachers' instructional design practice. Educational Technology International, 30(2), 285-306.)
  3. 임해미.최인선 (2012). ASSURE 모형에 기반한 수업설계 경험이 수학교사의 TPACK과 교수효능감에 미치는 영향에 대한 사례 연구. 수학교육학연구, 22(2), 179-202(Rim, H., & Choi, I. (2012). A Case study on the effect of designing instruction according to the ASSURE model to mathematics teacher's TPACK and teaching efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 22(2), 179-202.)
  4. 정한호. (2009). 초등학교 교사들의 수업설계 실태에 대한 질적 고찰. 한국교육공학회, 25(3), 157-191.(Jeong, H. (2009). A Study on the instruction design experiences of elementary school teachers. Educational Technology International, 25(3), 157 - 191.)
  5. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009006
  6. Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among preservice science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.005
  7. Brown, M. W. (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). New York: Routledge.
  8. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (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? (Design Brief). Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
  9. Brown, D., & Wendel, R. (1993). An examination of first-year teachers' beliefs about lesson planning. Action in Teacher Education, 15, 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1993.10734411
  10. Chapin, S., O'Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2013). Classroom discussions in math: A teacher's guide for using talk moves to support the Common Core and more (3rd ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
  11. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
  12. DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155 https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10388468
  13. Ding, M., & Carlson, M. A. (2013). Elementary teachers' learning to construct high-quality mathematics lesson plans. The Elementary School Journal, 113(3), 359-385. https://doi.org/10.1086/668505
  14. Drake, C., Land, T. J., & Tyminski, A. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers' knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43, 154-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500363620
  18. Kastberg, S., Sanchez, W. B., Edenfield, K. W., Tyminski, A., & Stump, C. (2012). What is the content of methods? Building an understanding of frameworks for mathematics methods courses. Proceedings for the Thirty-fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Kalamazoo, Michigan.
  19. Leinwand, S., Huinker, D., & Brahier, D. (2014). Principles to actions: Mathematics programs as the core for student learning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 19(9), 516-519. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.19.9.0516
  20. Lloyd, G. M. (2009). School mathematics curriculum materials for teachers' learning: Future elementary teachers' interactions with curriculum materials in a mathematics course in the United States. ZDM -The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(6), 763-775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0206-4
  21. 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
  22. Mutton, T., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 399-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.580516
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014a). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014b). Principles to actions: Executive summary. Reston, VA: Author.
  25. Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5423-y
  26. 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
  27. Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.) (2011). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge.
  28. Sardo-Brown, D. (1990). Experienced teachers' planning practices: A U.S. survey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747900160104
  29. Smith, M. S., Bill, V., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Thinking through a lesson: Successfully implementing high -level tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(3), 132-138.
  30. Taylor, P. M., & Ronau, R. (2006, Fall). Syllabus study: A structured look at mathematics methods courses. AMTE Connections, 16(1), 12-15.
  31. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers' interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-595.
  32. Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Lesson plays: Planning teaching versus teaching planning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(1), 40-47.

Cited by

  1. 예비교사와 경력교사의 수학 수업지도안에 대한 시선 차이 분석 vol.23, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2020.23.1.1
  2. 교사가 수업 설계에서 중요하게 고려하는 요소: 초등 수학 수업지도안에 대한 분석을 중심으로 vol.35, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmee.2021.35.1.15