Journal of Science Education (과학교육연구지)

Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University (경북대학교 과학교육연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Expansive Application of the POCoM (Practical On-site Cooperation Model) for Practical Improvement of Science Teaching

과학수업의 실제적 개선을 위한 POCoM (Practical On-site Cooperation Model)의 확장 적용

  • Received : 2017.07.27
  • Accepted : 2017.12.20
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Based on the previous study (Park et al., 2015) which indicated positive results in the improvement of science teaching through the POCoM (Practical On-site Cooperation Model) application, this work concentrates on expanding the POCoM to more various teaching settings. To do this, 18 cyclic applications (72 teaching classes in total) of the POCoM were divided into (1) the first cycles and the second cycles conducted after the first cycles, (2) classroom teaching and laboratory teaching, and (3) cycles by our research team and cycles by other experts team. The comparison between the two parts were conducted using the improvement rates, the number of KTOP (Korean Teaching Observation Protocol) items which improvement was needed, and the change of these numbers according to teaching sequence. As results, no difference regarding the improvement was observed between classroom and laboratory teachings, and also between the first and the second cycles. When other experts team applied the POCoM, the number of KTOP items which improvement was needed was larger and the improvement rate was lower than those in the cycle by our research team. Nevertheless, these differences were not statistically significant, and also, it was expected that, if other experts team tries to improve science teaching through 6 teachings, the improvement by the other experts would be nearly the same with the improvement by our research team through 4 teachings. In conclusion, it is confirmed that the POCoM can be used in various teaching settings with the almost the same potency. Lastly, the necessity and possibility of the more detailed and qualitative analysis about the POCoM application are discussed.

본 연구는 이전 연구 (Park et al. 2015)에서 POCoM (Practical On-site Cooperation Model)이 긍정적으로 과학수업을 개선할 수 있었다는 결과에 기초하여, 보다 다양한 상황에서도 POCoM의 긍정적인 결과를 기대할 수 있는지, 그에 따라 POCoM을 일반화할 수 있는지를 탐색해 보기 위해 실시되었다. 이를 위해 이전 연구결과를 포함한 총 18개 순환 (총 72개 수업)을 교실 수업과 실험실 수업으로 나누고, 1차 순환과 얼마의 기간 후에 다시 실시된 2차 순환으로 나누고, 또 본 연구를 계획한 연구자가 수업 개선을 노력한 경우와 다른 전문가들이 수업 개선을 위해 노력한 경우로 각각 나누어 다음 3가지 측면을 중심으로 POCoM의 적용결과를 비교하였다: 전체적인 수업 개선율, 개선이 필요하다고 분석된 KTOP (Korean Teaching Observation Protocol) 항목 수와 4차시까지 진행되면서 나타난 이러한 항목 수의 변화. 분석 결과, 1차 순환 이후에 POCoM을 2차로 적용해도 동일한 개선효과를 볼 수 있었으며, 이 결과로부터 2차 순환 후 일상적 과학학습에서도 개선 효과가 유지될 것으로 예측되었다. 그리고 교실 수업과 실험실 수업 모두에서 POCoM 적용을 통한 유사한 개선 효과를 볼 수 있었다. 다른 전문가들이 적용한 경우에는 본 연구자가 적용한 경우보다 통계적인 차이가 있지는 않았지만, 개선율이 적게 나타나고 개선이 필요한 항목수도 많은 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 다른 전문가들도 6차시까지 개선을 계속하면, 본 연구자가 4차시까지 적용하면서 얻은 개선 정도를 얻을 수 있을 것으로 예측되었다. 결론적으로 POCoM은 다양한 상황에 적용할 수 있으며, 다양한 상황에서 큰 차이가 없는 효과를 기대할 수 있다고 판단되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Beutler, L. E., Williams, R. E., Wakefield, P. J., & Entwistle, S. R. (1995). Bridging scientist and practitioner perspectives in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 50(12), 984-994. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.12.984
  2. Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(6), 551-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-M
  3. Dozois, D. J. A. (2013). Psychological treatments: Putting evidence into practice and practice into evidence. Canadian Psychology, 54(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031125
  4. Dunbar, K. (2001). What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In K. D. Crowley, C. D. Schunn & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  5. Erickson, G., Brandes, G. M., Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Collaborative teacher learning: Findings from two professional development projects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(7), 787-798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.018
  6. Jeong, J-S., Park, J., Park, J., Kim, Y., & Park, Y-S. (2014). Developing and applying in-service program for spreading the POCoM (Practical On-site Cooperation Model). Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 261-272. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0261
  7. Kearns, D. M., Fuchs, D., McMaster, L. K., Saenz, L., Fuchs, L. S., Yen, L., Meyers, C., Stein, M., Compton, D., Berends, M., & Smith, T. M. (2010). Factors contributing to teachers’ sustained use of kindergarten peer-assisted learning strategies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(4), 315-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.491151
  8. Kulikowich, J. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2011). Prescriptive statements: Philosophical, theoretical, and methodological considerations: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 189-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9162-y
  9. Millar, R., & Hames, V. (2003) Towards evidence-based practice in science education 1: Using diagnostic assessment to enhance learning. Teaching and Learning Research Programme Research Briefing No. 1, University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
  10. Park, J., Park, Y-S., Kim, Y., Park, J., & Jeong, J-S. (2014). The development of the Korean teaching observation protocol (KTOP) for improving science teaching and learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(2), 259-275.
  11. Park, J., Kim., Y., Park, Y-S., Park., J., & Jeong, J-S. (2015). Development and application of practical on-site cooperation model (POCoM) for improving science teaching in secondary schools. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1), 45-63.
  12. Park, J., Kim, Y., Park, J., Jeong, J-S., & Park, Y-S. (2016). Korean science teachers' perceptions and actual usage of educational theories/teaching strategies in their science teaching. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(4), 441-423.
  13. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking has to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029001004
  14. Robinson, D. H., Levin, J. R., Schraw, G., Patall, E. A., & Hunt, E. B. (2013). On going (way) beyond one's data: a proposal to restrict recommendations for practice in primary educational research journals. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9223-5
  15. Rubin, A., & Parrish, D. (2007). Problematic phrases in the conclusions of published outcome studies: Implications for evidence-based practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(3), 334-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731506293726
  16. Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x
  17. Schraw, G., & Patall, E. A. (2013). Using principles of evidence-based practice to improve prescriptive recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 25(3), 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9237-z
  18. Shadish, W. R. (1995). The logic of generalization: Five principles common to experiments and ethnographies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(3), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506951
  19. Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education: What works? issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 47(1), 5-14.
  20. Staines, G. L. (2008). The causal generalization paradox: The case of treatment outcome research. Review of General Psychology, 12(3), 236-252. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.3.236