한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제36권1호
  • /
  • Pages.95-112
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

예비교사와 경력교사의 과학 수업 관점 비교

A Comparison of Viewpoints on the Science Lesson between Pre-service Teachers and Experienced Teachers

  • 투고 : 2017.02.07
  • 심사 : 2017.02.21
  • 발행 : 2017.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The competence of teachers, comes out through their lesson, is one of the key factors of school education. The purpose of this study is comparing the viewpoints on the science lessons in the elementary classrooms between pre-service teachers and highly experienced teachers in order to draw implications on pre-service teacher educating system. The participants of the study are 14 junior students in a university of education and 9 elementary school teachers who are highly educated and have much career experience. Each student participant observed one video clip with science lesson of their classmate. The total number of the video subject to observation is 4. Meanwhile experienced teachers observed 1 or 2 videos which are the same to those the students watched. The participants made a class criticism according to the General Standards for Class Critique made by KICE. The in-depth analysis of the criticism yielded the following conclusions; First, pre-service teachers had narrow views on the science class mainly limited in the practical part of class, but experienced teachers had wide views covered to class-knowledge, plan, and practice. Second, most experienced teachers thought that learning is the process by which students acquire knowledge or concepts by themselves, and the main purpose of the class is to help students' learning. Meanwhile, there were many pre-service teachers who thought that conveying knowledge or concepts to students was the main purpose of the class. Third, experienced teachers thought that a good science class should maintain consistency around the learning goals from the planning, implementation, and evaluation. However, many pre-service teachers did not take the learning objectives so seriously.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Choi, E. (2012). A study on the critical viewpoint of preservice elementary teachers for music class. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 29(3), 173-194. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2012.29.3.173
  2. Choi, M. (2014). Critical viewpoints on science classes based on M. Polanyi's Epistemology. Master's thesis of Department of Education Graduate School Yeungnam University.
  3. Corey, D. L., Peterson, B. E., Lewis, B. M. & Bukarau, J. (2010). Are there any place that students use their heads? Principles of high-quality Japanese mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 438-478.
  4. Danielson, C. & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD. 157.
  5. ETS(Educational Testing Service) (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. NJ: Princeton. Available at https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTEAMAT.pdf (2017. 01. 26)
  6. Feldman, S. (1998). A teacher quality manifesto, keynote speech to AFT's 1998 Convention, 17th July 1998.
  7. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. NY: Teachers College, Columbia. 185.
  8. Im, J. (2011). Perceptions and practices of pre-service teachers on teaching models. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 19(4), 109-138.
  9. Jeong, H. (2013). An exploration of pre-service teachers' perspective on lesson analysis-based on class critiques. Teacher Education Research, 52(2), 267-295. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.52.2.201308.267
  10. Jeong, J. (2006). Action research as a criticism of Korean teaching in the classroom. Korean Language Education Research, 25, 389-420.
  11. Jo, H. (2008). Science teaching-learning [과학 교수-학습], Paju: Kyoyukkwahaksa.
  12. Jo, Y. (1999). Qualitative research: Method and case [질적 연구: 방법과 사례], Paju: Kyoyukkwahaksa.
  13. Kang, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of class critiques on a 6th graders' english class of pre-service elementary english teachers. Journal of The English Language and Literature, 53(3), 21-46.
  14. KICE(Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) (2004). Research on developing class evaluation standards(I)-General standard and subject standards(Social study, science, english) development [수업 평가 기준개발 연구(I)-일반 기준 및 교과(사회, 과학, 영어) 기준 개발]. Research Report RRI 2004-5.
  15. Kim, J. (2010). A study on the critical viewpoint of elementary teachers for science class. Master's Thesis of Graduate School of Cheongju National University of Education.
  16. Kim, N. & Yu, J. (2015). A study on the elementary preservice and in-service teachers' viewpoints in mathematics lesson critique. The Mathematical Education, 54 (1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2015.54.1.1
  17. Kwak, Y. (2003). Science class critique as qualitative research [질적 연구로서 과학 수업비평], Paju: Kyoyukkwahaksa.
  18. Kwak, Y. & Choi, S. (2005). Research on the role of science teaching evaluation standards and how to develop the standards. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 26(5), 367-375.
  19. Lee, H. (2007). A research on the necessities and methods of criticism of classroom instruction. Anthropology of Education, 10(1), 155-185. https://doi.org/10.17318/jae.2007.10.1.006
  20. Lee, S. (2015). Conceptual change in learning science. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
  21. Lee, S., Jhun, Y., Hong, J., Shin, Y., Choi, J. & Lee, I. (2007). Difficulties experienced by elementary school teachers in science classes. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 26(1), 97-107.
  22. MEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology) (2011). Teachers' guide for elementary science textbook 6-2, 5-2, 3-2 [초등학교 교사용 지도서 과학 6-1, 5-2, 3-2], Seoul: Kumseongchulpansa.
  23. MOE(Ministry of Education) (2015a). Guide for teaching and learning of elementary science textbook 6-1 [초등학교 교사용 지도서 과학 6-1], Seoul: MiraeN.
  24. MOE(Ministry of Education) (2015b). Science curriculum [과학과 교육과정], Education department public announcement, 2015-74 [Appendix 9].
  25. Na, G. (2008). Examining the prospective elementary teachers' perspectives on mathematics class - Focused on the comparison of the comments on the mathematics class -. School Mathematics, 10(2), 279-296.
  26. Na, G. (2009). A study on the characteristics of mathematics class-criticism by elementary teachers. School Mathematics, 11(4), 583-605.
  27. NRC(National Research Council) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
  28. Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J. (1983). Supervision: A redefinition (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. 368.
  29. Shim, Y. (2010). A research on the method of writing of criticism classes. Korean Language Education Research, 39, 379-402.
  30. Suh, G. (2011). A qualitative descriptive case study on the process of classroom lesson understanding of anthropology of education. Anthropology of Education, 14(1), 77-128. https://doi.org/10.17318/jae.2011.14.1.003
  31. Sulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860
  32. Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science. Which way now? (pp.3-15). London: Routledge.
  33. Yoon, H. (2004). Pre-service elementary teachers' difficulties in science lessons. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 23(1), 74-84.

피인용 문헌

  1. 초등학교 예비교사들의 과학 수업 이미지에 나타난 상호작용 분석 vol.43, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.3.318