대한수학교육학회지:학교수학 (School Mathematics)

대한수학교육학회 (The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics)
권호 표지

예비교사들은 학생의 대답에 어떻게 피드백 하는가? - Lesson Play의 분석 -

An Analysis of Preservice Teachers' Lesson Plays: How Do Preservice Teachers Give Feedbacks to Students in an Imaginary Classroom Discourse?

  • 투고 : 2016.11.12
  • 심사 : 2016.12.20
  • 발행 : 2017.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 a) 예비교사들이 생각하는 학생의 대답에 대한 피드백 패턴 및 교실 담화양상을 확인하고, b) 예비교사들의 피드백 패턴과 교실 담화를 개혁 지향적인 수업 동영상과 비교 분석하여, 교실 담화에 대한 교수전문성의 신장 방안에 시사점을 얻는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 동일한 교수 상황에 대해 예비교사들이 작성한 가상적 교실 담화인 lesson play와 개혁 지향적 수업에 나타난 교사 피드백 패턴을 분석하여, 네 가지 피드백 패턴으로 구분하고 그에 따른 교실 담화의 특징을 논의하였다. 대부분의 예비교사들이 생각했던 교사 피드백은 주로 학생의 대답을 평가하고 의미를 전달하는 단성적 기능(univocal function)을 수행하는 것이었으나, 개혁 지향적 수업은 학생 전체에게 제기된 답에 대한 정당화-반박의 기회를 부여함으로써 학생들의 의미 생성을 촉진하는 대화적 기능(dialogical function)의 피드백을 포함하고 있었다. lesson play의 단성적 담화와 수업 동영상의 대화적 담화의 비교 분석은, 교사의 피드백 발화가 교실 담화의 주 기능과 학생들의 인지적 참여 수준을 결정하는 중요한 '지표' 이자 '변수'임을 보여주고 있다. 이상의 결과는 교사들이 높은 질의 교실 담화를 구현하기 위하여, (예비) 교사들이 구체적인 담화 맥락에서 선택할 수 있는 피드백의 다양한 가능성을 인지하고, 피드백 발화에서 '의미 전달'과 '의미 생성' 기능을 어떻게 조화시킬 수 있는지 성찰하는 경험이 필요함을 시사한다.

The purpose of this article was to a) identify how preservice teachers conceive feedbacks and subsequent classroom discourses, and b) compare them with those in reform-oriented mathematics classroom video for mathematics teachers' professional development about classroom discourse. This article analyzes feedback patterns and subsequent classroom discourses in preservice teachers' imaginary classroom scripts (lesson plays) and compares them with those in the reform-oriented classroom video dealing with the same teaching situation. Most of the preservice teachers' feedbacks focused the evaluation of students' responses and transmission of meaning (univocal function), whereas the teacher's feedback in the reform-oriented classroom allowed the whole class to validate or challenge the answers, thereby facilitating students' generation of meaning (dialogic function). The comparison analysis between the univocal discourse in a preservice teacher's lesson play and the dialogical discourse in the reform-oriented classroom video shows that teacher feedback serves as an important indicator for the main function of classroom discourse and the levels of students' cognitive participation, and also as a variable that determines and changes them. This case study suggests that to improve the quality of classroom discourse, preservice and in-service teachers need experience of perceiving the variety of feedback patterns available in specific teaching contexts and exploring ways to balance the univocal and dialogical functioning in their feedback move during the teacher training courses.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 교육부(2015). 수학과 교육과정 (교육부 고시 제2015-74호 [별책 8])
  2. 김상화, &방정숙. (2010). 담화 중심 수학적 의사 소통 수업의 분석. 한국초등수학교육학회지, 14(3), 523-545.
  3. 방정숙, 정희진. (2006). 학습자 중심 교수법에 대한 초등 교사의 이해와 실행형태: 수학적 의사소통을 중심으로. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 6(1), 297-321.
  4. 윤민지. (2012). 중학교 2학년의 사각형 지도에 대한 실행연구. 교원대학교 석사학위 논문.
  5. 임태민, 백석윤. (2009). 초등수학 수업에서의 피드백 유형 및 학생의 반응. 한국초등교육, 20(1), 37-54.
  6. Alro, H., & Skovsmose, O. (1996). On the right track. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(1), 2-22.
  7. Ball, D. L. (1991). What's all this talk about "discourse"? Arithmetic Teacher, 39(3), 44-48.
  8. Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as "springboards for inquiry": A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 166-208. https://doi.org/10.2307/749507
  9. Blanton, M. L., Berenson, S. B., & Norwood, K. S. (2001). Using classroom discourse to understand a prospective mathematics teacher's developing practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00053-6
  10. Bray, W. S. (2011). A collective case study of the influence of teachers' beliefs and knowledge on error-handling practices during class discussion of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(1), 2-38. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.1.0002
  11. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.
  12. Carpenter, T. P., Hiebert, J., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., & Murray, H. (2004). 어떻게 이해하지?.(김수환, 박영희, 이경화, 한대희 역). 서울: 경문사.(영어 원작은 1997년 출판)
  13. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
  14. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher Questioning in Science Classrooms: Approaches that Stimulate Productive Thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171
  15. Drageset, O. G. (2013). Redirecting, progressing, and focusing actions-a framework for describing how teachers use students' comments to work with mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 281-304. doi:10.1007/s10649-013-9515-1
  16. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  17. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1992). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll(Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205).
  18. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging Discourses in the ESL Classroom: Students, Teachers and Researchers. London: Continuum.
  19. Imm, K., & Stylianou, D. A. (2012). Talking mathematically: An analysis of discourse communities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 130-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.10.001
  20. Ingram, J., Pitt, A., & Baldry, F. (2015). Handling errors as they arise in whole-class interactions. Research in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 183-197. doi:10.1080/14794802.2015.1098562
  21. Knuth, E., & Peressini, D. (2001). Unpacking the nature of discourse in mathematics classrooms. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 6(5), 320-325.
  22. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  23. Lortie, D. C.(1996). 교직사회 : 교직과 교사의 삶. (진동섭 역). 서울 : 良書院. (원저는 1975년 출판)
  24. Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet psychology, 26(3), 32-51.
  25. Lotman, Y. (2000). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture (A. Shukman, Trans.): IB Tauris & Co Ltd.
  26. Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of ‘triadic dialogue'?: An investigation of teacher student interaction. Applied linguistics, 21(3), 376-406. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376
  27. Otten, S., Engledowl, C., & Spain, V. (2015). Univocal and dialogic discourse in secondary mathematics classrooms: the case of attending to precision. ZDM, 47(7), 1285-1298. doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0725-0
  28. Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. Ph.D thesis. The University of Texas at Austin
  29. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In M. Reddy & A. Ortony (Eds.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284-324).
  30. Rymes, B. (2011). 말이 열리는 교실: 교실 수업 개선을 위한 담화 분석.(김종현 역). 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스
  31. Santagata, R. (2005). Practices and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 491-508. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.004
  32. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher Talk and Meaning Making in Science Classrooms: a Vygotskian Analysis and Review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45-80. doi:10.1080/03057269808560127
  33. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
  34. Smith III, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The journal of the learning sciences, 3(2), 115-163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
  35. Spangler, D. A., & Hallman-Thrasher, A. (2014). Using Task Dialogues to Enhance Preservice Teachers' Abilities to Orchestrate Discourse. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3(1), 58-75. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.3.1.0058
  36. Truxaw, M. P. (2004). Mediating Mathematical Meaning Through Discourse: An investigation of discursive practices of middle grades mathematics teachers. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Connecticut.
  37. Truxaw, M. P., & DeFranco, T. C. (2008). Mapping mathematical classroom discourse and its implication for model of teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(5), 489-525.
  38. Tulis, M. (2013). Error management behavior in classrooms: Teachers' responses to student mistakes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 56-68. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.003
  39. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press.
  40. Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffe, & Gale, J. E. (Ed.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  41. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as an action. New York: Oxford University Press.
  42. Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing. In H. Steinbring, M. G. B. Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167-178). Reston, VA National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  43. Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Children's mathematical thinking in different classroom cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 222-253.
  44. Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Sinclair, N.(2009). Lesson Plays: Planning teaching vs. teaching planning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(1), pp. 40-47.