DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

수학교과역량과 수학교사의 담론적 역량

A mathematics teacher's discursive competence on the basis of mathematical competencies

  • 투고 : 2019.07.01
  • 심사 : 2019.09.17
  • 발행 : 2019.09.30

초록

본 연구의 목적은 수학교과역량을 바탕으로 수학교사의 담론적 역량을 분석하여 구체화하는 것이다. 이를 위해 학생들의 참여를 촉진하기 위해 20년 이상 교수법을 변화시킨 중학교 교사의 수업을 한 학기 동안 관찰하여 자료를 수집하고 담론을 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 교사는 문제해결 역량에서 문제 이해를 위해 학생들이 수학적으로 중요한 요소에 초점을 맞추게 하고, 추론 역량에서 수학적 정당화의 필요성 이해를 위해 사고를 명확히 하는 교사의 담론적 역량이 있었다. 그리고 창의 융합 역량에서 동료의 풀이 방법 공유와 다른 풀이 방법 활용을 격려하기 위해 논의를 생성하는 교사의 담론적 역량이 있었고 의사소통 역량에서 다양한 수학적 표현의 필요성과 차이점 협의를 위해 수학적 관계를 탐구하는 교사의 담론적 역량이 있었다. 이러한 결과를 토대로 수학 교수를 위해 필요한 교수학적 내용 지식을 바탕으로 실행을 통합할 수 있는 아이디어를 제안함으로써 향후 교사교육과정 개발에 구체적인 방향성을 제공할 수 있을 것이다.

The purpose of this study is to scrutinize the characteristics of a teacher's discursive competence on the basis of mathematical competencies. For this purpose, we observed all semester-long classes of a middle school teacher, who changed her own teaching methods for the last 20 years, collected video clips on them, and analyzed classroom discourse. Data analysis shows that in problem solving competency, she helped students focus on mathematically important components for problem understanding, and in reasoning competency, there was a discursive competence which articulated thinking processes for understanding the needs of mathematical justification. And in creativity and confluence competency, there was a discursive competence which developed class discussions by sharing peers' problem solving methods and encouraging students to apply alternative problem solving methods, whereas in communication competency, there was a discursive competency which explored mathematical relationships through the need for multiple mathematical representations and discussions about their differences. These results can provide concrete directions to developing curricula for future teacher education by suggesting ideas about how to combine practices with PCK needed for mathematics teaching.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. The Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics curriculum, Se Jong: The Ministry of Education.
  2. Kim, D., Kim, W., Ahn, B., Ryu, J., Lee, D., Choi, K., Choi, S., Ha, J., & Whang, W. (2017). A communicational approach to teaching method, Seoul: Kyowoosa.
  3. Kim, D., Shin, J., Lee, J., Lim, W., Lee, Y., & Choi, S. (2019). Conceptualizing discursive teaching capacity: A case study of a middle school mathematics teacher, School Mathematics, 21(2), 291-318. https://doi.org/10.29275/sm.2019.06.21.2.291
  4. Kim, B., & Ryu, S. (2011). An analysis of the PCK of teachers and their educational practice about division of decimals, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 15(3), 533-557.
  5. Kim S., Lee, J., Sunwoo, H., Lee, J., Kim, W., Kim, Y., Shin, J., Kim, Y., Noh, C., Jeong, H., Joo, W. (2013). Teacher's guide middle school mathematics 1, Seoul: chunjae.
  6. Park, S., & Kang, W. (2012). A study of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge about area of plane figure, The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 22(4), 495-515.
  7. Park, S., & Oh, Y. (2017). An analysis of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge about teaching ratio and rate, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 21(1), 215-241.
  8. Park, J., Ryu, S., & Lee, J. (2012). The analysis of mathematics error type that appears from the process of solving problem related to real life, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 15(4), 699-718.
  9. Back, S., Kim, D., & Lee, K. (2014). An analysis of the types and characteristics of pre-service mathematics teachers' questioning in demonstrative lessons, Teacher Education Research, 53(3), 400-415. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.53.3.201409.400
  10. Oh, S., & Song, S. (2016). A questioning role of teachers to formal justification process in generalization of a pattern task for the elementary gifted class, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 20(1), 131-148.
  11. Lee, K., Shin, H. (2009). Exemplary teachers' teaching strategies for teaching word problems, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 12(4), 433-452.
  12. Lee, S., Song, S. (2016). A study on the teaching method for activities justify of paper folding by given size colored paper, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 20(4), 695-715.
  13. Choi M., Lee J., & Kim W. (2016). An analysis of mathematical knowledge for teaching of statistical estimation, The Mathematical Education, 55(3), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2016.55.3.317
  14. Choi, S. (2018). Mathematics teachers' discursive competency, Korea University Graduate School Doctoral thesis.
  15. Choi, S., Kim, D., & Shin, J. (2013). Analysis on characteristics of university students' problem Solving processes based on mathematical thinking styles, Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 23(2), 153-171.
  16. Choi, S., Ha, J., & Kim, D. (2016a). A communicational approach to mathematical process appeared in a peer mentoring teaching method, Communications of Mathematical Education, 30(3), 375-392. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmee.2016.30.3.375
  17. Choi, S., Ha, J., & Kim, D. (2016b). An analysis of student engagement strategy and questioning strategy in a peer mentoring teaching method, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 19(2), 153-176.
  18. Choe, S., & Hwang, H. (2008). The research on pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics teaching, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 11(4), 569-593.
  19. Han, J., & Park, M. (2010). An analysis of teacher questioning focused on mathematical creativity, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 14(3), 865-884.
  20. Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature and impact of teacher questions, Proceedings of the 26th North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(pp. 774-783). Toronto, Canada.
  21. Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2009). The innovator's DNA, Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
  22. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction(4th ed.), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  23. Gallo, C. (2010). 스티브 잡스 무한 혁신의 비밀(박세연 옮김), 서울: 비즈니스북스.
  24. Glaser, B. F., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  25. Han, S., Flores, R., Inan, F. A., & Koontz, E. (2016). The use of traditional algorithmic versus instruction with multiple representations, School Mathematics, 18(2), 257-275.
  26. Schwartz, C. (2015). Developing the practice of teacher questioning through a K-2 elementary mathematics field experience, Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 7(3), 30-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/24727466.2015.11790344
  27. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating, New York: Cambridge university press.
  28. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language, Cambridge, M. A.: MIT Press.
  30. Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2003). Philosophical investigations: The German text, with a revised English translation(3rd ed., G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.), Malden, MA: Blackwell.