The Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육)

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

DOI QR Code

Pre-service mathematics teachers' noticing competency: Focusing on teaching for robust understanding of mathematics

예비 수학교사의 수학적 사고 중심 수업에 관한 노티싱 역량 탐색

  • Received : 2022.02.24
  • Accepted : 2022.03.18
  • Published : 2022.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explores pre-service secondary mathematics teachers (PSTs)' noticing competency. 17 PSTs participated in this study as a part of the mathematics teaching method class. Individual PST's essays regarding the question 'what effective mathematics teaching would be?' that they discussed and wrote at the beginning of the course were collected as the first data. PSTs' written analysis of an expert teacher's teaching video, colleague PSTs' demo-teaching video, and own demo-teaching video were also collected and analyzed. Findings showed that most PSTs' noticing level improved as the class progressed and showed a pattern of focusing on each key aspect in terms of the Teaching for Robust Understanding of Mathematics (TRU Math) framework, but their reasoning strategies were somewhat varied. This suggests that the TRU Math framework can support PSTs to improve the competency of 'what to attend' among the noticing components. In addition, the instructional reasoning strategies imply that PSTs' noticing reasoning strategy was mostly related to their interpretation of noticing components, which should be also emphasized in the teacher education program.

노티싱(noticing, 주목하기)은 교사의 전문성 신장에서 핵심 역량으로 주목받아왔다. 교사의 노티싱이란 교수·학습 상황과 같이 교사가 접하고 있는 상황에서 특정한 현상이나 사물에 주의를 기울이고 그에 대한 해석과 추론을 기반으로 의사결정을 하는 능력으로 초임 교사의 노티싱과 전문가 교사의 그것은 그 양상이 다름이 많은 연구에서 밝혀져 왔다. 노티싱의 구성요소로는 선택적 주의집중과 그와 관련한 교수학적 추론, 그리고 그에 따른 반응을 결정하기로 구성되어 있으며, 전문가 교사로 성장하기 위해 노티싱은 교사가 계발해야할 전문 역량 중의 하나로 최근 들어 교사 교육과 교사 전문성 신장 분야에서 핵심적인 위치를 차지하고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 예비 중등 수학교사의 수학 수업에 대한 노티싱 역량을 탐색하고, 이를 통해 예비 교사의 전문 역량 신장 방향에 대한 시사점을 제시하는 데 있다. 연구 목적을 달성하기 위해 수학교과교수법 강의에 참여한 17명의 예비교사의 '수학적 사고 중심 수업'에 대한 노티싱 수준을 강의의 초반, 중후반, 말미와 같이 다양한 지점에서 다양한 데이터를 수집하였다. 강의 초반에는 좋은 수학 수업에 관해 논의한 후 작성한 에세이, 수업 중후반부에 실시했던 우수 수업을 분석한 수업 분석록, 동료의 수업을 분석한 수업 분석록, 그리고 학교현장실습이 끝난 후 수업 말미에 본인의 수업을 성찰하고 분석한 수업 분석록을 연구 자료로 수집하였다. 수집한 자료는 '효과적인 수학 수업을 위한 프레임(Teaching for Robust Understanding of Mathematics Framework; 이하 TRU Math 프레임)을 기반으로 하여 노티싱의 수준을 코딩할 수 있도록 개발한 '수학적 사고 중심 수업을 위한 노티싱 수준 프레임'을 적용하여 자료 분석을 진행하였다. 분석 결과, 대부분의 예비교사들의 노티싱 수준은 강의가 진행됨에 따라 향상되었고, 수학적 사고 중심 수업(또는 효과적인 수학 수업)과 관련한 다섯 가지 핵심 측면에 집중되는 양상을 보였다. 특히, '수학적 사고 중심 노티싱 수준 프레임'에서 제시된 각각의 측면들은 예비교사들의 노티싱의 구성 요소 중 '무엇에 주목할 것인가'에 대한 역량 함양에 대한 함의점을 제시하고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 즉, 강의 초반 어떤 수업이 좋은 수학 수업의 모습일지에 대해 논의를 충분히 하고 논의의 결론도 어느 정도 합의가 되었다고 하였지만, 각 개별 에세이에 나타난 '무엇에 주목할 것인가'와 관련한 분석은 다소 다양하거나 핵심적인 측면 한 두가지만 노티싱을 하고 있는 것으로 보였다. 그러나 TRU Math 프레임을 이용하여 수업을 관찰하고 분석하는 활동을 통해 예비교사들의 '무엇에 주목할 것인가'와 관련한 선택적 주의 집중의 수준은 향상됨을 알 수 있었다. 이는 명시적인 가이드라인이나 좋은 수업 사례, 이론에 기반한 분석틀을 이용하여 깊이 있는 분석과 논의 및 성찰이 예비교사의 노티싱, 특히 '무엇에 주목할 것인가'와 관련한 역량 신장에 도움이 됨을 시사하고 있다. 한편, 주의 집중한 것에 대한 해석하기 및 분석하기와 관련 있는 교수학적 추론은 그 양상이 수집한 자료들 사이에 다소 다양하게 나타났다. 이는 기존의 연구에서 보고하고 있듯이 단순히 무엇에 주목해야 하는 지를 언급하는 것만으로는 노티싱 및 수업 역량을 신장하는데 도움이 되지 않으며, 구체적인 근거를 기반으로 수업 상황을 분석하고 자세히 설명함으로써 예비교사의 노티싱의 또 다른 구성요소인 교수학적인 추론 역량과 함께 수업 역량을 향상시킬 수 있다는 시사점을 제공한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5A8037908).

References

  1. American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. AAUW and NEA.
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman
  3. Baldinger, E. Louie, N., and the Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project. (2016). TRU Math conversation guide: A tool for teacher learning and growth (mathematics version). Berkeley, CA & E. Lansing, MI: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley & College of Education, Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://ats.berkeley.edu/tools.html and/or http://map.mathshell.org/materials/pd.php
  4. Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. A. (2015). Learning to analyze teaching: Developing pre-service science teachers' abilities to notice, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.005
  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  6. Chang, H. W. (2012). Study on the standards for mathematical practice of Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 22(4). 557-580.
  7. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20440
  8. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161-200). Taylor & Francis.
  9. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
  10. Erickson, F. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 17-34). Routledge.
  11. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00141
  12. Fernandez, C., S. Llinares, & Rojas., Y. (2020). Prospective mathematics teachers' development of noticing in an online teacher education program. ZDM 52. 959-972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01149-7
  13. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96(3): 606-633. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
  14. Grossman, P., C. Compton, D. Igra, M. Ronfeldt, E. Shahan, & Williamson, P. (2009) Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9): 2055-2100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905
  15. Hammerness, K. (2003). Learning to hope, or hoping to learn? The role of vision in the early professional lives of teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102238657
  16. Heaton, R. M. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. Teachers College Press.
  17. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for research in mathematics education, 28(5), 524-549. https://doi.org/10.2307/749690
  18. Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106295726
  19. Jacobs, V., Lamb, L., & Philipp, R. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169-202. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20720130 https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.2.0169
  20. Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics curriculum. Notification of the Ministry of Education No. 2015-74 [Supplement 8].
  21. Kersting, N. (2008). Using video clips as item prompts to measure teachers' knowledge of teaching mathematics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(5), 845-861. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407313369
  22. Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers' analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 568-589. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212437853
  23. Kim, H. J. (2015). Teacher learning through practices: How mathematics teachers change in practices with innovative curriculum materials [Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley].
  24. Kim, H. J. (2017). Connecting research and practice: Teaching for Robust Understanding of Mathematics framework in a Korean mathematics classroom context. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics. 27(4). 639-661.
  25. Kim, H. J. (2020). Pre-service mathematics teachers' change in professional vision for technology enhanced mathematics classrooms. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 20(4). 1079-1106. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2020.20.4.1079
  26. Kim, H. J., Han, C., Bae, M., & Kwon, O. (2017). The relationship between mathematics teachers' noticing and responsive teaching: In the context of teaching for all students' mathematical thinking. The Mathematical Education. 56(3). 341-363. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2017.56.3.341
  27. Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean?. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347321
  28. Lee, H. J., & Kim, H. J. (2022). Learning from noticing: elementary mathematics preservice teachers' noticing and responsiveness on lesson modification. Educational Studies, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2031893
  29. Lee. Y. & Lee. S. (2018). Prospective secondary mathematics teachers' noticing in lesson evaluation and lesson reflection. School Mathematics, 20(1), 185-207. https://doi.org/10.29275/sm.2018.03.20.1.185
  30. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: From noticing to reflection. RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471876
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Author.
  32. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author.
  33. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Author.
  34. Oakes, J., Joseph, R., & Muir, K. (2001). Access and achievement in mathematics and science. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 69-90). Jossey-Bass.
  35. Pang, J., Kwon, M., & Sunwoo, J. (2017). Trends and issues in research on noticing in mathematics education. School Mathematics. 19(4). 795-817.
  36. Resnick, Michaels, O'Connor (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development. Springer, 163-194.
  37. Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage
  38. Santagata, R., C. Zannoni, & J. W. Stigler. (2007). The Role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 10(2): 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9
  39. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Toward professional development for teachers grounded in a theory of decision making. ZDM The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43(4), 457-469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0307-8
  40. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational researcher, 43(8), 404-412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14554450
  41. Schoenfeld, A. H., & the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016). An introduction to the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education. http://map.mathshell.org/trumath.php or http://tru.berkeley.edu
  42. Schoenfeld, A. H., Floden, R., El Chidiac, F., Gillingham, D., Fink, H., Hu, S., ... & Zarkh, A. (2018). On classroom observations. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1(1), 34-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0001-7
  43. Sherin, M. G. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119-150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2002_1
  44. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832714
  45. Sherin, M. G. & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155
  46. Star, J. R. & S. K. Strickland. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers' ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 11(2): 107-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9063-7
  47. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. (CSE Technical Report 517). University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)
  48. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S. and Hughes, E. K. (2008) Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
  49. Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163292
  50. 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), 571-596.
  51. van Es, E. A. & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers' "learning to notice" in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005
  52. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2021). Expanding on prior conceptualizations of teacher noticing. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 53(1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01211-4
  53. Zevenbergen, R. (2000). ''Cracking the code'' of mathematics classrooms: School success as a function of linguistic, social, and cultural background. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematical teaching and learning (pp. 201-224). Ablex Publishing.