Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Pre-service Chemistry Teachers' Questions in Their Teaching Practices Considering the Context of Discourse

예비화학교사의 교육실습에서 담화 맥락을 고려한 발문 분석

  • Received : 2022.05.09
  • Accepted : 2022.08.03
  • Published : 2022.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, pre-service chemistry teachers' questions in their teaching practices were analyzed considering the context of discourse. Five pre-service teachers participated in the study. Their questions were analyzed by considering various data including class videos, interviews, and teaching-learning materials. Their questions were classified into relevant question, affective question, dead-end question, rhetorical question, and structuring question. Each question was also classified into appropriate question and convenient question by the aspect of proper responses of students. The analyses of the results indicate the differences in the frequencies of several types of questions depending on the content of the lessons. After using convenient questions, pre-service teachers proceeded to prepared classes as they rather than prompted students' responses. The affective questions were rarely used. The dead-end questions were found to be used for promoting interaction with students. The rhetorical questions were used for various purposes such as arousing students' attention or promoting their thinking. Practical implications were discussed based on the results.

이 연구에서는 교육실습에서 예비화학교사의 발문을 담화 맥락을 고려하여 분석하였다. 서울특별시에 소재한 사범대학 화학교육과에 재학 중이고, 교육실습에 참여한 예비화학교사 5명이 연구에 참여하였다. 연구참여자들의 한 차시 수업을 녹화하였고, 교수학습 자료를 수집하였으며, 면담도 수행하였다. 선행연구의 분석틀을 참고하여 발문을 내용 관련 발문, 정의적 발문, 폐쇄적 발문, 수사적 발문, 구조적 발문으로 발문을 분류하였고, 각 발문을 학생들의 응답을 토대로 적절한 발문과 교사 편의적 발문으로 분류하였다. 연구 결과, 몇 가지의 유형의 발문은 예비교사들이 맡은 수업 내용의 특성에 따라 빈도가 다르게 나타났다. 교사 편의적 발문을 한 후 예비교사들은 학생들의 응답을 유도하기보다는 교사가 답을 제시하는 방식으로 주로 수업을 진행하였다. 또한, 예비교사들은 학생들의 응답 내용을 활용하는 발문들과 정의적 발문은 거의 사용하지 않았다. 예비교사들은 폐쇄적 발문을 학생의 학습 정도를 간단하게 파악하고 상호작용을 촉진하기 위한 목적으로 활용하였다. 수사적 발문은 내용을 강조하기 위한 목적뿐 아니라 학생들의 주의 집중을 유발하거나 사고를 촉진하는 등 다양한 목적으로 사용되었다. 연구 결과를 바탕으로 예비화학교사의 발문 전문성을 향상하기 위한 방안을 논하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
  2. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of education goals: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain (Vol. 1). New York, NY: David McKay.
  3. Blosser, P. E. (1973). Handbook of effective questioning techniques. Worthington, OH: Education Associates.
  4. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002157
  5. 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
  6. Cho, K.-S., Park, M.-S., & Chung, D.-H. (2009). Development of teacher questioning for improvement of scientific creativity and its' application-case study for earth science class in high school. Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 122-132. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2009.33.1.122
  7. Cho, M., Jang, J., Yoo, J., Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2010). Analysis of questioning used in science classes based on teaching and learning purposes and processes: Two case studies. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 10(2), 407-428.
  8. Cho, Y., & Woo, J. (1998). An analysis of types and characteristics of pre-service elementary school teachers' questioning in demonstrative science lessons. The Journal of Educational Studies, 27, 51-69.
  9. Choi, C. I., Cho, M.-J., & Yeo, S.-I. (2012). Analysis on teachers' perception of questioning and teaching practices in elementary science class. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(1), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2012.31.1.057
  10. Chung, H. (2021). Exploring middle school students' thinking process in science education program through the use of teacher's questions. (Doctoral dissertion). Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
  11. Chung, H., & Shin, D. (2021). Exploring limitations in applying Blosser's question category system for science. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 42(2), 221-244. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2021.42.2.221
  12. Chung, J. I., Kim, M. H. & Kang, J. H. (2009). A case study of the science class for the gifted by the elementary teachers: Focused on questioning and feedback. Journal of the Society for the International Gifted in Science, 3(2), 125-135.
  13. Chuska, K. (1995). Improving classroom questions: A teacher's guide to increasing student motivation, participation and higher-level thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
  14. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176596
  15. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 3-26).
  16. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Eshach, H., Dor-Ziderman, Y., & Yefroimsky, Y. (2014). Question asking in the science classroom: Teacher attitudes and practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9451-y
  17. Gallagher, J. J., & Aschner, M. J. (1963). A preliminary report on analyses of classroom interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 9(3), 183-194.
  18. Gayle, B. M., Preiss, R. W., & Allen, M. (2006). How effective are teacher-initiated classroom questions in enhancing student learning. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through metaanalysis (pp. 279-293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? Regional Language Centre Journal, 36(3), 297-310.
  20. Jeong, J. E. (2017). Development and application of teaching-learning materials applying question sheets in high school science to improve scientific creativity. (Doctoral Dissertion). Korea National University of Education, Cheongju.
  21. Jhun, Y. (2021). Analysis of pre-service biology teacher's class applying the science instructional model and question types. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 32(2), 223-238.
  22. Jo, I. H., Son, Y.-A., & Kim, D. R. (2012). Analysis of question patterns appearing in teaching demonstrations which applied science teachings model prepared by a pre-service biology teacher. Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2012.36.2.167
  23. Jung, M. S., Chun, M., & Chae, H. K. (2007). The case analysis of teacher's questioning and feedback through verbal interactions in the classes of the gifted in science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(9), 881-892.
  24. Kang, K.-H. (2009). Analysis of difficulties experienced by pre-service secondary science teachers in student-teacher practice. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(5), 580-591.
  25. Kang, K.-H. (2014). Analysis on the types of questions and the structure of the discourse used in pre-service science teachers' microteaching. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 64(12), 1172-1180. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.64.1172
  26. Kang, K.-H. (2017). Effect on pre-service physic teachers' questioning ability according to application of a questioning strategy program - Focusing on question type and wait-time. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 67(1), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.67.56
  27. Kang, K.-H. (2019). The types of questions and the question-answer series presented in pre-service biology teachers' microteaching. Biology Education, 47(2), 107-116. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2019.47.2.107
  28. Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J., (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers' questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004-2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.604684
  29. Kayima, F. (2016). Question classification taxonomies as guides to formulating questions for use in chemistry classrooms. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(3), 353-364. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9476
  30. Kayima, F., & Jakobsen, A. (2020). Exploring the situational adequacy of teacher questions in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 437-467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9696-9
  31. Kim, D. H., & Kim, H. N. (2011). Case analysis of verbal interaction of science-gifted elementary students in their science classes. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1145-1157. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.8.1145
  32. Kim, H., & Lee, B. (2016). The types and coping methods of dilemmas of pre-service science teachers during student teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 657-668. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.4.0657
  33. Kim, K., Yoon, J., Park, J., & Noh, T. (2011). The components of pedagogical content knowledge considered by secondary science preservice teachers in planning and implementing teaching demonstrations. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(1), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.1.099
  34. Kim, O.-B., An, U.-H., Kim, E.-A., Ko, M.-S., & Yang, I. (2013). Analysis of the types of teachers' questioning in verification laboratory instruction and discovery laboratory instruction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1354-1366. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2013.33.7.1354
  35. Kim, S., Jeon, Y., Kang, H., & Noh, T. (2022). An analysis of pre-service science teachers' reflection of questions during science instruction in teaching practicum. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 42(1), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2022.42.1.97
  36. Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2017). Types of questioning revealed in socioscientific issues (SSI) classes for elementary students. Journal of LearnerCentered Curriculum and Instruction, 17(22), 305-324.
  37. Lee, J.-H., Kim, D.-J., Hwang, H.-S., Park, S.-Y., Baek, I.-H., & Park, K.-T. (2010). Comparative analysis of verbal interaction between teachers and students for the gifted and the general science class in middle school. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 20(3), 721-741.
  38. Lee, S.-G. (2012). An analysis of teacher's scientific questioning in elementary science classes. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 5(3), 287-296. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2012.5.3.287
  39. Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tzialli, D. (2012). Identification, interpretationevaluation, response: An alternative framework for analyzing teacher discourse in science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1823-1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.671971
  40. Maskiewicz, A. C. (2015). Navigating the challenges of teaching responsively: An insider's perspective. In A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 123-143). New York, NY: Routledge.
  41. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  42. Nieminen, J. H., Asikainen, H., & Ramo, J. (2021). Promoting deep approach to learning and self-efficacy by changing the purpose of selfassessment: A comparison of summative and formative models. Studies in Higher Education, 46(7), 1296-1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1688282
  43. Noh, T., Yoon, J., Kim, J., & Lim, H. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge factors considered by pre-service elementary teachers in planning and implementing of science teaching demonstration. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(3), 350-363.
  44. Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(2), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051002237
  45. Robertson, A., Richards, J., Elby, A., & Walkoe, J. (2015). Documenting variability within teacher attention and responsiveness to the substance of student thinking. In A. D. Robertson, R. Scherr, & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 227-248). New York, NY: Routledge.
  46. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers' practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3), 237-263. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_4
  47. Samson, G. E., Strykowski, B., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The effects of teacher questioning levels on student achievement: A quantitative synthesis. The Journal of Educational Research, 80(5), 290-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1987.10885769
  48. Sanders, R. E. (1993). The art of effective trainer questioning. ISA Transactions, 32(1), 19-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-0578(93)90007-J
  49. Song, J., Joung, Y., Martin, S., Na, J., Chang, J., & Kim, D. (2018). Classroom and culture: Understanding the science classroom culture of East Asia. Seoul: Bookshill.
  50. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford press.
  51. Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3502_2
  52. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  53. Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers' use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 13-49. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049001013