한국수학교육학회지시리즈E:수학교육논문집 (Communications of Mathematical Education)

  • 제37권1호
  • /
  • Pages.1-19
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1226-6663(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9935(eISSN)
한국수학교육학회 (Korean Society of Mathematical Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

초등학생의 수학 청해력 측정 도구 개발 연구

Development of Mathematics Listening Ability Surveys for Elementary School Students

  • 투고 : 2023.01.25
  • 심사 : 2023.03.24
  • 발행 : 2023.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

수학 청해력이란 수학적 개념과 원리가 포함된 음성 언어를 듣고 그 의미를 파악하는 능력을 의미하며 일상생활 및 타 교과 수업에서의 듣기와 구분할 수 있다. 선행연구에 따르면 수학 청해력은 여섯 가지 유형으로 구분할 수 있다. 그 중 해석하며 듣기, 발견하며 듣기, 평가하며 듣기는 수학 수업에서 바람직한 듣기 태도를 나타낸다. 반면 선택적으로 듣기, 듣는 척하기, 무시하기는 적절하지 않은 듣기 태도 유형이다. 본 연구에서는 수학 청해력의 여섯 가지 유형을 기반으로 초등학교 3~6학년 학생들 834명과 그들의 담임 교사 총 44명을 대상으로 한 설문의 통계적 분석을 근거로 초등학교 학생을 대상으로 하는 수학 청해력 측정 도구를 교사용, 학생용으로 나누어 개발하였다. 측정 도구 개발 과정에서 신뢰도 검증을 위해 주성분 분석(Principal Component Analysis)을, 타당도 검증을 위해 전문가 검토 및 교사용과 학생용 측정 도구 응답 결과의 상관관계 분석을 진행하였다. 또한 학생들과 그 담임 교사의 설문 결과를 통계적으로 분석하여 추가 타당도 검증을 하였다. 선행연구 및 통계 자료 분석을 토대로 본 연구에서는 25개의 문항으로 구성된 수학 청해력 측정 도구(학생용), 26개의 문항으로 이루어진 수학 청해력 측정 도구(교사용)를 개발 하였다.

Mathematics Listening Ability(MLA) refers to the ability to listen to and grasp the meaning of speech language containing mathematical concepts and principles, distinguishing it from daily life and listening in other subject classes. According to literature, MLA might be divided into six types. Among them, interpretation, discovering, evaluating, and evaluation may indicate an attitude that correctly listens to the meaning of the language used in mathematics classes. On the other hand, selective, pretend, and ignore are types of listening attitudes that are not appropriate. Based on the statistical analysis of 834 3rd to 6th graders and a total of 44 homeroom teachers I developed a MLA survey items for elementary school students. In this study, principal component analysis was conducted to verify reliability in the development of survey items, and expert review and correlation analysis of survey results were conducted to verify validity. In addition, the validity was verified by statistically analyzing the survey results of students and their homeroom teachers. Based on literature and statistical analysis, I developed a MLA Survey items(for students) consisting of 25 questions and a mathematical resolution measurement tool(for teachers) consisting of 26 questions.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Kang, Y., & Han, S. (2022). Development of a tool to measure math anxiety factors for high school students and validation of validity. Communications of Mathematical Education, 36(2), 201-227. https://doi.org/10.7468/JKSMEE.2022.36.2.201
  2. Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics curriculum, Ministry of Education Notice No. 2015-74 [Annex 8]. Retrieved from http://if-blog.tistory.com/939
  3. Kim, E., & Oh Y. (2012). The effects of mathematics instruction using children's literature on mathematical communication, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 16(1), 97-124.
  4. Oh, M., & Oh Y. (2018). Effects of teaching mathematics focused on establishing mathematical communication-based classroom culture on elementary students' cognitive and affective domain, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea , 22(1), 25-46.
  5. Oh, Y., & Oh T. (2009). The effects of mathematical communication-centered teaching using peer feedback on mathematics learning, Communications of Mathematical Education, 23(2), 327-347.
  6. Ok, B., Lee, C., & Ryoo, B. (2021). Development of mathematics anxiety scale for middle school students & its validity. Communications of Mathematical Education, 35(3), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.7468/JKSMEE.2021.35.3.233
  7. Kim, R. (2022). South Korean elementary teachers' perception about students' mathematics listening ability. Education of Primary School Mathematics, 25(4), 343-360.
  8. Hong, W., & Pang J. (2008).An analysis of teacher-student communication and students' mathematical thinking in sixth grade mathematics classrooms, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics, 11(2), 201-219.
  9. Allen, C. (2013). Does God listen to rap?: Christians and the world's most controversial music. Cruciform Press.
  10. Beall, M. L., Gill-Rosier, J., Tate, J., & Matten, A. (2008). State of the context: listening in education. Journal of Listening, 22(2), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010802174826
  11. Beard, D., & Bodie, G. D. (2014). Listening research in the communication discipline. In P. J. Gehrke & W. M. Keith (Eds.), The unfinished conversation: 100 years of communication studies. Routledge.
  12. Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D., Imhof, M., & Cooper, L. O. (2008). What would a unified field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors. International Journal of Listening, 22(2), 103-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010802174867
  13. Bommelje, R., Houston, J. M., & Smither, R. (2003). Personality characteristics of effective listeners: A five factor perspective. International Journal of Listening, 17(1), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2003.10499054
  14. Brent, R., & Anderson, P. (1994). Teaching kids how to listen. Education Digest, 59(5), 4.
  15. Campbell, R. (2011). The power of the listening ear. English Journal, 100(5), 66.
  16. Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 17(5), 457-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(05)80005-9
  17. Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and instruction, 22(4), 467-498. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_4
  18. Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly successful people. Fireside.
  19. Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355-376.
  20. Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational psychology, 95(3), 465.
  21. English, L. D., & Mulligan, J. T. (2013). Perspectives on reconceptualizing early mathematics learning. In Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 1-4). Springer, Dordrecht.
  22. Fiumara, G. C. (1990). The other side of language: A philosophy of listening. Routledge.
  23. Forman, E. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing, and doing mathematics within communities of practice. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 333-352). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  24. Hardre, P. L., Davis, K. A., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008). Measuring teacher perceptions of the "how" and "why" of student motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(2), 155-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610801956689
  25. Haroutunian-Gordon, S., & Waks, L. (2010). Listening: Challenges for teachers. Teachers College Record, 112(11), 2717-2727. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011201107
  26. Hintz, A. B. (2011). Understanding students' experiences as listeners during mathematical discussion. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(3), 261-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2011.595883
  27. Hintz, A. B. (2013). Strengthening discussions. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20(5), 318-324. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.20.5.0318
  28. Hintz, A., & Tyson, K. (2015). Complex listening: Supporting students to listen as mathematical sense-makers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(4), 296-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2015.1084850
  29. Hoyles, C. (1985). What is the point of group discussion in mathematics?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 205-214.
  30. Jansen, A. (2006). Seventh graders' motivations for participating in two discussion-oriented mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 409-428. https://doi.org/10.1086/505438
  31. Jansen, A. (2020). Rough draft math: Revising to learn. Stenhouse.
  32. Janusik, L. A. (2002). Teaching listening: What do we do? What should we do?. International Journal of Listening, 16(1), 5-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2002.10499047
  33. Johnston, M. K., Weaver III, J. B., Watson, K. W., & Barker, L. B. (2000). Listening styles: Biological or psychological differences?. International Journal of Listening, 14(1), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2000.10499034
  34. Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2009). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. Journal of education, 189(1-2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-209
  35. Kaiser, H. (1970). Report for analytical chemists. II. Quantitation in elemental analysis. Analytical Chemistry, 42(4), 26A-59a. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60286a027
  36. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. Yale University Press.
  37. Luhmann, N. (1992). What is communication?. Communication Theory, 2(3), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00042.x
  38. Mason, J. (2020). Questioning in mathematics education. Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, 705-711.
  39. Njiku, J., Mutarutinya, V., & Maniraho, J. F. (2020). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge survey items: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(3), 150-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1724840
  40. O'Mara, D. A. (1981). The Process of Reading Mathematics. Journal of Reading, 25(1), 22-30.
  41. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163-194). Springer.
  42. Robertson, K. (2005). Active listening: more than just paying attention. Australian Family Physician, 34(12), 1053-1055.
  43. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge University Press.
  44. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & 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
  45. Watson, K. W., Barker, L. L., & Weaver III, J. B. (1995). The listening styles profile (LSP-16): Development and validation of an instrument to assess four listening styles. International Journal of Listening, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.1995.10499138
  46. Weaver, J. B., Richendoller, N. R., & Kirtley, M. D. (1995). Individual differences in communication style. In annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Antonio, TX.
  47. Zapalska, A. M., & Dabb, H. (2002). Learning styles. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 13(3-4), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J066v13n03_06