산업융합연구 (Journal of Industrial Convergence)

  • 제21권8호
  • /
  • Pages.87-96
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2635-8875(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2672-0124(eISSN)
대한산업경영학회 (DAEHAN Society of Industrial Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

중등 예비체육교사의 배움중심수업에 대한 메타포 분석

A Metaphor Analysis on the Learning-Centered Class of Pre-Service Secondary Physical Education Teachers

  • 김승용 (동서울대학교 레저스포츠학과)
  • 투고 : 2023.07.18
  • 심사 : 2023.08.20
  • 발행 : 2023.08.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 중등 예비체육교사들이 배움중심수업에 대해 어떠한 의미를 부여하는지 메타포 분석을 통해 알아보고, 체육수업 중 배움중심수업의 적용에 대하여 인식을 점검하고자 하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 연구 목적을 달성하고자 배움중심수업에 대한 인식을 메타포로 표현하는 설문 조사로 실시하였다. 자료 분석은 메타포 분석방벙론에 따라 코딩, 메타포 분류, 분석 단위 결정, 표본의 범주화 등의 과정을 통해 처리되었다. 그 결과 교육의 필요성, 교육의 목표 및 내용, 교수·학습 방법 및 평가, 교사 교육 및 역할이라는 4개의 대분류와 자아실현을 위한 수업, 미래 사회 준비를 위한 수업, 창의성을 기르는 수업, 개방적이고 다양한 수업, 호기심 자극 및 흥미 유발 수업, 개인의 발달 및 특성에 적합한 수업, 실천하기 부담스러운 수업, 교사의 창의성과 독창성이 필요한 수업의 8개 내용유형으로 도출되었다. 본 연구의 결과를 통해 배움중심수업의 필요성 및 방향에 대해 그 시사점을 확인할 수 있었다.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the meanings that pre-service secondary physical education teachers attach to learning-centered teaching through metaphor analysis and to examine their perceptions of the application of learning-centered teaching in physical education. In order to achieve the purpose of the study, a survey was conducted to express the perception of learning-centered teaching in metaphors. The data analysis was processed through the process of coding, metaphor classification, determining the unit of analysis, and categorisation of the sample according to the metaphor analysis method. As a result, four major categories of educational needs, educational goals and contents, teaching and learning methods and evaluation, teacher education and roles, and eight content types were derived: lessons for self-actualisation, lessons for preparing for future society, lessons that foster creativity, open and diverse lessons, lessons that stimulate curiosity and interest, lessons that are suitable for individual development and characteristics, lessons that are burdensome to implement, and lessons that require teacher creativity and originality. The results of this study provide implications for the necessity and direction of learning-centered class.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Watkins, C. (2009). Learner in the driving seat. School Leadership Today, 1(2), 28-31. DOI : 10.4018/978-1-5225-1689-7.ch001
  2. Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. Gray, A. (1997), Contructivist Teaching and Learning, SSTA Research Centre Report#97-07. Retrieved from: http://saskschoolboards.ca/research/instruction/97-07.htm
  5. Bray, B., & McClaskey, K. (2016). How to personalize learning: A practical guide for getting started and going deeper. California: Sage Publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.personalizelearning.com/2016/01/continuumof-voice-what-it-means-for.html
  6. Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: Revolutionizing Education from the Ground Up. London: Penguin UK.
  7. Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students' attitudes to student centered learning: Beyond 'educational bulimia'?. Studies in Higher Education. 28(3), 321-334. DOI : 10.1080/03075070309293
  8. Paris, C., & Combs, B. (2006). Lived meaning: What teacher mean when they say they are learner-centered. Teachers and Teaching, 12(5), 571-592. DOI : 10.1080/13540600600832296
  9. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In Search of understanding: the case for constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  10. Duffy, T. M., & Tobias, S. (2009). Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success or failure?. NY: Routledge. DOI : 0.4324/9780203878842 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878842
  11. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  12. Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI : 10.1525/ae.1994.21.4.02a00340
  13. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice, Today's standards for teaching and learning in america's schools (3rd ed.). Pormouth: Heinemann.
  14. Ahn, A., & Jeon, J. (2019). Effects of Physical Education Instructional Model on Motivation, Learning Attitude, and Academic Achievement of Elementary School Students in Korea. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 19(2), 746-752.
  15. Gao, Z., & Zhang, T. (2020). Learning-centered physical education and student motivation revisited: Two decades in retrospect. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39(4), 404-413.
  16. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
  17. Moser, K. S. (2000). Metaphor analysis in psychology - method, theory, and fields of application. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(2). Retrieved from: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1090/2387 1090/2387
  18. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, 1-19.
  19. Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56-71. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1076
  20. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
  21. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014