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 the Characteristics of Teachers' Adaptive Practices in Science Classes

과학 수업에서 교사의 적응적 실행의 특징 분석

  • Received : 2023.08.09
  • Accepted : 2023.08.15
  • Published : 2023.08.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we examined the adaptive practices of science teachers in their classrooms and their perspectives on the distinguishing features of these practices within science subjects. Our analysis comprised 339 cases from 128 middle and high school science teachers nationwide, and 199 cases on the characteristics of adaptive practices in science disciplines. The primary findings were as follows: First, the most significant characteristic of adaptive practice in science disciplines pertained to experimental procedures. Within the 'suggestion of additional materials/activities' category, the most frequently cited adaptive practice, teachers incorporated demonstrations to either facilitate student comprehension or enhance motivation. Additionally, 'experimental equipment manipulation or presentation of inquiry skills' emerged as the second most common adaptive practice related to experiments. Notably, over 50% of teacher responses regarding the characteristics of adaptive practices in science pertained to experiment guidance. Second, many adaptive practices involving difficulties experienced by students in learning situations were presented, particularly in areas such as numeracy and literacy. Many cases were related to the basic ability of mathematics used as a tool in science learning and understanding scientific terms in Chinese characters. Third, beyond 'experiment guidance', the characteristic adaptive practices of science subjects were related to 'connections between scientific theory and the real world', 'misconception guidance in science', 'cultivation of scientific thinking', and 'convergence approaches'. Fourth, the cases of adaptive practice presented by the science teachers differed by school level and major; therefore, it is necessary to consider school level or major in future research related to adaptive practice. Fifth, most of the adaptive action items with a small number of cases were adaptive actions executed from a macroscopic perspective, so it is necessary to pay attention to related professionalism. Finally, based on the results of this study, the implications for science education were discussed.

본 연구에서는 과학 수업에서의 적응적 실행에 대한 과학교사의 사례와 과학 교과에서의 적응적 실행의 특징에 대한 교사의 사례를 분석하였다. 이를 위하여 전국의 중고등학교 과학교사 128명이 제시한 적응적 실행의 사례 339개와 과학 교과의 특징적인 적응적 실행 사례 199개를 분석하였다. 주요 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 과학 교과의 적응적 실행의 가장 두드러진 특징은 실험과 관련된 적응적 실행이었다. 가장 많은 적응적 사례로 제시한 항목인 '추가적인 자료/활동의 제시'에서 학생들의 이해나 동기유발을 위해 시범실험을 추가하여 제시하는 것이나 두 번째로 많은 사례가 제시된 '실험기구 조작이나 탐구기능 제시'에서도 실험과 관련된 적응적 실행을 제시하였다. 또한 교사들이 응답한 과학 교과의 특징적인 적응적 실행에 대해서도 50%가 넘는 사례가 실험 지도와 관련된 내용이었다. 둘째, 수리력과 문해력 등 학습 상황에서 학생들이 겪는 어려움과 관련된 적응적 실행도 많이 제시되었는데, 과학 학습에서 도구로 사용되는 수학의 기본 능력과 관련된 사례와 한자어로 된 과학 용어의 이해와 관련된 사례가 많이 제시되었다. 셋째, '실험 지도' 이외에 '과학이론과 실세계의 연결', '과학 오개념 지도', '과학적 사고 함양', '융복합적 접근' 등을 위한 적응적 실행이 과학 교과의 특징적인 유형이었다. 넷째, 과학교사들이 제시한 적응적 실행의 사례는 학교급별로 전공별로 차이가 있어 적응적 실행과 관련된 추후 연구에서 학교급이나 전공을 고려할 필요가 있다. 다섯째, 사례수가 적은 적응적 실행 항목들은 대부분 거시적 측면에서 실행되는 적응적 실행으로 이와 연관된 전문성 향상에 관심을 기울일 필요가 있다. 추가적으로 본 연구 결과를 바탕으로 과학교육에 주는 시사점을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.
  2. Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2017a). Teachers' sense of adaptability: Examining links with perceived autonomy support, teachers' psychological functioning, and students' numeracy achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.003
  3. Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2017b). Students' adaptability in mathematics: Examining self-reports and teachers' reports and links with engagement and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.04.001
  4. Cullen, K. L., Edwards, B. D., Casper, W. C., & Gue, K. R. (2014). Employees' Adaptability and Perceptions of Change-Related Uncertainty: Implications for Perceived Organizational Support, Job Satisfaction, and Performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9312-y
  5. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962
  6. Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 12-17.
  7. Glaser, B. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
  8. Guskey, T. R. (2003). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory YUand Practice, 8(3.4), 381-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
  9. Helsby, G. (2005). Multiple truths and contested realities. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. E. Hauge, & J. Muller (Eds.), The life and work of teachers (pp. 93-108). Routledge.
  10. Hong, O., Kim, K., Lee, J., & Kim Y. (2022). Concept and characteristics of intelligent science lab. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 42(2), 177-184.
  11. Jeong, J., Lee, K., & Kim, J. (2006). Analysis of inquiry teaching levels of beginning science teachers in middle school science laboratories. The Journal of The Korean Earth Science Society, 27(4), 364-373.
  12. Jho, H., & Song, J. (2011). The observation type of primary students and the effect of their views of science on observation activity in anomalous situation. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(4), 405-414. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2011.30.4.405
  13. Kang, D., & Lee, B. (2020). Analysis of mathematics-related contents in middle school science textbook. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 70(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.70.39
  14. Kim, Y., & Choi. Y. (2013). Development of teaching adaptive resilience scale for special class teachers. Korean Council of Physical, Multiple & Health Disabilities, 56(3), 151-171. https://doi.org/10.20971/kcpmd.2013.56.3.151
  15. Kim, M., Kim, S., & Noh, T. (2019). An analysis of pre-service science teachers' pck for lessons using analogies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 441-456.
  16. Kim, H. (2023). An importance-performance analysis of secondary science teachers' adaptive practice. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 43(3), 295-306.
  17. Kim, H., & Lee, B. (2006). Why secondary students perceive that physics is uninteresting and difficult? Sae Mulli, 52(6), 521-529.
  18. Kirk, J., & Wall, C. (2010). Resilience and loss in work identities: a narrative analysis of some retired teachers' work-life histories. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 627-641.
  19. Lee, B., & Choi, E. (2008). Effect of learning chinese characters on understanding the vocabulary of physics. Sae Mulli, 57(2), 114-119.
  20. Lee, S., & Lee, B. (2018). High-school physics teachers' difficulties in teaching textbook physics inquiries. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4), 519-526.
  21. Loughland, T., & Alonzo, D. (2018). Teacher Adaptive Practices: Examining Links with Teacher Self-Efficacy, Perceived Autonomy Support and Teachers' Sense of Adaptability. Educational Practice and Theory, 40(2), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/40.2.04
  22. Loughland, T., & Alonzo, D. (2019). Teacher adaptive practices: A key factor in teachers' implementation of assessment for learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 44(7), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44n7.2
  23. Martin, A. J., Nejad, H., Colmar, S., Liem, G. A. D., & Collie, R. J. (2015). The role of adaptability in promoting control and reducing failure dynamics: A mediation model. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 36-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.004
  24. Ministry of Education (2022a). The 2022 revised national highschool curriculum. Notication NO. 2022-33 [annex 4].
  25. Ministry of Education (2022b). The 2022 revised national science curriculum. Notication NO. 2022-33 [annex 9].
  26. Orgill, M., & Bodner, G. (2004). What research tells us about using analogies to teach chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1039/B3RP90028B
  27. Park., S., & Choi, W. (2023). Perception of science core competencies of high school students who participated in the 'skills' based inquiry class of the 2015 revised science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 43(2), 87-98.
  28. Park., S., & Lee, B. (2009). Analysis of teachers' understanding and application of the physics' content of the 7th national curriculum with a focus on mechanics. Sae Mulli, 59(6), 442-449.
  29. Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
  30. Sachs, J. (2000). Rethinking the practice of teacher professionalism. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. E. Hauge, & J. Muller(Eds.), The life and work of teachers (pp. 75-87). Routledge.
  31. Son, J., Choi, J., Noh, H., Shim, K., Cha, J., Lee, K., & Lee. B. (2021). A survey of the perceptions of teachers and experts about the performance of science core schools. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 71(2), 142-149. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.71.142
  32. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers' analogical explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310304
  33. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
  34. Uhm, C. (2012). A discussion on the concept and implication of change capability. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 191-215.
  35. Yoon, H. (2004). Pre-service elementary teachers' difficulties in sience lessons. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 23(1), 74-84.
  36. Yoon, H., & Kim, H. (2021). Science teachers' implementation of online classes during covid-19 situation: interpretation through the concept of 'bricolage'. Teacher Education Research, 60(2), 227-246. https://doi.org/10.15812/TER.60.2.202106.227
  37. Yu, E., Byun, T., Baek, J., Shim, H., & Ryu, K. (2021). International research trends related to inquiry in science education: perception and perspective on inquiry, support and strategy for inquiry, and teacher professional development for inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 41(1), 33-46.
  38. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 41-72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01323662