Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploring Chemistry Teachers' Noticing of High School Student's Chemistry Problem-Solving Materials

고등학생의 화학 문제해결 산출물에 대한 화학 교사의 노티싱(Noticing) 탐색

  • Nayoon Song (Center for Educational Research, Seoul National University) ;
  • Shinyoung Bae (Seoul National University) ;
  • Taehee Noh (Seoul National University)
  • 송나윤 (서울대학교 교육종합연구원) ;
  • 배신영 (서울대학교) ;
  • 노태희 (서울대학교)
  • Received : 2024.07.01
  • Accepted : 2024.08.23
  • Published : 2024.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, chemistry teachers' noticing of high school student's chemistry problem-solving materials was explored. Fourteen high school teachers participated in the study. We created materials documenting student's problem-solving processes and conducted semi-structured interviews with teachers. The results of the study revealed that most teachers only paid attention to errors in student's scientific thinking, and the number of teachers who paid attention to scientific thinking partially or completely was the same. In interpreting, teachers were most likely to provide an exaggerated interpretation with evidence, followed by a correct interpretation with evidence, and an incorrect interpretation with some evidence. In responding, many teachers suggested responses that aligned with student's thinking, with slightly more aligning with student's specific thinking than with general thinking. Teachers who suggested actions that aligned with student's specific thinking tended to be content-focused, with some vague or off-target responses. Teachers who suggested responses that aligned with student's general thinking tended to be similar to those who suggested responses that aligned with student's specific thinking, but neither type of teacher suggested student-centered responses. Some teachers suggested responses that did not align with student thinking. Based on these findings, we discussed ways to improve teachers' noticing of student problem-solving.

이 연구에서는 14명의 화학 교사를 대상으로 고등학생의 화학 문제해결에 대한 교사의 노티싱을 탐색하였다. 학생들의 문제해결 과정을 기록한 산출물을 수집하고, 이를 바탕으로 교사의 노티싱을 조사하기 위한 반구조화된 면담을 시행하였다. 연구 결과, 학생의 화학 문제해결에 대한 교사의 주의 기울이기에서는 학생의 과학적 사고 중 오류에만 주의를 기울인 교사가 가장 많았고, 과학적 사고에 부분적으로 또는 전체적으로 주의를 기울인 교사의 수는 동일했다. 해석하기에서 교사들은 근거에 기초한 과장된 해석을 가장 많이 제시했으며, 그다음으로 근거에 기초한 올바른 해석, 제한된 근거에 기초한 잘못된 해석을 제시한 교사 순으로 나타났다. 반응하기에서는 많은 교사가 학생의 사고와 연계한 반응을 제시했고, 그중 학생의 특이적 사고와 연계된 반응이 일반적 사고와 연계된 반응보다 다소 많았다. 학생의 특이적 사고와 연계한 반응을 제시한 교사들은 주로 내용 중심의 반응을 제안했고, 일부는 모호하거나 목표와 무관한 반응을 제시했다. 학생의 일반적 사고와 연계한 반응을 제시한 교사들도 학생 특이적 사고와 연계한 교사들과 유사한 경향이 있었지만, 두 유형 모두 학생 중심의 반응을 제시한 교사는 없었다. 한편, 일부 교사는 학생 사고와 연계하지 않은 반응을 제안했다. 이상의 연구 결과를 바탕으로 학생의 문제해결에 대한 교사의 노티싱 향상 방안을 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Amador, J. M., Bragelman, J., & Superfine, A. C. (2021). Prospective teachers' noticing: A literature review of methodological approaches to support and analyze noticing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 99, 103256.
  2. Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83-93.
  3. Callejo, M. L., & Zapatera, A. (2017). Prospective primary teachers' noticing of students' understandings of pattern generalization. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20(4), 309-333.
  4. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123-1130.
  5. Chiu, M. H. (2001). Algorithmic problem solving and conceptual understanding of chemistry by students at a local high school in Taiwan. Proceedings-National Science Council Republic of China Part D Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 20-38.
  6. Cho, H., & Lee, E. (2021). Prospective teachers' noticing about concept of variables. Communications of Mathematical Education, 35(3), 257-275.
  7. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
  8. Dalvi, T., & Wendell, K. (2017). Using student video cases to assess pre-service elementary teachers' engineering teaching responsiveness. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 1101-1125.
  9. Fernandez, C., Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2013). Primary school teacher's noticing of students' mathematical thinking in problem solving. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1), 441-468.
  10. Friedel, A. W., & Maloney, D. P. (1992). An exploratory, classroom-based investigation of students' difficulties with subscripts in chemical formulas. Science Education, 76(1), 65-78.
  11. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
  12. Han, C., Kim, H.-J., & Kwon, O.-N. (2018). Teacher noticing on students' reasoning of statistical variability. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics, 21(2), 183-206.
  13. Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195-211.
  14. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169-202.
  15. Jung, H. Y., Seo, Y., Han, J., Seo, M. (2022). Analyzing the changes of elementary pre-service teacher's noticing occurred in the process of participating in the actual class and learning community. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics, 25(3), 279-306.
  16. Kim, H.-J. (2022). Pre-service mathematics teachers' noticing competency: Focusing on teaching for robust understanding of mathematics. The Mathematical Education, 61(2), 339-357.
  17. Kwon, J.-S., & Lee, S.-W. (1988). A comparative analysis of expert's and novice's thinking processes in solving physics problems. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 8(1), 43-55.
  18. Lam, D. S. H., & Chan, K. K. H. (2020). Characterising pre-service secondary science teachers' noticing of different forms of evidence of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 576-597.
  19. Land, T. J., Tyminski, A. M., & Drake, C. (2019). Examining aspects of teachers' posing of problems in response to children's mathematical thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(4), 331-353.
  20. Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 88-124.
  21. Lee, E. J., & Lee, K.-H. (2016). A study on teacher's pre-noticing and actual noticing in mathematics classroom. School Mathematics, 18(4), 773-791.
  22. Lee, Y., Lee, S. J. (2018). Prospective secondary mathematics teachers' noticing in lesson evaluation and lesson reflection. School Mathematics, 20(1), 185-207.
  23. Lesseig, K., Elliott, R., Kazemi, E., Kelley-Petersen, M., Campbell, M., Mumme, J., & Carroll, C. (2017). Leader noticing of facilitation in videocases of mathematics professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20(6), 591-619.
  24. Luna, M. J. (2018). What does it mean to notice my students' ideas in science today?: An investigation of elementary teachers' practice of noticing their students' thinking in science. Cognition and Instruction, 36(4), 297-329.
  25. Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 248-252.
  26. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London, UK: Routledge.
  27. Monson, D., Krupa, E., Lesseig, K., & Casey, S. (2020). Developing secondary prospective teachers' ability to respond to student work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(2), 209-232.
  28. Niaz, M. (1995). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education, 79(1), 19-36.
  29. Noh, T., Jeon, K., Han, I., & Kim, C. (1996). Comparison of chemistry problem solving behaviors in the aspects of cognitive development level of student and context of problem. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 16(4), 389-400.
  30. Noh, T., Lim, H., & Woo, K. (1995). A composition of middle and high school students' conceptual understanding in stoichiometry and gas state. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 15(4), 437-451.
  31. Pang, J., & Cho, S. (2019). An analysis of solution methods by sixth grade students about 'reverse fraction problems'. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 29(1), 71-91.
  32. Pang, J., Kwon, M., & Sunwoo, J. (2017). Trends and issues in research on noticing in mathematics education. Journal of Korea Society Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(4), 795-817.
  33. Park, H.-K., & Kwon, J.-S. (1991). An analysis of current research on physics problem solving. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 11(2), 67-77.
  34. Pushkin, D. B. (1998). Introductory students, conceptual understanding, and algorithmic success. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(7), 809-810.
  35. Russ, R. S. (2018). Characterizing teacher attention to student thinking: A role for epistemological messages. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 94-120.
  36. Sanchez-Matamoros, G., Fernandez, C., & Llinares, S. (2019). Relationships among prospective secondary mathematics teachers' skills of attending, interpreting and responding to students' understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(1), 83-99.
  37. Schwarz, C. V., Braaten, M., Haverly, C., & de los Santos, E. X. (2021). Using sense-making moments to understand how elementary teachers' interactions expand, maintain, or shut down sense-making in science. Cognition and Instruction, 39(2), 113-148.
  38. Son, T., & Hwang, S. (2021). Examining teachers' noticing competency on students' problem-solving strategies: Focusing on errors in fraction addition and subtraction with uncommon denominators problems, The Mathematical Education, 60(2), 229-247.
  39. Song, N., & Yoon, H.-G. (2023). An analysis of elementary pre-service teachers' pedagogical reasoning about students' dissolution and solution conceptions. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 42(1), 64-81.
  40. Spitzer, S. M., & Phelps-Gregory, C. M. (2017). Using mathematical learning goals to analyze teacher noticing. In E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 303-319). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  42. Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516.
  43. Sung, S., Yeo, S.-I. (2023). Analysis of noticing characteristics presented in pre-service elementary teachers' reflection and peer evaluation on the science teaching. The Journal of Education, 43(1), 109-124.
  44. Sunwoo, J. (2024). An analysis of characteristics on elementary teachers' noticing in fraction division lessons. Education of Primary School Mathematics, 27(1), 1-18.
  45. Sunwoo, J., & Pang, J. (2020). How do prospective elementary school teachers respond to students' mathematical thinking?. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 30(4), 751-772.
  46. Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 442-468.
  47. Talanquer, V., Bolger, M., & Tomanek, D. (2015). Exploring prospective teachers' assessment practices: Noticing and interpreting student understanding in the assessment of written work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 585-609.
  48. Talanquer, V., Tomanek, D., & Novodvorsky, I. (2013). Assessing students' understanding of inquiry: What do prospective science teachers notice?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 189-208.
  49. 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.
  50. 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(2), 244-276.
  51. Wallach, T., & Even, R. (2005). Hearing students: The complexity of understanding what they are saying, showing, and doing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(5), 393-417.
  52. Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 449-459.
  53. Yoon, H. (2022). Analysis of noticing characteristics presented in elementary pre-service teachers' self-reflection journals on the science class. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 41(4), 754-770.
  54. Yoon, H.-G. (2015). Pre-service elementary teachers' pedagogical reasoning about students' science ideas. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 34(1), 58-71.
  55. Zoller, U. (2002). Algorithmic, LOCS and HOCS (chemistry) exam questions: Performance and attitudes of college students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 185-203.
  56. Zoller, U., Lubezky, A., Nakhleh, M. B., Tessier, B., & Dori, Y. J. (1995). Success on algorithmic and LOCS vs. conceptual chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(11), 987-989.