최소 단어 이상 선택하여야 합니다.
최대 10 단어까지만 선택 가능합니다.
다음과 같은 기능을 한번의 로그인으로 사용 할 수 있습니다.
NTIS 바로가기數學敎育學硏究 = Journal of educational research in mathematics, v.27 no.4, 2017년, pp.639 - 661
This article reviews several classroom observational frameworks and introduces one of them, Teaching for Robust Understanding of Mathematics (TRU Math) framework, in more detail. The TRU Math framework has unique features, especially of which it helps researchers and practitioners analyze lessons wi...
핵심어 | 질문 | 논문에서 추출한 답변 |
---|---|---|
MQI는 어떤 것에 기반하여 개발되었는가? | 이 MQI 프레임은 미국에서 교사 전문성 신장의 측면과 교사 평가의 측면에서 널리 사용되고 있다. 특히, MQI는 교수-학습 이론에 상당부분 기반을 두고 있는데, 이 중 Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball (2003)에서 나타난 교사와 학생의 자원의 활용 측면에서 바라본 교수 이론과 효과적인 수학 교수 문헌 연구(Borko, Eisenhart et al., 1992; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999)에 기반하여 개발되었다. 교사의 수업을 위한 지식 (Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching; MKT)과수업 실행의 관련성 측면을 연구하기 위해 개발이 시작되었으며, 심리 측정 연구에 기반하여 학생들의 수학 성취도와의 상관관계도 나타내 주고 있다. | |
교수-학습적으로 효과적인 수업의 핵심은 무엇인가? | 수학 교실에서 교수-학습적으로 효과적인 수업이란 무엇일까? 이 질문은 학교 수학이 도입된 이래로 동서양을 막론하고 각급 학교 교사, 교육 연수자, 교육 연구자 들이 끊임없이 고민해 오던 것이다. 특히, 예전부터 우리나라에서는 교사의 전문성이 강조되어왔고, 수업 전문성은 그중에 가장 핵심이다. 따라서 좋은 수학 수업을 위한 교사들의 자발적인 노력인 교사 공동체나, 각 시도 교육청 등에서 실시하는 수업 연구 대회를 비롯한 장학이나 교사 연수, 혹은 각급 학교 단위의 수업 연구 및 장학 활동 등을 통한 실행적 측면에서 상당 부분 진행되어 왔다(김동원, 2010; 최승현, 임찬빈, 2006; 한국교육개발원, 2000). | |
좋은 수학 수업을 위해 어떤 것들이 실행적 측면에서 진행되어 왔는가? | 특히, 예전부터 우리나라에서는 교사의 전문성이 강조되어왔고, 수업 전문성은 그중에 가장 핵심이다. 따라서 좋은 수학 수업을 위한 교사들의 자발적인 노력인 교사 공동체나, 각 시도 교육청 등에서 실시하는 수업 연구 대회를 비롯한 장학이나 교사 연수, 혹은 각급 학교 단위의 수업 연구 및 장학 활동 등을 통한 실행적 측면에서 상당 부분 진행되어 왔다(김동원, 2010; 최승현, 임찬빈, 2006; 한국교육개발원, 2000). 또한, 국내의 다수의 연구자들에 의해 수학 수업 분석을 논의하기 위한 많은 노력들도 있어 왔다 (예를 들면, 방정숙, 2012; 주삼환, 1998; 이경화, 2002). |
김동원(2010). 우리나라 수학 수업 연구의 현황과 전망. 수학교육학연구, 20(2), 121-143.
김희정, 한채린, 배미선, 권오남(2017). 수학 교사의 주목하기와 반응적 교수의 관계: 모든 학생의 수학적 사고 계발을 지향하는 수업 상황에서. 수학교육, 56(3), 341-363.
방정숙(2012). 초등학교 수학 수업 어떻게 분석 할 것인가?-수학 수업 평가 기준의 활용 사례. 초등교과교육연구, 15, 109-140.
주삼환(1998). 수업관찰과 분석: 장학과 교사의 수업의 질 향상을 위한. 서울: 원미사.
최승현, 임찬빈(2006). 수업평가 매뉴얼: 수학과 수업평가 기준. 한국교육과정평가원 연구자료. ORM 2006-24-5.
한국교육개발원(2000). 학교평가대상학교 교직원 연수 자료집. 한국교육개발원.
Baldinger, E. Louie, N., and the Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project. (2016). TRU Math conversation guide: A tool for teacher learning and growth (mathematics version). Berkeley, CA & E. Lansing, MI: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley & College of Education, Michigan State University.
Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C., Underhill, R., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1992). Learning to Teach Hard Mathematics: Do Novice Teachers and Their Instructors Give up Too Easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 23(3). 194-222.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B. and Perlwitz, M.: 1991, 'Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project', Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22(1), 3-29.
Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1-24.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0: A Resource for Ongoing Teacher Development. Washington, DC: Author.
Danielson, C. (2011). The Framework for Teaching evaluation instrument, 2011 Edition. http://www.danielsongroup.org/article.aspx?pageFfTEvaluationInstrument. http://www.danielsongroup.org/download/?download448.
Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161-200). London: Taylor & Francis.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483 Franke,
Institute for Research on Policy Education and Practice. (2011). PLATO (Protocol for language arts teaching observations). Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Policy Education and Practice.
Junker, B., Matsumura, L. C., Crosson, A., Wolf, M. K., Levison, A., Weisberg, Y., & Resnick, L. (2004). Overview of the Instructional Quality Assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Kane, T. J. & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Research Paper. MET Project. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Kim, D. (2010). Current state and prospect of research about mathematics instruction in Korea. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics. 20(2). 121-143.
Kim, H. J. (2015). Teacher learning through practices: How mathematics teachers change in practices with innovative curriculum materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Kim, H., Han, C., Bae, M. S., & Kwon, O. N. (2017). The relationship between mathematics teachers' noticing and responsive teaching: In the context of teaching for all students' mathematical thinking. Journal of Korean Society of Mathematics Education Series A: The Mathematical Education. 56(3), 341-363.
Ku, M. & Lee, K. (2015). Analyzing and restructuring mathematical tasks of length measurement in elementary school mathematics: Focused on 2nd Graders. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea. 19(3), 387-408.
Learning for Mathematics for Teaching (2006). A Coding Rubric for Measuring the Mathematical Quality of Instruction (Technical Report LMT1.06). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of Education.
Lee, E. J. & Lee, K-H. (2016). A study on teacher's pre-noticing and actual noticing in mathematics classroom. Journal of Korean Society Educational Studies in Mathematics School Mathematics, 18(4). 773-791.
Lee, K-H. (2002). Observation and analysis of elementary mathematics classroom discourse. Journal of Korean Society Educational Studies in Mathematics School Mathematics, 4(3). 435-461.
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2), 31-36.
Marder, M., & Walkington, C. (2012) UTeach Teacher Observation Protocol. https://wikis.utexas.edu/pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId6884866&sortBydate&highlightUTOP_Physics_2009.doc.&.
Measures of Effective Teaching Project (2012). Gathering Feedback for Teaching. http://metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Research_Paper.pdf
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Councile of Chief State School Officiers (NGA & CCSSO). (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
PACT Consortium (2012) Performance Assessment for California Teachers. (2012) A brief overview of the PACT assessment system. http://www.pacttpa.org/_main/hub.php?pageNameHome.
Peressini, D., & Knuth, E. (1998). 'Why are you talking when you could be listening? The role of discourse in the professional development of mathematics teachers', Teaching and Teacher Education. 14(1), 107-125.
Pianta, R., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, (January), 401-406.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM, 45(4), 607-621.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404-412.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). Thoughts on scale. ZDM, 47(1), 161-169.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (July 23, 2017). Personal communication.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (November 2, 2017). Personal communication.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (in press). In C. Y. Charalambous and A.-K. Praetorius (Eds.), Studying Instructional Quality in Mathematics through Different Lenses: In Search of Common Ground. An issue of ZDM: Mathematics Education.
Schoenfeld, A. H., & the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016a). An Introduction to the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://map.mathshell.org/trumath.php or http://tru.berkeley.edu.
Schoenfeld, A. H., and the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016b). The Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) observation guide for mathematics: A tool for teachers, coaches, administrators, and professional learning communities. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing Standards-Based Mathematics Instruction: A Casebook for Professional Development. Second Edition. Reston, VA: Teachers College Press.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
University of Michigan (2006). Learning mathematics for teaching. A coding rubric for measuring the mathematical quality of instruction (Technical Report LMT1.06). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of Education.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and Methods. SAGE publications. Thousand oaks.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.