$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$

연합인증

연합인증 가입 기관의 연구자들은 소속기관의 인증정보(ID와 암호)를 이용해 다른 대학, 연구기관, 서비스 공급자의 다양한 온라인 자원과 연구 데이터를 이용할 수 있습니다.

이는 여행자가 자국에서 발행 받은 여권으로 세계 각국을 자유롭게 여행할 수 있는 것과 같습니다.

연합인증으로 이용이 가능한 서비스는 NTIS, DataON, Edison, Kafe, Webinar 등이 있습니다.

한번의 인증절차만으로 연합인증 가입 서비스에 추가 로그인 없이 이용이 가능합니다.

다만, 연합인증을 위해서는 최초 1회만 인증 절차가 필요합니다. (회원이 아닐 경우 회원 가입이 필요합니다.)

연합인증 절차는 다음과 같습니다.

최초이용시에는
ScienceON에 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 로그인 (본인 확인 또는 회원가입) → 서비스 이용

그 이후에는
ScienceON 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 서비스 이용

연합인증을 활용하시면 KISTI가 제공하는 다양한 서비스를 편리하게 이용하실 수 있습니다.

중국 수학 교실에서 교사 발문과 담화 유형에 대한 탐색
Exploration of Teacher Questions and Discourse Types in Chinese Mathematics Classrooms 원문보기

Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education. Series E: Communications of Mathematical Education, v.36 no.4, 2022년, pp.487 - 509  

Liu, Wentin (영남대학교)

초록
AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

본 연구는 고등학교 진학을 위한 입시라는 독특한 수학 교실 배경이 있는 중국 중학교 수학 교실에서 일어나는 교실 담화를 분석하는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위하여 본 연구에서는 수학 교실 담화를 시작 발화로서 교사 발문 통계와 교사 발문 유형별 에피소드를 분석하였고, 교실 담화 구조 분석으로는 특히 다섯 가지 IRF 하위 유형을 밝혀낼 수 있었다. 중국 귀주성 귀양시에 위치한 H학교에 재직 중인 세 명의 수학 교사가 녹화했던 수학 수업 총 15개의 녹취록과 교사 서면 인터뷰 내용을 중심으로 자료를 분석하였다. 본 연구 결과를 보면, 차시별로 평균 20개 교사 발문이 관찰되었고 교사 발문의 사회적 스케폴딩 역할이 있었으며, 교사 발문 유형은 확인형 발문(이해확인 발문, 설명요구 발문, 상세요구 발문, 재확인 발문)과 정보형 발문(정보제시 발문)으로 분류되었다. 그리고 교실 담화 분석에 따르면 IR형 담화 구조는 거의 관찰되지 않았으며, IRF형 담화 구조의 경우는 단편적인 평가, 평가 및 이유, 근거 설명, 평가 및 학생 반응 재진술, 다른 사고나 해법 안내, 그리고 학생 답 수정이나 교사 의견 제시로 구분되었다.

Abstract AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

The purpose of this study is to analyze classroom discourse in the math classroom of middle school in China, which has a unique math classroom background of entrance examination for high school. To this end, this study analyzed teacher question statistics and episodes by teacher question type as sta...

주제어

표/그림 (7)

참고문헌 (44)

  1. Kwon, N., & Min, Y. (2003). The effects of questioning types on academic achievement by cognitive styles.?Korean As ociation for Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 6, 171-190. 

  2. Kong, H. (2018). A study on the analysis of teachers' questions in the korean classroom for academic purposes-focusing?on problem-based instruction. The Society of Korean Language Education, 29(3), 1-24. 

  3. Kim, D. (2007). Overcoming framing-difference between teacher and students: An analysis of argumentation in?mathematics classroom. The Mathematical Education, 46(2), 173-192. 

  4. Kim, M., & Song, S. (2011). Analysis on teacher's discourse in math gifted class in elementary schools using Flanders?interaction analysis program. Korea Society of Elementary Mathematics Education, 15(2), 385-415. 

  5. Kim, S. (2017). A Study on the teachers' questioning type in the lesson scripts. The Convergent Research Society Among?Humanities, Sociology, Science, and Technology, 7(12), 205-216. 

  6. Kim, S., & Pang, J. (2010). An analysis of mathematics instruction focused on discourse-based communication.?Korea Society of Elementary Mathematics Education, 14(3), 523-545. 

  7. Kim, Y. (2017). An analysis of teacher questions presented in the elementary English school teachers' guide based on the?2009 revised national curriculum. The Korea English Education Society, 16(1), 107-128. 

  8. Kim, J. (2015). A study on the development of the classroom assessment tool for primary teaching English in English:?Focus on classroom interaction. Primary English Education, 21(4), 223-245. 

  9. Do, J. (2021). An analysis of types and functions of questions presented in data and chance area of?elementary school mathematics textbooks. The Mathematical Education, 60(3), 265-279. 

  10. Park, D. (2008). Inquiry into directions of classroom discourse analysis through Bakhtin's dialogicality.?The Korean Society for the Study of Anthropology of Education, 11(1), 37-72. 

  11. Lee, Y. (2007). Redesigning time-lined structure diagram analysis and active learning time diagram analysis for the?consulting and self-analysis of teaching. The Korea As ociation of Yeolin Education, 15(2), 21-49. 

  12. Jeon, J. (2019). The types and utilization of questions by grade cluster through the analysis of primary English classes.?Studies in Foreign Language Education, 33(3), 227-259. 

  13. Cho, Y., & Shin, H. (2010). Analysis of pattern of mathematical interaction occurring in the elementary school mathematics?classrooms. Korea Society of Elementary Mathematics Education, 14(3), 681-700. 

  14. Cho, H., & Kwon, O., & Bae, Y. (2014). Analyzing research trend of interaction in mathematics classroom in Korea.?Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction, 14(6), 363-387. 

  15. Han, S., & Jung, J. (2011). Classroom discourse analysis between teacher and students in science classroom. Journal of?Science Education, 35(2), 159-172. 

  16. Choi, M. (2004). A study of the educational beliefs of early childhood teachers according to career and type of institute.?The Korean Society for Early Childho d Education, 24(1), 29-47. 

  17. Hwang, P., & Sung M. (2020). Classroom discourses in primary English 6th-Grade teachers' guides.?Korea Insti ute for Cur iculum and Evaluation, 23(4), 19-38. 

  18. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2010). 교육의 질적 연구방법론. (조정수, 역). 경문사. (원문 출판 2007). 

  19. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2010). Qualitative research education: A introduction to theories and methods.?(Cho, C. Trans). Kyung Moon Sa. (Original work published in 2015). 

  20. Cai, J., & Wang, T. (2010). Conceptions of effective mathematics teaching within a cultural context:?Perspectives of teachers from China and the United States. Journal of Mathematics Teacher?Education, 13, 265-287. 

  21. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:?Heinemann. 

  22. DeJarnette, A. F., Wilke, E., & Hord, C. (2020). Categorizing mathematics teachers' questioning: The?demands and contributions of teachers' questions. International Journal of Educational Research,?104, 1-20. 

  23. Delice, A., Aydin, E., & Cevik, K. S. (2013). Mathematics teachers' use of questions: Is there a change of?practice after the curriculum change? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology?Education, 9(4), 417-427. 

  24. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of?research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. 

  25. Fan, L., Wong, N. Y., Cai, J., & Li, S. (Eds.). (2004). How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from?insiders. Singapore: World Scientific Publishers. 

  26. Fazio, L. K. (2019). Retrieval practice opportunities in middle school mathematics teachers' oral questions.?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 653-669. 

  27. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K.?Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225-256).?Reston, VA: NCTM. 

  28. Hiebert, J., Callimore, R., Garnier, H., Givving, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., & Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching?mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMMSS 1999 video study. National Center for?Education Statistics. 

  29. Imm, K., & Stylianou, D. A. (2012). Talking mathematically: An analysis of discourse communities. J ournal?of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 130-148. 

  30. Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teacher?questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long(Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language?acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 

  31. Manouchehri, A., & Lapp, D. A. (2003). Unveiling student understanding: The role of questioning in?instruction. Mathematics Teacher, 96(8), 562-566. 

  32. Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. A. Van Dijk(Ed.), Handbook of discourse?analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 119-131). London: Academic Press. 

  33. Nathan, M. J., & Kim, S. (2009). Regulation of teacher elicitations in the mathematics classroom. Cognition?and Instruction, 27(2), 91-120. 

  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author. 

  35. Neber, H. (2008). Epistemic questions: Fostering knowledge-generation by the students. The Korean Journal?of Thinking & Problem Solving. 18(1), 7-20. 

  36. Ni, Y., Zhou, D., Li, X., & Li, Q. (2014). Relations of instructional tasks to teacher-student discourse in?mathematics classrooms of Chinese primary schools. Cognition and Instruction, 32(1), 2-43. 

  37. Reinholz, D. L., & Shah, N. (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation?patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,?49(2), 140-177. 

  38. Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers' intentions and use of probing, guiding, and?factual questions. J ournal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221-2412. 

  39. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and?review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45-80. 

  40. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

  41. Spradley, J. P. (2006). Participant observation (Shin, J. Trans). Sigma Press.(Original work published in?1980). 

  42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.?Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 272-285). Sage. 

  43. Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical?perspectives. The University of Hong Kong. 

  44. Wood, T. (1998). Funneling or focusing? Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics class. In H.?Steinbring, M. G. Bussi, A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics?classroom (pp. 167-178). NCTM. 

관련 콘텐츠

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

GOLD

오픈액세스 학술지에 출판된 논문

저작권 관리 안내
섹션별 컨텐츠 바로가기

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

AI-Helper 아이콘
AI-Helper
안녕하세요, AI-Helper입니다. 좌측 "선택된 텍스트"에서 텍스트를 선택하여 요약, 번역, 용어설명을 실행하세요.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.

선택된 텍스트

맨위로