$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$

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.

개방형 과제를 활용하는 초등 수학 수업에서 학생의 참여 분석
An analysis of students' engagement in elementary mathematics lessons using open-ended tasks 원문보기

Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education. Series A. The Mathematical Education, v.62 no.1, 2023년, pp.57 - 78  

남인혜 (광주농성초등학교) ,  신보미 (전남대학교)

초록
AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

학생의 수업 참여는 수업의 방향과 성과를 결정지을 뿐만 아니라 학업 성취 및 후속 학습의 지속성에 영향을 미친다. 본 연구는 학생의 수업 참여를 촉진하기 위한 방안으로 개방형 과제를 활용하는 수업이 지닌 시사점을 모색하기 위해 초등학교 5학년 중하위권 학생들을 대상으로 개방형 과제 활용 수업을 진행하여 학생들이 드러내는 수업 참여 양상을 분석하였다. 이로부터 교사의 발문에 자발적으로 답하거나 어려움을 참고 과제를 끝까지 수행하는 행동적 참여, 박수를 치거나 자리에서 일어나는 등의 즐거움을 표현하거나 자신의 감정을 적극적으로 드러내는 정서적 참여의 특징을 찾아볼 수 있었다. 또한 학생들은 자신의 생각을 말할 때 실생활 예를 들어 설명하거나 과제 해결에 사전 지식을 이용하였으며 과제를 다양한 방식으로 해결하려고 노력하는 인지적 참여 양상을 보였고, 친구의 의견을 물어 공동의 아이디어를 구성함으로써 과제를 해결하려고 노력하거나 모둠 활동에서 친구와 적극적으로 도움을 주고 받는 등의 사회적 참여 모습을 보였다. 이상은 개방형 과제를 활용하는 수업이 초등학생들의 수업 참여를 촉진하는 교수학적 방안이 될 수 있음을 시사한다. 나아가 본 연구는 효과적인 개방형 과제 활용 수업을 실행하는 데 교사의 지지와 긍정적인 피드백, 모둠 활동 및 소집단 토론으로 구성된 수업 방법, 놀이 및 게임 활동에 기반한 과제 제시 방식 등이 갖는 잠재적 중요성을 보여준다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

Students' engagement in lessons not only determines the direction and result of the lessons, but also affects academic achievement and continuity of follow-up learning. In order to provide implications related to teaching strategies for encouraging students' engagement in elementary mathematics less...

주제어

#개방형 과제   #학생의 수업 참여   #중하위권 학생   #초등학교 수학 지도 전략   #초등 수학 수업  

표/그림 (6)

참고문헌 (58)

  1. Baek, D. H., & Lee, K. H. (2017). A study on the qualitative differences analysis between multiple solutions in terms of mathematical creativity.？School Mathematics, 19(3), 481-494. 

  2. Bahr, D. L., & Bahr, K. (2017). Engaging all students in mathematical discussions. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(6), 350-359. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.23.6.0350 

    상세보기 crossref

  3. Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathematiques, 1970-1990. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

  4. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms : Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science？Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171 

    상세보기 crossref

  5. Cho, Y. J., & Shin, H. K. (2010). Analysis of pattern of mathematical interaction occurring in the elementary school mathematics class. Journal of？Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 14(3), 681-700. 

  6. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2),？119-142. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119 

    상세보기 crossref

  7. Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (2000). Building bridges to student engagement: Communicating respect and care for students in urban high schools.？Journal of Research & Development in Education, 33(2), 106-117. 

  8. De Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2014). Mathematics and the body: Material entanglements in the classroom. Cambridge University Press. 

  9. Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. (2012). Student engagement: What is it and why does it matter? In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschy, & C. Wylie (Eds.),？Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer. 

  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 

    상세보기 crossref

  11. Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M. T., Linn, J. S., Hofkens, T. L., Sugn, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey？measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.009 

    상세보기 crossref

  12. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence. A. Parsons & S. Milgram (Trans.). Routledge &？Kegan Paul Ltd. 

  13. Ha, S. S. (2008). A study on the understanding of the concept of implication [Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University]. http://dcollection.snu.ac.kr:80/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId000000039997 

  14. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.),？Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA annual conference (pp. 562-567). HERDSA. 

  15. Jang, S. B. (2018). Effects of open-ended problems on underachievers. The Journal of Curriculum and Instruction Studies, 11(1), 1-31. 

  16. Jeong, E. I. (2012). Exploring the factors that influence college students' class participation: Focus on autonomy support, academic self-efficacy, and？task value. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 24(2), 355-378. http://doi.org/10.17927/tkjems.2012.24.2.355 

    상세보기 crossref

  17. Jo, M. J. (2020). A case study on an individualized instructional programs by analyzing the factors of poor learning in mathematics [Master's thesis,？Seoul National University of Education]. http://www.riss.kr/link?idT15647923&outLinkK 

  18. Jung, Y. S., & Choi, H. S. (2006). Factors influencing learner participation in web-based online discussion. Journal of Korean Association for？Educational Information and Media, 12(4), 51-75. 

  19. Kang, S. M., & Kim, M. K. (2014). Constructing norms in elementary mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society,？17(2), 207-234. 

  20. Kang, W., Kim, S. M., Park, M. G., Paek, S. Y., Oh, Y. Y., & Chang, H. (2014). Theory of teaching elementary mathematics. Kyungmoon Publishers. 

  21. Kim, B. M., & Kim, Y. M. (2021). Analysis of collaborative problem solving and student-engaged instruction in middle school mathematics. The？Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 21(21), 499-517. http://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2021.21.21.499 

    상세보기 crossref

  22. Kim, E. H., & Park, M. G. (2011). An analysis on the responses and the behavioral characteristics between mathematically promising students and？normal students in solving open-ended mathematical problems. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 15(1), 19-38. 

  23. Kim, N. G., Kim, S. J. , Song, D. H., Oh, M. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2022). A study on analyzing solution spaces of open-ended tasks in elementary？mathematics. Education of Primary School Mathematics, 25(1), 81-100. http://doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2022.25.1.81 

    원문보기 상세보기 crossref

  24. Kim, N. H., & Kim, J. B. (2011). The relationship between student-teacher attachment relationship and academic achievement mediated by basic？psychological needs and academic engagement: differences in the meaning and roles of teacher support and student-teacher attachment？relationship. Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 25(4), 763-789. 

  25. Kim, Y. C. (2013). Qualitative research methodology. Academy Press. 

  26. Kim, Y. J., & Na, G. S. (2009). A Study on the mathematical communication focused on the students' level of mathematical understanding. Journal？of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 13(2), 141-161. 

  27. Ko, E. S., Park, M. S., & Lee, E. J. (2016). Prospective elementary teachers' perceptions on assessment in mathematics. School Mathematics, 18(1), 61-83. 

  28. Ko, J. W., Kim, H. J., & Kim, M. S. (2011). The impact of students' college experiences on students' cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes, and？instructional satisfaction. The Korean Educational Administration Society, 29(4), 169-194. 

  29. Kwon, O. N., Cho, Y. M., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2005). Cultivating mathematical creativity through open-ended approaches : Development of a？program and effectiveness analysis. The Mathematical Education, 44(2), 307-323. 

  30. Lee, C. Y. (2012). A study for improving mathematics instruction through open problems in the elementary school. The Journal of Educational？Research, 10(3), 307-322. 

  31. Lee, D. H. (2008). A study on the results of use of open-ended problems for evaluation in elementary mathematics. The Mathematical Education,？47(4), 421-436. 

  32. Lee, D. H. (2014). A study on the measurement in mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. School Mathematics, 16(1), 1-17. 

  33. Lee, D. J. (2004). Inquiry into learners' sense of community in online learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology, 20(3), 53-73.？https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.20.3.51 

    상세보기 crossref

  34. Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A. Berman & B. Koichu (Eds.) Creativity in？mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129-145). Sense Publishers. 

  35. Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012). The role of multiple solution tasks in developing knowledge and creativity in geometry. The Journal of？Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.11.001 

    상세보기 crossref

  36. Ministry of Education (2022). Mathematics curriculum. Ministry of Education Notice 2022-33 [8th Separated Book]. https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/viewRenew.do?boardID141&boardSeq93458&lev0&searchTypenull&statusYNW&page1&smoe&m040401&opTypeN 

  37. NCSM & NCTM (2020). Moving forward: Mathematics learning in the era of COVID-19. https://www.nctm.org/Research-and-Advocacy/Moving-Forward---NCSM-and-NCTM-Joint-Statement/ 

  38. NCTM (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM. 

  39. Nam S. I., Ryu S. R., Kwon, S. R., Shin, J. S., Park, S. S., Park, M. G., Choi, G. B., Kwon, J. R., & Lee, J. H. (2017). Theory of elementary？mathematics education. Kyungmoon Publishers. 

  40. Pang, J. S., & Jeong, H. J. (2006). Elementary school teachers' understanding and practice on learner-centered instruction : Focused on mathematical？communication. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1), 297-321. 

  41. Park, D. W. (2014). Students' understanding of material implications. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 17(4), 805-816. 

  42. Park, J. H., & Kim, A. R. (2021). A survey on implementing mathematics teaching and learning based on 2015 revised curriculum. Journal of？Research in Curriculum Instruction, 25(2), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2021.25.2.121 

    crossref

  43. Park, S. Y. (2004). Student and teacher variables improving student engagement. The Journal of Educational Administration, 22(2), 91-108. 

  44. Park, W. J., & Jeon, P. K. (2003). An analysis of small-group children's consensus patterns in open-ended problem solving. Education of Elementary？School Mathematics, 7(2), 117-129. 

  45. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves : The concept of agentic engagement. Journal？of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579-585. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690 

    상세보기 crossref

  46. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A. A., Curby, T. W., & Abruy, T. (2015). To what extent do teacher-student interaction quality and？student gender contribution to fifth graders' engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 170-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037252 

    상세보기 crossref

  47. Rowland, T., Thawaites, A., & Jared, L. (2011). Triggers of contingency in mathematics teaching. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proc. 35th conf. of the Int.？Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 73-80). PME. 

  48. Seo, D. Y. (1999). Investigations on the possibility of teaching of implication in elementary school. School Mathematics, 1(1), 95-107. 

  49. Seo, Y. M., & Park, M. G. (2021). The effects of open-ended mathematical problem solving learning on mathematical creativity and attitudes of？elementary students. Communications of Mathematics Education, 35(3), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmee.2021.35.3.277 

    원문보기 상세보기 crossref

  50. Shin, I. S., & Kim, S. M. (2006). An analysis on behavior characteristics between gifted students and talented students in open-end mathematical？problem solving. Communcations of Mathematical Education, 20(1), 33-59. 

  51. Shulman, L. S. (2005). To dignify the profession of the teacher : The carnegie foundatin celebrates 100 Years. The Magazine of Higher Learning,？37(5), 22-29. 

    상세보기 crossref

  52. Skilling, K., Bobis, J., Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., & Way, J. (2016). What secondary teachers think and do about student engagement in？mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(4), 545-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0179-x 

    상세보기 crossref

  53. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and？assessment of children's behaviral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological？Measurement, 69(3), 493-525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233 

    상세보기 crossref

  54. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. NCTM. 

  55. Taylor, S. S., & Statler, M. (2013). Material matters : Increasing emotional engagement in learning. Journal of Management Education, 38(4), 586-607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913489976 

    상세보기 crossref

  56. Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher's role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of？Educational Research, 78(3), 516-551. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292 

    상세보기 crossref

  57. Wang, K. S., Jung, H. Y., & Kim, G. Y. (2004). Development of a mathematics instruction model and its application on the social constructivism.？The Journal of Elementary Education, 17(2), 389-418. 

  58. Yoon, J. E., Cho, H. M., & Kwon, O. N. (2016). Analyzing students' engagement factors in flipped mathematics class. The Mathematical Education,？55(3), 299-316. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2016.55.3.299 

    원문보기 상세보기 crossref

저자의 다른 논문 :

관련 콘텐츠

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

FREE

Free Access. 출판사/학술단체 등이 허락한 무료 공개 사이트를 통해 자유로운 이용이 가능한 논문

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

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