[논문]과학수업에서의 어려움과 해결방안에 대한 과학교사의 인식 -KTOP (Korean Teaching Observation Protocol) 분석을 이용하여-

김학태; 박종원

doi:10.14697/jkase.2023.43.2.111

과학수업에서의 어려움과 해결방안에 대한 과학교사의 인식 -KTOP (Korean Teaching Observation Protocol) 분석을 이용하여-
Science Teachers' Perceptions About Difficulties and Their Resolution in Science Teaching: Using KTOP (Korean Teaching Observation Protocol) Analysis 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.43 no.2, 2023년, pp.111 - 124

김학태 (광주광역시 창의융합교육원) , 박종원 (전남대학교)

초록
AI-Helper

본 연구는 좋은 과학수업에 대한 과학교사의 인식을 알아보기 위해 수행되었다. 이를 위해 과학수업을 관찰하고 개선하기 위한 목적으로 개발된 KTOP(Korean Teaching Observation Protocol)을 이용하여, 1차로 KTOP의 각 항목들이 좋은 과학수업을 위해 중요하다고 생각하는지, 어느 정도로 실행하고 있는지, 그리고 어느 정도로 실행하기 어렵다고 생각하는지를 조사하였고, 2차로 실행하기 어려운 KTOP 항목들에 대한 이유와 해결 방안은 무엇이라고 생각하는지를 조사하였다. 1차로 63명과 2차로 35명의 과학교사로부터 얻은 응답은 응답의 특성에 따라 유형별로 분류하고, 분류한 내용을 요약하여 그 특징을 논의하였다. 그 결과, 과학교사들은 1개의 항목을 제외한 KTOP의 모든 항목들이 좋은 과학수업을 위해 중요하다고 응답하였으나, 실행하기 어려운 경우에는 실행정도가 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 중요하지만 실행하기 어려워 실행정도가 상대적으로 낮은 것으로 나타난 13개 KTOP 항목에 대해서는 그 이유를 학생과 교사에게 있는 것으로 많이(69%) 응답하였으나, 어려움에 대한 해결방안은 교사에게서 찾아보려는 응답(60%)이 가장 많았다. 이로부터 좋은 과학수업을 위해서는 외적인 환경보다는 교사들에 대한 이해와 지원, 역량 강화 등이 중요하다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 본 연구 결과가 과학수업에 대한 교사의 어려움을 구체적으로 이해하고, 어려움을 해결하기 위해 실제에 기반한 노력에 기여할 수 있기를 바란다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

The aim of this study was to explore science teachers' perceptions of good science teaching. To this end, the Korean Teaching Observation Protocol (KTOP), which was developed for the purpose of observing and improving science teaching, was utilized. In the first survey, teachers were asked whether they thought each item in the KTOP was important for good science teaching, the extent to which they implemented these items, and the level of difficulty in implementing them. The second survey asked teachers what they believed to be the reasons and solutions for the KTOP items that they had responded as difficult to implement. The responses obtained from 63 teachers in the first survey and 35 teachers in the second survey were categorized based on the characteristics of the responses. The categorized contents were then summarized and discussed for their features. As a result, science teachers responded that all items in KTOP, except for one, are important for good science teaching. However, it was also shown that the level of execution was low in cases where implementation was difficult. For the 13 KTOP items that were considered important but difficult to implement and showed relatively low implementation level, many respondents (69%) attributed the reason to both students and teachers. However, the most common response (60%) was that the teacher should solve those difficulties. From this, it was found that understanding and supporting teachers, as well as enhancing their competencies, are more important for good science teaching than external factors. We hope that this research findings will help to better understand the specific difficulties that science teachers face in their classes and contribute to practical efforts that aim to address these challenges.

주제어

표/그림 (13)

그림 Figure 1. Introduction of each item of KTOP used in the first survey
표 Table 1. Example of KTOP item-based analysis of descriptive responses in the 2nd survey
표 Table 2. Example of category-based analysis of descriptive responses in the 2nd survey
그림 Figure 2. Top 11 KTOP items that science teachers thought were important for good science teaching
그림 Figure 3. Top 10 KTOP items that science teachers said were highly implemented
그림 Figure 4. The bottom 10 KTOP items that science teachers said as having low implementation
그림 Figure 5. Top 10 KTOP items that science teachers said were difficult to implement
그림 Figure 6. Classification of KTOP items according to difficulty and degree of implementation
표 Table 3. Correlation between response types (n=1,890)
표 Table 4. KTOP items that are important but have low implementation due to difficulty
표 Table 5. Summary of the difficulty of implementing KTOP items by category
표 Table 6. Response by category of the solutions to difficulties in implementing KTOP items
표 Table 7. Summary of responses by category to the solutions to difficulties in implementing KTOP items

참고문헌 (50)

Adey, P. (2004). The professional development of teacher' practice and？theory. Kluwer Academic.
Akerson, V. L., Carter, I., Pongsanon, K., & Nargund-Joshi, V. (2019).？Teaching and learning nature of science in elementary classrooms:？Research-based strategies for practical implementation. Science &？Education, 28, 391-411.
Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary？approaches to teaching nature of science: integrating student inquiry,？historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science？Education, 98(3), 461-486.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing school？systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D.,？Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light？of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative？effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction.？Science Education, 94, 577-616.
Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Science faculty improving teaching practice:？Identifying needs and finding meaningful professional development.？International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,？24(2), 180-188.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials？and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with？student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673-782.
Davis, K. S. (2003). "Change is hard": What science teachers are telling？us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science？Education, 87(1), 3-30.
Flora, D.B., & Panter, A.T. (1999). Technical report: Analysis of the？psychometric structure of the LSC surveys. L.L. Thurstone Psychometric？Lab.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfelt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson,？P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective.？Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055-2100.

상세보기
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining？teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching:？Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.

상세보기
Ha, H. (2014). Critical discussion on practice turn in social theory: Focusing？on Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu. Korean Journal of Sociology,？48(1), 205-233.

상세보기
Hoban, G. F. (2005). Developing a multi-linked conceptual framework for？teacher education design. In G. F. Hoban (Ed.), The missing links？in teacher education design: Developing a multi-linked conceptual？framework. Springer.
Jeong, J-S., Park, J., Park, J., Kim, Y., & Park, Y-S. (2014). Developing？and applying in-service program for spreading the practical on-site？cooperation model(POCoM). Journal of the Korean Association for？Science Education, 34(3), 261-272.
Joram, E., & Gabriele, A. J. (1998). Preservice teachers' prior beliefs:？Transforming obstacles into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher？Education, 14(2), 175-191.

상세보기
Kang, J., & Jhun, Y. (2019). A comparison of viewpoints on the good lesson？between elementary school pre-service teachers and experienced？teachers. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 38(1),？31-42.
Kang, N. -H., & Park, Y. (2010). Identification of instructional components？to increase students' interest and creativity in American science？classrooms. Journal of Science Education (Kyougpook Natioal？University), 34(2), 421-431.
Kellner, E., Gullberg, A., Attorps, I., Thoren, I., & Tarneberg, R. (2011).？Prospective teachers' initial concpetions about pupils' difficulties in？science and mathematics: A potential resource in teacher education.？International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9,？843-866.
Kemp, E. K., Tzou, C. T., Reiser, B. J., & Spillane, J. P. (2002). Managing？dilemmas in inquiry science teaching. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T.？Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The Proceedings of the fifth？international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 206-213).？Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Against boldness. Journal of Teacher Education,？61(1-2), 16-20.
KICE (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation). (2006). Class？evaluation manual: Science class evaluation standard. Research Report,？2006-24-7.
Kim S., & Park, J. (2017). Application of the KTOP(Korean Teaching？Observation Protocol) for observing and improving science teaching？in teaching practicum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science？Education, 37(6), 961-970.
Kloser, M. (2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A？delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,？51(9), 1185-1217.

상세보기
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and？practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational？Researcher, 28(4), 4-17.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher:？Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and？Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97.

상세보기
Kwak, Y. -S. (2003). Case study of science classroom analysis. Journal of？the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(5), 484-493.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on？problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178-195.

상세보기
Lampert, M. (1995). Managing the tensions in connecting students' inquiry？with learning mathematics in school. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz,？M. M. West & M. S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching？for understanding with new technologies (pp. 213-232). Oxford？University Press.
Lee, B. (2016). Secondary science teachers' concepts of good science？teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education,？36(1), 103-112.
Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher,？29(2), 4-16.

상세보기
Mostafa, T., Echazarra, A., & Guillou, H. (2018). The science of teaching？science: An exploration of science teaching practices in PISA 2015,？OECD Education Working Papers, No. 188, OECD Publishing.？http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f5bd9e57-en
NRC (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
Park, J., Kim, Y., Heong, J. -S., Park, Y. -S., Park, J. (2017). Expansive？application of the POCoM(Practical On-site Cooperation Model) for？practical improvement of science teaching. Journal of Science？Education (Kyungpook National University), 41(3), 365-381.
Park, J., Kim, Y., Park, J., Jeong, J-S., & Park, Y-S. (2016). Korean science？teachers' perceptions and actual usage of educational theories and？teaching strategies in their teaching. Journal of Baltic Science？Education, 15(4), 411-423.
Park, J., Kim, Y., Park, Y-S., Park, J., & Jeong, J-S. (2015). Development？and application of the practical on-site cooperation model(POCoM)？for improving science teaching in secondary schools. Journal of Baltic？Science Education, 14(1), 45-63.

상세보기
Park, J., Park, Y-S., Kim, Y., Park, J., & Jeong, J-S. (2014). The development？of the Korean teaching observation protocol(KTOP) for improving？science teaching and learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education,？13(2), 259-275.

상세보기
Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed teaching observation？protocol(RTOP) reference manual, ACEPT Technical Report No.？IN00-3. Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of？Teachers.
Roth, K., & Garnier, H. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An？international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
Rouse, J. (2007). Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of the Social？Sciences, 37(1), 46-56.

상세보기
Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford,？R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and？mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol.？School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245-253.

상세보기
Singer, J., Lotter, C., Feller, R., & Gates, H. (2011). Exploring a model？of situated professional development: Impact on classroom practice.？Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(3), 203-227.

상세보기
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional？development on science teaching practices and classroom culture.？Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

상세보기
Turner, S. (1994). The social theory of practices. University of Chicago Press.
Wainwright, C. L., Flick, L., & Morrell, P. (2003). The development of？instruments for assessment for instructional practices in？standards-based teaching. The Journal of Mathematics and Science:？Collaborative Explorations, 6, 21-46.
Weinburgh, M. (2003). Confronting and changing middle school teachers'？perceptions of scientific methodology. School Science and？Mathematics, 103(5), 222-232.

상세보기
Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers.？Science, 340(6130), 310-313.

상세보기
Windschitl, M., Thomson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing？a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science.？Science Education, 96(5), 878-903.
Yoon, H.-G. (2008). Elementary teachers' dilemmas of teaching science？practical work. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education,？27(2), 102-116.
Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry？teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423-447.

상세보기
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition？in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science？Education, 49(2), 121-169.

상세보기

저자의 다른 논문 :

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format