[논문]과학 수업에서 초등학생들이 바라는 교사 스캐폴딩의 요인 분석

이정윤; 박재용; 장신호

doi:10.14697/jkase.2023.43.5.483

과학 수업에서 초등학생들이 바라는 교사 스캐폴딩의 요인 분석
A Factor Analysis of Teacher's Scaffolding Expected by Elementary School Students in Science Classes 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.43 no.5, 2023년, pp.483 - 493

이정윤 (서울교육대학교) , 박재용 (서울교육대학교) , 장신호 (서울교육대학교)

초록
AI-Helper

이 연구의 목적은 초등학교 과학 수업에서 학생들이 바라는 교사의 스캐폴딩 요인을 추출하고 요인들 간 구조적 연관성을 밝히는 것이다. 이를 위해 관련 선행연구를 바탕으로 스캐폴딩의 공통적인 요소를 추출한 뒤 초등 과학 수업의 특성을 고려하여 설문 문항을 개발하였다. 예비 조사 단계를 거쳐 완성된 최종 설문지를 활용하여 전국의 초등학생 436명을 대상으로 과학 수업에서 바라는 교사 스캐폴딩의 요인에 관한 설문 조사를 실시하였다. 응답 내용에 대해 탐색적 요인 분석(EFA)을 실시한 결과 누적 분산이 61.65%인 4개의 요인이 추출되었다. 이를 문항의 특성과 선행연구를 토대로 각각 개념적, 절차적, 메타인지적, 정서적 스캐폴딩으로 명명하였다. 이들 요인 간 구조적 관계를 살펴보기 위하여 확인적 요인 분석(CFA)을 실시하였다. 각 요인 간 상관관계는 .65~.75의 비교적 높은 상관을 보였으며 이는 과학 수업에서 여러 가지 스캐폴딩 요소들이 서로 밀접하게 영향을 미치고 있음을 의미한다. 특히 절차적 스캐폴딩 및 개념적 스캐폴딩과 정서적 스캐폴딩 간 상관이 가장 높게 나타났다. 정서적인 지원은 학생이 수업에 참여할 수 있도록 도움을 주고 결국 개념적, 절차적 스캐폴딩과 같은 인지적 스캐폴딩과 상보적인 영향을 미친다는 것을 알 수 있다. 본 모델의 적합도 검증을 위해 절대 적합 지수와 증분적합 지수를 활용한 결과 모든 지수들이 판단 기준을 만족하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 추출된 스캐폴딩 요인별 학생들의 요구도를 알아보기 위하여 각 요인의 평균값 및 개방형 질문에 대한 응답 내용을 비교하였다. 그 결과 정서적 스캐폴딩에 대한 요구도가 가장 높았으며 메타인지적 스캐폴딩의 요구도는 가장 낮았다. 본 연구는 학생의 응답을 통해 스캐폴딩의 양상을 밝혔다는 점에서 의의가 있으며 이를 통해 밝혀진 학생이 바라는 스캐폴딩 요인 구조 및 학생의 요구도 특성은 교사의 과학 수업 계획 및 스캐폴딩 이해의 기초자료로 활용될 수 있으리라 기대한다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

The purpose of this study is to extract teacher's scaffolding factors in elementary science classes that students expected and define the structural relationships between each factor. The survey items, completed after the preliminary research stage, were used to survey 436 elementary school students across Korea. An exploratory factor analysis of the responses was conducted, and four factors with a cumulative variance of 61.65% were extracted. We named these factors, based on the nature of the items and previous research, as follows: conceptual, procedural, metacognitive, and emotional scaffolding. A confirmatory factor analysis was then conducted, and the correlations between the factors were relatively high, ranging from .65 to .75, indicating that the different scaffolding factors were closely related. Procedural and conceptual scaffoldings showed high correlations with emotional scaffolding. This shows that emotional support helps students participate well in class and ultimately has a positive effect on cognitive scaffolding. To verify the compatibility of this model, absolute and incremental fit indices were applied, and all indices were found to satisfy the judgment criteria. The averages of each factor were compared and verified to determine the students' perceptions of the extracted scaffolding factors. The need for emotional scaffolding was the highest, and the need for metacognitive scaffolding was the lowest. Through this study, we were able to structure the type of scaffolding that elementary school students desire from their teachers in science classes, and we expect that this will help teachers design scaffolding more systematically and more appropriately meet their students' needs.

주제어

표/그림 (13)

표 Table 1. Participants of the main test
표 Table 2. Questionnaire for exploratory factor analysis
표 Table 3. KMO and Bartlett test
표 Table 4. Results of exploratory factor analysis
표 Table 5. Factor loadings of rotated component matrix
그림 Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis model for teacher's scaffolding expected by elementary school students in science classes
표 Table 6. Convergent validity verification of confirmatory factor analysis model
표 Table 7. ΔX² between unconstrained model and constrained model
표 Table 8. Model fit of confirmatory factor analysis
표 Table 9. Descriptive statistics of students' need on teacher's scaffolding factors
표 Table 10. Frequency of students' responses to open-ended question
표 Table 11. Examples of students' responses to open-ended question
표 Table 12. Difference in the students' need on teacher's scaffolding factors by gender

참고문헌 (53)

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation？models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds and possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard？University Press.
Cho, S., & Song, H. (2013). A study on the effects of reflexive level and？scaffolding types on cognitive presence and achievement test in a？blended learning environment. Korean Journal of Educational？Research, 51(3), 219-242.
Davis, E., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration:？Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science？Education, 22, 819-837.

상세보기
Do, H., Park, J., & Yoo, J. (2016). An analysis of teacher's scaffolding？for promoting social construction of scientific models in middle school？science classes. Journal of the Korean Association for Science？Education, 36(4), 643-655.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual frameworks for scaffolding？ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and？peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development,？52(2), 5-22.
Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments:？Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional？design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory？(Vol. II, pp. 115-140). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haruehansawasin, S., & Kiattikomol, P. (2018). Scaffolding in？problem-based learning for low-achieving learners. Journal of？Educational Research, 111(3), 363-370.
Hassard, J., & Dias, M. (2009). The art of teaching science: Inquiry and？innovation in middle school and high school. NY: Routledge.
Hsin, C-T., & Wu, H-K. (2011). Using scaffolding strategies to promote？young children's scientific understandings of floating and sinking.？Journal of Science Education & Technology, 20, 656-666.
Hwang, S. (2021). A systematic review of scaffolding related research trends？in Korea. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction,？21(7), 217-237.

상세보기
Ju, E., Lee, J., & Jang, S. (2013). Effects of pre-service teacher's scaffolding？in environmental camp about climate change. Journal of Korean？Elementary Science Education, 32(1), 82-94.
Kang, I. (2016). Why constructivism: Information age and learner-centered？educational environment. Seoul: Moonumsa.
Kang, M., Lim, Y., Kim, M., & Kim, J. (2009). The difference between？two scaffolding types in academic achievement and science inquiry？skills for WISE-based science education. The Korean Journal of？Educational Methodology Studies, 21(1), 1-99.
Kim, G. (2001). Analysis structural equation modeling AMOS4. Seoul: SPSS？Academy Publication Co.
Kim, H., Yoon, H., Lee, K., Ha, M., & Cho, H. (2021). Theories of science？education. Seoul: Kyoyookbook Publication Co.
Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2004). Designing online learning environments？to support scientific inquiry. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,？5(1), 1-10.
Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders' problem solving？in technology-enhanced science classroom: A qualitative case study.？Instructional Science, 39(3), 255-282.
Kim, S., & Jeong, I. (2011). The scratch programming learning attitude？effects of scaffolding based learning strategy. Journal of the Korean？Association of Information Education, 15(1), 39-49.
KOFAC (2022). Development research of draft of 2022 revised subject？curriculum: Science curriculum. Seoul: KOFAC
Lee, K., Heo, J., & Park, J. (2019). Development and application of cognitive？scaffolding tools for enhancing the integrated science process skills？of high school students. Journal of Korean Association for Science？Education, 39(4), 545-562.
Lee, K., & Lee, Y. (2015). The difference of the scaffolding type on learners'？interactions and the quality of discussion in the web-based discussion.？Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media,？21(3), 423-439.
Lee, S. (2010). Fundamentals of factor analysis. Seoul: Kyoyookbook？Publication Co.
Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2017). Effects of scaffolding and metacognition and？collaborative preference on problem-solving in blended collaborative？learning. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information？and Media, 23(1), 83-108.
Lim, K., Park, H., & Kim, J. (2015). Exploratory study on the patterns of？interaction and team performance according to the scaffolding types？in a web-based collaborative problem solving. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 15(8), 1-25.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers and peers: Science？learning partners. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Martin, N. D., Dornfeld Tissenbaum, C., Gnesdilow, D., & Puntambekar,？S. (2019). Fading distributed scaffolds: The importance of？complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds. Instructional？Science, 47(1), 69-98

상세보기
McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning？environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance？Education, 23(2), 149-162.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst？teachers and learners. PA: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis？to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational？Psychologist, 37(1), 17-25.

상세보기
Palinscar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded？instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1&2), 73-98.
Park, C. (1999). Social constructivism and classroom dialogue: Implications？of knowledge construction in childhood education. Journal of Chinju？National University, 38, 277-294.
Park, J., & Lee, K. (2012). Exploring the components and functions of？scaffolding in open inquiry through factor analysis. Journal of the？Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1204-1221.
Park, M. (2016). Emotional scaffolding as a strategy to support children's？engagement in instruction. Universal Journal of Educational Research,？4(10), 2353-2358.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed？scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of？Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.

상세보기
Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in？social constructivist classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching？high-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
Sagong, M., & Choi, M. (2009). Differences of the achievement and？participation according to learner's introversion-extroversion and？teacher's scaffolding types in the web-based project learning. Journal？of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 15(1),？215-234.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history？and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments.？Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96.

상세보기
Seong, T. (2014). Easy-to-understand statistical analysis using SPSS and？AMOS: From descriptive statistics to structural equation models.？Seoul: Hakjisa Publish Co.
Shin, J. (2011). Meta-analysis of the effects of lessons using a scaffolding？strategy. The Journal of Education, 24(2), 25-46.
Shin, S., Brush, T., & Glazewski, K. (2020). Patterns of peer scaffolding？in technology-enhanced inquiry classrooms: application of social？network analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development,？68, 2321-2350.

상세보기
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field？of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4),？344-364.

상세보기
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation:？Teaching and learning in social activity. CA: The National Center for？Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning
Tomkins, S. P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Looking for ideas: Observation,？interpretation and hypothesis-making by 12 year-old pupils undertaking？science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 23,？791-813.

상세보기
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas,？C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics.？Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 730-745.

상세보기
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in？teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational？Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.

상세보기
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher？psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.？Souberman, Eds.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winnips, K. (2000). Scaffolding-by-design: A model for WWW-based？learner support. En-schede: University of Twente Press.
Winnips, K., & McLoughlin, C. (2000). Applications and categorization of？software-based scaffolding. In J. Bourdear & R. Heller (Eds.),？Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia,？Hypermedia and telecommunications 2000(pp. 1798-1799).？Chesapeake, VA: AAGE.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem？solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Yu, J. (2022). The concept and understanding of structural equation modeling？by the professor Yujongpil. Seoul: Hannarae Publishing Co.
Zembylas, M. (2004). Emotional issues in teaching science: A case study？of a teacher's views. Research in Science Education, 34, 343-364.

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

연합인증