한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제24권4호
  • /
  • Pages.748-757
  • /
  • 2004
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지

Characteristics of Science Teachers for the Gifted: A Study of Metaphor about Teaching

  • Seo, Hae-Ae (Korean Educational Development Institute)
  • 발행 : 2004.08.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

When teachers for the gifted express metaphors about their teaching, they may develop better understanding and conceptualizing of teaching and enable to choose appropriate teaching strategies for optimizing individualized learning of the gifted. Therefore, the purpose of this study includes to explore metaphors about science teachers' teaching for the gifted in middle schools and classify into types of metaphors. The survey was administered and completed survey instruments by 66 science teachers for the gifted at gifted educational institutions affiliated with local offices of education and 18 science teachers at middle schools were analyzed. It was revealed that science teachers for the gifted described seven types of metaphors about their teaching with characteristics of student-centered (counsel, helper, etc.), teacher-centered (judge, captain, etc.), or student-teacher-interacted (painter, nurse, etc.) types. More than 60% of teachers described their teaching as either student-centered or student-teacher-interacted types. However, percentage of teachers for the teacher-centered and power-oriented type was higher for science teachers for the gifted (33%) than science teachers for regular students (22%). It was also found that female science teachers for the gifted showed higher percentage for teacher-centered and power-oriented (35%) than male teachers (28%) and teachers with BS degree showed higher percentage for student-centered and service-oriented type (33%) than teachers with MS degree (27%). In addition biology teachers for the gifted also were appeared to be more teacher-centered and power-oriented type (60%) than physics (21%), chemistry (6%), and earth science (33%).

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  2. Bullough, R. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 43-51 https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719104200107
  3. Bullough, R., & Stokes, D. (1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development. Ameican Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 197-224 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031001197
  4. Carlson, T. (2001). Using metaphors to enhance reflectiveness among preservice teachers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(1), 49-53 https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2001.10605820
  5. Chan, D. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23(4), 197-202 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554098
  6. Chen, D. (2003). A classification system for metaphors about teaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74(2), 24-31 https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2003.10608375
  7. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606
  8. Gurney, B. (1995). Tugboats and tennis games: Preservice conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(6), 569-583. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320605
  9. Hanninen, G. E. (1988). A study of teacher training in gifted education, Roeper Review, 10, 139-144 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198809553109
  10. Hansen, J., & Feldhusen, J. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115-123 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800304
  11. Kaplan, S. (1991). Layering differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. In F. Karnes & S. Bean. (Eds.). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp.133-158). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc
  12. Kim, H. W., Cho, S. H., Lee, Y. S., & Park, J. S. (2000). A study on teacher training and recruitment system for gifted education in Korea. Commissioned Research CR2000-16. Seoul:Korean Educational Development Institute
  13. Maker, C., & Nielson, A. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-Ed, Inc
  14. Maker, C., & Nielson, A. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc
  15. Ministry of Labor. (2003). A standard job classification system in Korea. http://laborstat.molab.go.kr
  16. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1990). Metaphor in the study of teachers’ professional knowledge. Theory into Practice, 29(2), 116-121 https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543441
  17. Ornstein, A. (1999). Analyzing and improving teaching. In H. Waxman & H. Walberg (eds.). New directions: For teaching practice and research (pp. 17-61). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan
  18. Renzulli, J. (1976). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 303-326
  19. Seo, H. A., Soon, Y. A. & Kim, K. J. (2003). Current status of teaching and learning at educational institutions for the gifted. Commissioned Research CR2003-26. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute
  20. Starko, A., & Schack, G. (1980). Perceived need, teacher efficacy, and teacher strategies for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 118-122 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628903300305
  21. Story, C. (1995). Facilitator of learning: A microethnographic study of the teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 155-159 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628502900403
  22. Tobin, K. (1990), Changing metaphors and beliefs: A master switch for teaching? Theory into Practice, 29(2), 116-121 https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543441
  23. Tobin, K., & LaMaster, S. (1995), Relationships between metaphors, beliefs, and actions in a context of science curriculum change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 225-242 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320304
  24. Tobin, & K, & Tippins, D. (1996). Metaphors as seeds for conceptual change and the improvement of science teaching. Science Teacher Education, 80, 711-730
  25. Tomlinson, C., Coleman, M., Allan, S., Udall, A., & Landrum, M. (1996). Interface between gifted education and general education: Toward communication, cooperationand collaboration. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 165-171 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000308
  26. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M nks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handdbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., 345-365). Oxford, UK: Pergamon
  27. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum planning and instructional design for the gifted Iearners. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company