Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Science Teachers' Perceptions About Difficulties and Their Resolution in Science Teaching: Using KTOP (Korean Teaching Observation Protocol) Analysis

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

  • Haktae Kim (Gwangju Institute of Creative Convergence Education) ;
  • Jongwon Park (Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2023.01.16
  • Accepted : 2023.03.03
  • Published : 2023.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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.

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.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2020S1A3A2A01095782).

References

  1. Adey, P. (2004). The professional development of teacher' practice and theory. Kluwer Academic.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company.
  5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20390
  6. 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.
  7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10037
  9. Flora, D.B., & Panter, A.T. (1999). Technical report: Analysis of the psychometric structure of the LSC surveys. L.L. Thurstone Psychometric Lab.
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905
  11. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.21562/kjs.2014.02.48.1.205
  13. 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.
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0261
  15. Joram, E., & Gabriele, A. J. (1998). Preservice teachers' prior beliefs: Transforming obstacles into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00035-8
  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2019.38.1.31
  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2010.34.2.421
  18. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9232-5
  19. 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.
  20. Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Against boldness. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347876
  21. KICE (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation). (2006). Class evaluation manual: Science class evaluation standard. Research Report, 2006-24-7.
  22. 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.
  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21171
  24. 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.
  25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002
  26. Kwak, Y. -S. (2003). Case study of science classroom analysis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(5), 484-493.
  27. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178-195. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.55.2.56142234616x4352
  28. 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.
  29. Lee, B. (2016). Secondary science teachers' concepts of good science teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.1.0103
  30. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177052
  31. 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
  32. NRC (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/14.13.259
  37. 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.
  38. Roth, K., & Garnier, H. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
  39. Rouse, J. (2007). Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393106296542
  40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x
  41. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9229-0
  42. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0
  43. Turner, S. (1994). The social theory of practices. University of Chicago Press.
  44. 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.
  45. Weinburgh, M. (2003). Confronting and changing middle school teachers' perceptions of scientific methodology. School Science and Mathematics, 103(5), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18203.x
  46. Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340(6130), 310-313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230725
  47. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027
  48. Yoon, H.-G. (2008). Elementary teachers' dilemmas of teaching science practical work. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(2), 102-116.
  49. Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9034-5
  50. 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.