한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제43권3호
  • /
  • Pages.295-306
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

중등 과학교사의 적응적 실행에 대한 중요도-실행도 분석

An Importance-Performance Analysis of Secondary Science Teachers' Adaptive Practice

  • 투고 : 2023.05.26
  • 심사 : 2023.06.08
  • 발행 : 2023.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 과학교사의 적응적 실행에 대한 인식을 중요도와 실행도 측면에서 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 중등 과학교사를 대상으로 적응적 실행 설문지를 개발하여 128명의 설문 응답 결과를 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 첫째, 과학교사들은 적응적 실행의 17개 항목에 대해 모두 중요하다고 응답하였다. 특히 '예시의 추가', '개념의 수준/범위 조절', '학생 참여 격려'에 관한 항목은 중요도와 실행도가 모두 높게 나타났다. 둘째, 적응적 실행 항목에 대한 중요도-실행도 분석 결과, 중요도는 높으나 실행도가 낮아서 집중 개선이 필요한 항목들은 '학생들의 주도적인 학습을 격려'하고 '개인차에 대한 모니터링과 대응'에 대한 것이었다. 이 항목들이 중요도가 높음에도 불구하고 실행도가 낮은 이유에 대해 과학교사들은 시간 부족과 획일적인 교육과정을 지적하였다. 셋째, 적응적 실행 항목에 대한 중요도-실행도 분석에서 과잉 영역인 4영역에 위치한 항목들로는 '속도 조절', '활동 조율', '비유/은유 사용'에 대한 것이었다. 특히 '비유/은유 사용'은 유일하게 중요도보다 실행도가 높게 나온 항목으로 과학교사들이 현재도 충분히 사용하고 있으며 과잉 사용으로 인한 문제점이 발생하지 않는지 재고할 필요가 나타났다. 넷째, 중요도와 실행도의 차이가 나타나는 이유에 대한 응답을 분석한 결과, 교사 요인으로는 교사의 지식이나 능력 부족, 계획대로 실행하는 성향 등이 언급되었으며, 학생 요인으로는 과다한 학생 수, 학생의 수준 차이, 입시 위주 수업을 선호하는 경향 등이 나타났다. 환경 요인으로는 획일적 교육과정과 실험 여건, 평가체제, 외부의 요구 등이 다양하게 언급되었다. 마지막으로 본 연구결과가 과학교육에 주는 시사점을 논의하였다.

In this study, we explored science teachers' perceptions of adaptive practice in terms of importance and practice. For this purpose, an adaptive practice questionnaire was developed targeting secondary science teachers, and the responses of 128 science teachers were analyzed. The results of this study were as follows: First, the science teachers responded that all 17 items regarding adaptive practice were important. In particular, items related to 'addition of examples', 'adjustment of the level/range of concepts', and 'encouragement of student participation' showed high importance and performance levels. Second, the results of the IPA concerning adaptive practice showed that the items needing intensive improvement due to high importance but low performance were 'encouraging students' self-directed learning' and 'monitoring and responding to individual differences'. The science teachers identified a lack of time and uniform curriculum as the reasons for the low level of practice despite the high importance of these items. Third, regarding the IPA of the adaptive practice items, the items located in the fourth area, an excessive area, concerned 'pace control', 'modifying activities', and 'metaphor use'. More specifically, considering that 'metaphor use' was the only item with a higher level of performance than importance, it is necessary to reconsider whether problems are caused by excessive use. Fourth, analyzing the responses regarding the reasons for the difference in importance and performance revealed that the factors related to teachers included teachers' lack of knowledge or ability, and the tendency to implement as planned. As for student factors, an excessive number of students, differences in the levels of students, and a tendency to prefer classes centered on entrance exams were identified. As environmental factors, a uniform curriculum, conditions for experiments, evaluation systems, and external demands were mentioned. Finally, the implications of the results of this study for science education were discussed.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2020년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 인문사회분야 중견연구자지원사업의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2020S1A5A2A01046147).

참고문헌

  1. Ankrum, J. W., Morewood, A. L., Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Parsons, A. W., & Hawkins, P. M. (2020). Documenting Adaptive Literacy Instruction: The Adaptive Teaching Observation Protocol (ATOP). Reading Psychology, 41(2), 71-86. doi:10.1080/02702711.2020.1726845
  2. Brophy, S., Hodge, L., & Bransford, J. D.(2004). Work in progress-Adaptive expertise: Beyond apply academic knowledge. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in EducationConference Session S1B, 28-30.
  3. Burden, P. R. (1982). Implications of teacher career development: New roles for teachers, administrators and professors. Action in Teacher Education, 4(3-4), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1982.10519117
  4. Choi, K. & Park, S. (2001). Importance-performance analysis to evaluate tourist destination: the case of San-Jung Lake. Korea Academic Society of Hotel Administration, 10(1), 275-289.
  5. Chung, M. & Kim, K. (2006). A study for promoting the adaptive expertise of teachers to cultivate the change capacity of the teachers by implementing the learning organization theory in school. Journal of Educational Studies, 37(3), 25-45.
  6. Chung, M., Hur, J., Kwon, S., Min, Y., Park, S., & Lee, S. E. (2020). Flexible education system for public education innovation:A study on combined school(RR 2020-01). Jincheon: KEDI.
  7. Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Adaptability: An Important Capacity for Effective Teachers. Educational Practice and Theory, 38(1), 27-39. doi:10.7459/ept/38.1.03
  8. Corno, L. (2008). On Teaching Adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178466
  9. Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.). Handbook ofresearch on teacher education (pp. 3-24). New York: MacMillan.
  10. Feldman, S. (1998). Teacher quality and professional unionism. In Shaping the Profession that Shapes the Future. Speeches from the AFT/NEA (the National Education Association) Conference on Teacher Quality.
  11. Glaser, B. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
  12. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H.W. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child developmentand education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York, NY: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
  13. Helsby, G. (2005). Multiple truths and contested realities. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. E. Hauge, & J. Muller (Eds.), The life and work of teachers (pp. 93-108). Routledge.
  14. Jeong, H., Roh, S., Jung, J. W., & Cho, Y. H. (2020). The challenge of the spread of Covid-19 to education: High quality remote learning for everyone. Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 645-669. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.36.3.645
  15. Kim, H & Kim, Y. (2022). A Literature Review on Adaptive Practice of Teachers: Focusing on Network Analysis. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6), 341-367. https://doi.org/10.14333/KJTE.2022.38.6.16
  16. Kim, M, Yu, T, & Kang, H. (2019). A study on junior & senior high school soccer coaches' perceptions and practices of leadership using IPA analysis. Journal of Korean Society for the Study of Physical Education, 24(2), 17-29.
  17. Kirk, J., & Wall, C. (2010). Resilience and loss in work identities: a narrative analysis of some retired teachers' work-life histories. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 627-641.
  18. Lee, K.-J., Choi, J.-Y., & Jang, S.-H. (2009). Analysis of the Level and it's Difference by Teaching Career of Elementary Teachers' Core Competencies. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(3), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.24211/TJKTE.2009.26.3.219
  19. Lee, S. (2020). An Alternative Perspective of Teaching Expertise: Adaptive Expertise. Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction, 20(7), 1299-1327. doi:10.22251/jlcci.2020.20.7.1299
  20. Loughland, T. & Vlies, P. (2016). The Validation of a Classroom Observation Instrument Based on the Construct of Teacher Adaptive Practice. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 33(2), 163-177. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2016.18
  21. Loughland, T., & Alonzo, D. (2018). Teacher Adaptive Practices: Examining Links with Teacher Self-Efficacy, Perceived Autonomy Support and Teachers' Sense of Adaptability. Educational Practice and Theory, 40(2), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/40.2.04
  22. Loughland, T., & Alonzo, D. (2019). Teacher adaptive practices: A key factor in teachers' implementation of assessment for learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 44(7), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44n7.2
  23. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of marketing, 41(1), 77-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112
  24. MOE (2021). The guidelines of 2022 revised curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/viewRenew.do?boardID=294&boardSeq=89671&lev=0
  25. OECD (2019). OECD Future of education and skills 2030 conceptual learning framework: A series of concept notes. Paris: OECD.
  26. Parsons, S. A. (2012). Adaptive Teaching in Literacy Instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 149-170. doi:10.1177/1086296x12440261
  27. Parsons, S., Williams, B., Burrowbridge, S., & Mauk, G. (2011). The Case for Adaptability as an Aspect of Reading Teacher Effectiveness. Voices from the Middle.
  28. Parsons, S.A. & Vaughn, M. (2016). Toward adaptability: Where to from here? Theory Into Practice, 55(3), 267-274. doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1173998
  29. Sachs, J. (2000). Rethinking the practice of teacher professionalism. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. E. Hauge, & J. Muller(Eds.), The life and work of teachers (pp. 75-87). Routledge.
  30. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  31. Sherin, M. G. (2007). The development of teachers' professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.). Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 383-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  32. So, K. H. (2003). Reconceptualization of 'teacher professionalism' : Exploration of new directions. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(4), 77-96
  33. Soe, K. (2009). Teacher learning communities and professional development. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(2), 243-276. https://doi.org/10.24211/TJKTE.2009.26.2.243
  34. Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., Stanley, R., & Grenier, M. (1996). Importance-performance and segmentation: Where do we go from here? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 5(3), 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v05n03_04
  35. Vaughn, M., & Parsons, S. A. (2013). Adaptive teachers as innovators: Instructional adaptations opening spaces for enhanced literacy learning. Language Arts, 91(2), 81-93.
  36. Vogt, F., & Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1051-1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.002
  37. Yoon, H., & Kim, H. (2021). Science teachers' implementation of online classes during COVID-19 Situation: Interpretation through the concept of 'Bricolage'. Teacher Education Research, 60(2), 227-246. https://doi.org/10.15812/TER.60.2.202106.227