한국수학교육학회지시리즈E:수학교육논문집 (Communications of Mathematical Education)

  • 제37권3호
  • /
  • Pages.369-392
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1226-6663(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9935(eISSN)
한국수학교육학회 (Korean Society of Mathematical Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

수학교육 형평성에 관한 문헌 연구

Equity in School Mathematics Education: A Review of the Literature

  • 투고 : 2023.08.10
  • 심사 : 2023.09.01
  • 발행 : 2023.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

수학교육 형평성은 문화, 인종 등과 같은 요인으로 야기되는 사회적 불평등과 수학교육의 관계에 주목한다. 수학교육 형평성은 최근 수학교육의 중요한 화두 중 하나로 인지되고 있으며, 미래 사회를 위한 수학교육의 방향을 설정하는 중요한 근거가 될 수 있다. 이에 본 문헌 연구에서는 국내외 선행연구를 검토하여 국내 수학교육 연구에 유의미한 시사점을 제공하고자 한다. 본 연구에서는 국내외 195편의 문헌을 검토하여 수학교육 형평성의 개념과 의의를 분석하였다. 문헌 검토를 위해 본 연구에서는 연구 문제를 중심으로 선정된 선행연구를 범주화하여 수학교육 형평성과 관련한 기존 논의를 정리하였다. 이때 수학교육 형평성에 관한 연구 문제는 수학 교사, 수학교육과정, 수학 교실, 수학 평가, 수학 교실을 둘러싼 사회·문화적 배경으로 구분하였다. 본 연구의 분석 결과는 수학교육 형평성에 관해 국내외에 논의된 내용을 확인할 기회를 넘어 국내 수학교육 연구자에게 새로운 연구 방향과 방법을 제시할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Equity in mathematics education focuses on the relationship between social inequality caused by factors including culture and race. Equity in mathematics education has recently been recognized as one of the important issues of mathematics education and may provide grounds for setting the new direction of mathematics education for the future society. However, research on mathematics education equity in South Korea is still insufficient. The purpose of the paper is to provide implications for mathematics education research by reviewing the the literature regarding mathematics education equity. Focusing on 195 previous studies, I analyzed the significance of discussions on mathematics education equity in mathematics education, the concept of mathematics education equity, and research questions. In addition, I divided the previous studies into five categories based on their research questions: mathematics teachers, mathematics curriculum, mathematics classrooms, mathematics assessment, and socio-cultural environments surrounding mathematics classrooms. The analysis of the study are expected to provide implications in terms of new research questions and methods to domestic mathematics education researchers.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Kim, H. W., & Ko, H. K. (2021). A classification analysis of students from multicultural families based on their mathematics achievement over time. The Mathematical Education, 60(2), 191-207. 
  2. Kim, H. K. (2021). A case study on the satisfaction of mathematics online class and its relationship with mathematical learning in Corona-19. Communications of Mathematical Education, 35(3). 341-358. 
  3. Ko. S., & Son, S. (2022). Development and Validation of Elementary Math Word-problem Curriculum Based Assessment for screening students with learning difficulties. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 34(2), 398-409. 
  4. Park, M. (2020). A study on the current situation and challenges of the educational gap in the Context of COVID-19: A Case Study of Gyeonggi Province. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(4), 113-145. 
  5. Song, R., Noh, S. S., & Ju. M. K. (2013). An Analysis of Korean Mathematics Teacher's Multicultural Competence: Implications for Multicultural Mathematics Teacher Education. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 23(3), 313-333. 
  6. Song, R., & Ju. M. K. (2021). An Analysis of Teachers' Pedagogical Design Capacity for Multicultural Mathematics Education. The Journal of Educaitonal Research in Mathematics, 31(1), 83-107. 
  7. Chang, S., & Kim, S. M. (2014). The defects of questions of descriptive assessment in elementary school mathematics and the suggestions for its improvement-focusing on the questions produced by Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education. Journal of Elementary Schematics Education in Korea, 18(2), 297-318. 
  8. Ha, Y. S. (2000). Re-evaluation of teachers' right under an educational law in Korea. The Journal of Law Education, 12, 230-253. 
  9. Apple, M. W. (1992). Do the Standards go far enough? Power, policy, and practice in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 412-431. 
  10. Atweh, B., Forgasz, H., & Nebrez, B. (2001). Socio-cultural aspects of mathematics education: An international perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum. 
  11. Bryman, A. (2007). The research question in social research: what is its role?. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(1), 5-20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600655282
  12. Cai, J. (2005). US and Chinese teachers' constructing, knowing, and evaluating representations to teach mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(2), 135-169.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0702_3
  13. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. W. (1999). Children's mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. Heinemann. 
  14. Crenshaw, K. W. (1988). Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331-1387.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1341398
  15. Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: introduction and application. In Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455-472). Academic Press. 
  16. Crites, S. (1997). The narrative quality of experience. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 39(3), 291-311. 
  17. Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. California Association of Bilingual Education. 
  18. Damarin, S., & Erchick, D. B. (2010). Toward clarifying the meanings of "gender" in mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 310-323. 
  19. Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review. Journal of Criminal J ustice Education, 24(2), 218-234. 
  20. DiME. (2007). Culture, race, power and mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 405-434). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  21. Ernest, P. (Ed.). (2003). Mathematics education and philosophy: An international perspective. Routledge 
  22. Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage publications. 
  23. Foote, M. Q., & Gau Bartell, T. (2011). Pathways to equity in mathematics education: How life experiences impact researcher positionality. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78, 45-68. 
  24. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers' generative growth: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653-689. 
  25. Frankenstein, M. (1987). Critical mathematics education: An application of Paulo Freire's epistemology. In I. Shor (Ed.), Freire for the classroom: A sourcebook for liberatory teaching (pp. 180-210). Boyton/Cook. 
  26. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method.
  27. Gross, T. and Taylor, A.G. (2005), "What have we got to lose? The effect of controlled vocabulary on keyword searching results", College & Research Libraries, 66(3), 212-30. 
  28. Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 37-73.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30034699
  29. Gutstein, E., Fey, J. T., Heid, M. K., DeLoach-Johnson, I., Middleton, J. A., Larson, M., Dougherty, B. & Tunis, H. (2005). Equity in School Mathematics Education: How Can Research Contribute?. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 92-100. 
  30. Gutstein, E., Lipman, P., Hernandez, P., & de los Reyes, R. (1997). Culturally relevant mathematics teaching in a Mexican American context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 709-737. 
  31. Gutidrrez, R. (2001). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 145-187.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL04023_4
  32. Harger, B., & Quintela, M. (2017). The IRB as gatekeeper: Effects on research with children and youth. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 22, 11-33 
  33. Hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge. 
  34. Joseph, G. G. (1987). Foundations of Eurocentrism in mathematics. Race & Class, 28(3), 13-28. 
  35. Jurado de Los Santos, P., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., Marin-Marin, J. A., & Soler Costa, R. (2020). The term equity in education: A literature review with scientific mapping in web of science. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3526. 
  36. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press. 
  37. Kim, R. (2014). Elementary teachers' knowledge for teaching mathematics: A review, mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(9), 428-438. 
  38. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Making mathematics meaningful in multicultural contexts. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 126-145). Cambridge University Press. 
  39. Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). It doesn't add up: African American students' mathematics achievement. J ournal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 697-708.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749638
  40. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Teaching in dangerous times: Culturally relevant approaches to teacher assessment. The Journal of Negro Education, 67, 255-267.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2668194
  41. Lee, C. (1998). Culturally responsive pedagogy and performance-based assessment. The Journal of Negro Education, 67, 268-79.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2668195
  42. Lipman, P. (1998). Race, class and power in school restructuring. SUNY Press. 
  43. Lipman, P. (2004, April). Regionalization of urban education: The political economy and racial politics of Chicago-metro region schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. 
  44. Luechauer, D. L., & Shulman, G. M. (1992, May). Moving from bureaucracy to empowerment: Shifting paradigms to practice what we preach in class. Paper presented at the Midwest Academy of Management, St. Charles, IL. 
  45. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1985). Maximizing what exceptional students can learn: A review of research on the keyword method and related mnemonic techniques. Remedial and Special Education, 6(2), 39-45. 
  46. Nortvedt, G. A., & Buchholtz, N. (2018). Assessment in mathematics education: Responding to issues regarding methodology, policy, and equity, ZDM, 50(4), 555-570. 
  47. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Yale University Press. 
  48. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effect of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. RAND. 
  49. Oakes, J., Joseph, R., & Muir, K. (2004). Access and achievement in mathematics and science: Inequalities that endure and change. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 69-90). Jossey-Bass. 
  50. Pati, D., & Lorusso, L. N. (2018). How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 11(1), 15-30. 
  51. Rousseau, C., & Tate, W. F. (2003). No time like the present: Reflecting on equity in school mathematics. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 210-216. 
  52. Secada, W. G. (1989). Educational equity versus equality of education: An alternative conception. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Equity and education (pp. 68-88). Falmer. 
  53. Secada, W. G. (1996). Urban students acquiring English and learning mathematics in the context of reform. Urban Education, 30, 422-448.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085996030004004
  54. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn?. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
  55. Setati, M. (2005). Teaching mathematics in a primary multilingual classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 447-466. 
  56. Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2002). Democratic access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.) Handbook of international research in mathematics education. Directions for the 21st Century (pp. 383-407). Erlbaum. 
  57. Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematical education. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
  58. Tate, W. F. (1995). Returning to the root: A culturally relevant approach to mathematics pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 166-173.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543676
  59. Tate, W. F., & Lipman, P. (2003). Report of Working Group 2: The changing nature of schooling and school demographics. In F. K. Lester & J. Ferrini-Mundy (Eds.), Proceedings of the NCTM Research Catalyst Conference (pp. 125-131). NCTM. 
  60. Valero, P. (2004). Socio-political perspectives on mathematics education. In P. Valero & R. Zevenbergen (Eds.), Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power in theory and methodology (pp. 5-24). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
  61. Valero, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power in theory and methodology. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
  62. Waxman, H. C. (1994). Differences among urban, suburban, and rural high schools on technology use in science and mathematics. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 589-592). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). 
  63. Wayne, A. Y., & Young, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122. 
  64. West, P. (1993). N.S.F. Urban Initiative is seen as a reform tool. Education Week, 13(15), 8.