Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Elementary Pre-service and Experienced Teachers' Responses to Student Questions in Lesson Plays

레슨 플레이에 나타난 초등 예비 교사와 경력 교사의 학생 질문에 대한 대응 분석

  • Received : 2025.10.12
  • Accepted : 2025.11.27
  • Published : 2026.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined how elementary pre-service and experienced teachers responded to student questions within lesson plays. Participants comprised 73 teachers: 36 pre-service and 37 experienced. Background information and science content knowledge were assessed through a survey in two experimental contexts. Participants then constructed written teacher-student dialogs for each context, thereby allowing for their response patterns to be analyzed. Findings revealed that both groups displayed limited science content knowledge and occasional misconceptions. Across both contexts, teachers predominantly employed direct-instruction-oriented interventions (D) rather than questioning-oriented interventions (Q), although experienced teachers used questioning-oriented interventions more frequently than their pre-service counterparts. Within direct-instruction-oriented responses, pre-service teachers rarely incorporated guiding questions, whereas experienced teachers used both types with comparable frequency. A notable proportion of responses from both groups contained scientific errors. Response patterns also varied according to participants' level of science content knowledge. These results highlight the need to strengthen teachers' responsive pedagogy and implications for teacher education programs aimed at enhancing teachers' ability to address student questions effectively.

이 연구에서는 레슨 플레이에 나타난 초등 예비 교사와 경력 교사의 학생 질문에 대한 대응 방식을 분석하였다. 연구에는 예비 교사 36명과 경력 교사 37명, 총 73명이 참여하였다. 설문을 통해 참여자의 배경 정보와 두 가지 과학 실험 상황에 대한 과학 내용 지식의 수준을 확인한 뒤, 각 상황에서 교사와 학생의 대화를 가상의 대본 형식으로 작성하게 하여 교사의 대응 방식을 탐색하였다. 연구 결과, 예비 교사뿐 아니라 경력 교사도 비과학적 이해를 보이며 과학 내용 지식의 수준이 충분하지 않은 경우가 많은 것으로 나타났다. 또 예비 교사와 경력 교사 모두 두 실험 상황에서 '질문 중심 개입'보다는 '직접 교수 중심 개입'을 주로 사용하였으며, 경력 교사에서 '질문 중심 개입'이 상대적으로 더 많이 나타났다. '직접 교수 중심 개입'을 세부적으로 분석했을 때, 예비 교사는 안내 질문이 없는 유형을 주로 활용한 데 비해 경력 교사는 안내 질문을 사용한 경우와 사용하지 않은 경우가 비슷하게 나타났다. 또한 두 집단 모두 교사의 발화에 명확한 오류가 포함된 사례가 적지 않았다. 한편 교사의 과학 내용 지식의 수준에 따라 학생 질문에 대한 대응 패턴에는 다소 차이가 있었다. 이상의 결과를 바탕으로 학생의 질문에 대한 교사의 대응 역량 강화를 위한 교육적 시사점을 논의하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 교육부의 국립대학육성사업 사업비 지원을 받아 작성되었음.

References

  1. 교육부(2022). 2022 개정 과학과 교육과정 [교육부 고시 제2022-33호, 별책 9]. 교육부.
  2. 권오남, 박정숙, 박재희, 박지형, 오혜미, 조형아(2013). 예비교사 교육에서 레슨 플레이의 활용 가능성 탐색. 학교수학, 15(4), 819-832.
  3. 김성준(2017). Lesson Play를 활용한 초등 예비교사의 내용 지식 고찰: '어림하기'를 중심으로. 교과교육학연구, 21(4), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.24231/RICI.2017.21.4.425
  4. 박종원, 윤혜경, 이인선(2021). 이론과 실행의 관계를 고려한 과학교사의 내용 지식과 교수 내용 지식 개념에 대한 논의. 교원교육, 37(3), 187-209.
  5. 이지현(2017). 예비교사들은 학생의 대답에 어떻게 피드백하는가? -Lesson Play의 분석-. 학교수학, 19(1), 19-41.
  6. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1150). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Burgoon, J. N., Heddle, M. L., & Duran, E. (2011). Re-examining the similarities between teacher and student conceptions about physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(2), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9196-x
  8. Chan, K. K. H., Yu, S. K. K., & Sin, R. K. H. (2020). Using student actors and video-mediated reflection to promote preservice teachers' ability to enact responsive teaching. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 6(1).
  9. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095249
  10. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101
  11. Franke, T. M., Ho, T., & Christie, C. A. (2012). The chi-square test: Often used and more often misinterpreted. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 448-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214011426594
  12. Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148-170. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148
  13. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
  14. Kind, V. (2019). Development of evidence-based, student-learning-oriented rubrics for pre-service science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 911-943. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1311049
  15. Krall, R., Lott, K. H., & Wymer, C. L. (2009). Inservice elementary and middle school teachers' conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9117-4
  16. Mehan, H. (1979). "What time is it, Denise?": Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847909542846
  17. Otten, S., Engledowl, C., & Spain, V. (2015). Univocal and dialogic discourse in secondary mathematics classrooms: The case of attending to precision. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 1285-1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0725-0
  18. Parshall, C. G., & Kromrey, J. D. (1996). Tests of independence in contingency tables with small samples: A comparison of statistical power. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056001002
  19. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1–34). Routledge.
  20. Soysal, Y., & Soysal, S. (2022). Exploring science teacher questions' influence on the students' talk productivity: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Sage Open, 1-16.
  21. Wang, J., Wang, Y., Moore, Y., Sneed, S., Thacker, B., & Hart, S. (2024). Analyzing the patterns of questioning chains and their intervention on student learning in science teacher preparation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22(4), 809-836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10408-4
  22. Wang, J., Wang, Y., Wipfli, K., Thacker, B., & Hart, S. (2023). Investigating learning assistants' use of questioning in online courses about introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(1), 010113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010113
  23. Watkins, J., Jaber, L. Z., & Dini, V. (2020). Toward defining responsive teaching with science and engineering practices: A systematic review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 127-176.
  24. Watts, M., Gould, G., & Alsop, S. (1997). Questions of understanding: Categorising pupils' questions in science. School Science Review, 79(286), 57-63.
  25. Wu, L., Liu, Y., How, M.-L., & He, S. (2023). Investigating student-generated questioning in a technology-enabled elementary science classroom: A case study. Education Sciences, 13(2), 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020158
  26. Zazkis, R. (2017). Lesson play tasks as a creative venture for teachers and teacher educators. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0808-6
  27. Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Lesson plays: Planning teaching versus teaching planning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(1), 40-47.
  28. Zazkis, R., Sinclair, N., & Liljedahl, P. (2013). Lesson play in mathematics education: A tool for research and professional development. Springer.