Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Predictor Variables in Science Teaching of Practicing Elementary Teachers

교사들의 과학 교과교육학지식과 예측변인

  • Published : 2003.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of study was to investigate practicing elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and the significant predictors of their pedagogical content knowledge in science teaching. The PCK instrument was used to measure elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. It consists of 6 factors to measure teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of 1)instructional methods, 2)representations, 3)contents, 4)evaluations, 5)students, and 6)curriculum. A questionnaire that consists of 7 questions regarding the teachers' degree, their number of years of teaching their choice of teaching science, their personal science teaching efficacy, their science teaching outcome expectation, their science instructional methods, and their attitudes toward teaching science, was also used to identify the information as to significant predictors of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. A sample of 332 practicing elementary teachers participated in this study. To determine statistically significant predictors, Pearson's correlation coefficient and multiple regression methods were used to analyze the results. The results showed that the significant predictors of practicing elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge were their number of years of teaching, their science instructional methods, their personal science teaching efficacy and their attitudes toward teaching science. Further research of how teachers develop and construct their pedagogical content knowledge is recommended especially through the use of varied research methodologies that include qualitative methods.

초등교사들의 과학교수에서 교과교육학지식과 이와 관련된 유의미한 예측변인을 조사하였다. 과학 교과교육학지식을 측정할 수 있는 도구로 초등교사들의 과학교수에서 교과교육학지식-교수법지식, 표현지식, 내용지식, 평가지식, 학생지식, 교육과정지식-을 조사하였다. 예측변인을 조사하고자 교사들의 학력, 경력 년 수, 과학전담교사 선택여부, 과학교수 자기효능감, 과학교수 결과기대감, 과학 교수법, 과학교수태도에 관한 문항을 함께 조사하였고, 이를 위하여 332명의 초등현직교사가 참여하였다. 분석방법은 피어슨 상관계수와 중다회귀방법을 사용하였고, 그 결과는 교사들의 과학 교과교육학지식의 모든 영역에서 유의미한 예측변인은 모두 과학교수 자기효능감, 과학교수법, 과학교수에 대한 태도, 교사들의 경력 년 수로 나타났으며 모두 양의 방향을 가졌다. 이는 과학교수에 대한 자신의 능력에 신뢰감이 있는 교사일수록, 과학교수태도가 긍정적일수록, 지시적인 교수법보다 비지시적인 교수법을 사용하는 교사일수록, 또한 교사들의 경력 년 수가 많을수록 6개 영역의 교과교육학지식이 모두 많은 것으로 결론 짓는다. 경력 년 수가 적은 예비교사나 초임교사들의 교과교육학지식을 개발하기 위한 교육방안을 구성할 때 교과교육학지식을 설명하는 위와 같은 예측 변인들의 긍정적인 측면과 함께 고려되는 것이 바람직하다.

Keywords

References

  1. 권재술(1994). 학교 과학교육의 과제와 과학교육연구의 방향. 한국과학교육학회지, 14(1), 103-108
  2. 김병찬(2000). 교사교육의 패러다임 변화. 한국교원교육연구, 17(3), 113-141
  3. 나동진(1998). 교직의 전문성 개발용 위한 교사양성 교육과정: 한미양국의 교사양성 교육과정의 비교연구. 한국교원교육연구, 15(1), 189-207
  4. 박성혜(2001). 초등교사들의 과학교수 자기효능감과 과학 관련 배경 및 경험에 관한 질적 연구. 한국교원교육연구, 18(1), 123-150
  5. 박성혜(2003). 교사들의 과학 교과교육학지식 측정도구 개발. 한국교원교육연구, 20(1), 105-134
  6. 박인식(1997). 초등교사의 과학 선호도가 아동의 과학 성취도에 미치는 영향. 한국교원대학교대학원석사학위 논문
  7. 박종렬, 서혜애, 김순남.(2001). 한국-이스라엘 과학교사 재교육프로그램의 행 . 재정적 지원체제 개선방안. 한국교원교육연구, 18(2), 29-52
  8. 임청환(2003a). 과학 교과교육학 지식의 본질과 발달. 한국지구과학회지, 24(4), 235-249
  9. 임청환(2003b). 초등교사의 과학 교과교육학 지식의 발달이 과학 교수 실제와 교수 효능감에 미치는 영향. 한국지구과학회지, 24(4), 258-272
  10. 정태범(2000). 21세기의 교사 양성체제. 한국교원교육연구, 17(1), 19-46
  11. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I.(1999). How do beginning elementary teachers cope with science: Development of pedagogical content knowledge. A Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA
  12. Barnett, J., & Hodson, D.(2001). Pedagogical content knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426-453 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1017
  13. Bellamy, M., Barko, H., & Lockard, D.(1992). The roles of three types of teacher knowledge-content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge-in the teaching of high school mendelian genetics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston
  14. Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Peterson, P., Chiang, P., & Loef, M.(1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499-531 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026004499
  15. Clermont, C., Barko, H., & Krajcik, J.(1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 419-441 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310409
  16. Cochran, K.(1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers' transformations of subject matter. NARST Research Matters. No. 27
  17. Cochran, K., De Ruiter, J., & King, R.(1993). Pedagogical content knowing-an integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263-272 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487193044004004
  18. Doyle, W.(1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp, 3-24). NY: Macmillan
  19. Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G.(1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76, 493-506 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760504
  20. Espinet, M.(1988, April). The development of pedagogical content knowledge of beginning high school teachers with a strong chemistry background but no formal training in education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake of the Ozarks, MO
  21. Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.(1999). (Eds.). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. M A : Kluwer Academic Publishers
  22. Grossman, P.(1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press
  23. Happs, J.(1987). Good teaching of invalid information. In K. Tobin & B. Frasertlids.), Exemplary practice in science and mathematics teaching. Perth: Curtin University of Technology
  24. Herrmann, B., & Duffy, G.(1989). Relationships between teachers' conceptual understandings, teacher responsiveness and student outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC
  25. Lederman, N., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M.(1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers' conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129-146 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310205
  26. Magnusson, S., Kraicik, J., & Berko, H.(1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. (pp.95-132). MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  27. Magnusson, S., Borko, H., Kraicik, J., & Layman, J.(1992). The relationship between teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and student content knowledge of heat energy and temperature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
  28. Marks, R.(1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: Form a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3-11
  29. NRC(2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics. and technology. National Research Council
  30. Rovegno, I.(1992). Learning to teach in a field-based methods course: The development of pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(1), 69-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(92)90041-Z
  31. Sanders, L., Borko, H., & Lockard. J.(1993). Secondary science teachers' knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 723-736
  32. Shulman, L.(1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  33. Shulman, L.(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57. 1-22 https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  34. Shulman, L. & Sykes, G.(1986). A national board for teaching? In search of a bold standard. NY: Carnegie Corporation
  35. Smith. D. C., & Neale, D.(1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1-20 https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(89)90015-2
  36. Tamir, P.(1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110 https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90011-X
  37. Tobin, K, Tippins, D., & Gallard, A(1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed,), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan
  38. Tobin, K.(1987, April). Teaching for higher cognitive level learning in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Washington. DC
  39. Van Driel, J., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N.(2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
  40. Van Driel, J., Verloop, N., & De Vos W.(1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J
  41. Van Driel, J., De Jong, & Verloop, N.(2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86, 572-590 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10010
  42. Wilson, S., & Wmeburg, S.(1988). Peering at history through different lessons: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89, 525-539
  43. Zeidler, D.(2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 27-42 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015129825891