The Case Analysis of Teacher's Questioning and Feedback through Vernal Interactions in the Classes of the Gifted in Science

과학영재 수업에서 언어적 상호작용을 통하여 본 교사의 발문과 피드백 사례분석

  • Published : 2007.12.30

Abstract

This study is aimed to classify teachers' questions and feedbacks as well as students' responses in term, of type and frequency, and speculate the distinctive features of verbal interactions including teachers' questions and feedbacks performed actively in the classes of the gifted in science. The 24 hours of the classes made for the 8th grade science-gifted students were observed and recorded. In addition, the mutual conversations between the teacher and the students were transcribed and analyzed, and the interviews with the teachers also were made. It is found that the teachers usually use the question methods of memory recollection, perception and memorization, together with an instant feedback method, while the students prefer to respond with rather short answers. The characteristic features of the class by the teachers who lead the active class show that they use the open questions at the beginning, raise the level of the questioning, use the questions 'why and how' frequently, and to ask evaluative questions. Their feedbacks to the students interestingly indicate that they show the students the attitude of accepting and receiving students' replies, invite different responses from other students by reserving instant answers or judgements to the students, and give the students the confidence of solving the next problems, by praising and encouraging them.

본 연구의 목적은 과학영재교육 수업현장에서 이루어지는 교사들의 발문과 피드백,학생들의 응답에 대한유형과 빈도를 분석하여 현황을 파악하고 교사-학생의 언어적 상호작용이 활발한 수업에서 나타난 교사들의 발문과 피드백에 대한 특징을 파악하는데 있다. 이를 위해 중학교 2학년 과학 영재 학생들을 대상으로 실시하는 8차시 24시간 분량의 수업을 비참여 관찰하고 녹화하였으며,교사와 학생간의 상호대화를 전사 분석하고,교사들과의 인터뷰를 실시하였다. 수업 분석 결과,교사들은 대체적으로 기억회상과 인지 기억의 질문과 즉각적 피드백을 사용한 반면,학생들은 단답형 응답을 선호하고 있는 것을 볼 수 있었다. 교사-학생의 언어적 상호작용이 상대적으로 활발한 수업의 특징은 도입단계에서 개방적 질문을 사용하였고,발문의 처리단계를 높였으며, "왜"와 "어떻게"의 질문을 많이 사용하였고,평가질문을 사용한다는 것이었다. 피드백의 특정으로는 학생의 응답을 수용하고 받아들이는 태도를 보였고,지연피드백을 많이 사용하였으며,칭찬과 격려로 다음 문제해결에 자신감을 부여하는 것을 볼 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김영채 (1999). 창의적 문제 해결: 창의력의 이론 개발과 수업. 서울: 교육과학사
  2. 김용국 (1993) 사고력 신장을 위한 발문에 관한 고찰. 초등교육학연구, 1, 23-43
  3. 박수경 (2005). 과학영재학교 교수활동에 관한 학생 인식 및 과학수업에서 상호작용 유형. 한국지구과학회지, 26(1), 30-40
  4. 박종윤, 정인화, 남정희, 최경희, 최병순 (2001). 중학교 과학 수업에서 질문과 피드백을 활용한 교사-학생 상호작용 강화 수업 전략의 개발 및 적용. 한국과학교육학회, 26(2), 239-245
  5. 박철웅 (2004). 지리교사의 발문 실태와 효율적 발문 전략에 관한 연구. 한국지리환경교육학회지, 12(1), 149-168
  6. 변홍규(1995). 질문제시의 기법. 서울: 교육과학사
  7. 양미경 (1999). 교사의 칠문 특성 및 역할에 대한 비판적 이해. 중원인문논총, 20, 61-79
  8. 이성호 (1999). 교수방법론. 서울: 학지사
  9. 임선빈 (1996). 교사의 인지적 발문이 학업성취에 미치는 영향 I. 교육연구, 14, 141-162
  10. 전경원 (2004). 새로운 영재재능교육의 이론과 실제. 서울. 학문사
  11. 진영은 (2000). 고등학교 교사들의 수업 중의 질문법에 관한 분석. 인문과학. 30, 81-100
  12. 최경희, 박종윤, 최병순, 남정희, 최경순, 이기순 (2004). 중학교 과학 수업에서 교사와 학생의 언어적 상호작용 분석. 한국과학교육학회지. 24(6), 1039-1048
  13. Banks, J. A. (1990). Teaching Strategies for the Social Studiest 4th (Ed). New York: Longman
  14. Berliner, D, C. (1987). But do they understand?: In V. Richardson-Kowhler(Ed.), Education's handbook: A research perspectives. New York: Longrmn
  15. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessroent and classroom learning. Assessrrerr in education: Principles, policy & protice, 5(1), 7-74
  16. Blosser, P. E. (2000). Asking the right questions. Arlin on, Virginia: NSTA press. Borland, J. H. (1989). Planr ing and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University
  17. Brophy, J. & Good, T .L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Witrrcck(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan. 328-375
  18. Brown, G. (1975).Microteachiog, Methuen, London
  19. Carin, A. A. (1997). Teaching science through discovery(8th Ed). Upper Saddle River: Merill Publishing Company
  20. Carsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in the classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective, Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 157-178
  21. Cassidy, D. J. (1989). Questioning the young child: Processes and function, Childhood Education, 63(3), 146-149
  22. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses, International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
  23. Cliatt, M.J. P., Shaw, J. M. & Sherwood, J. M (1980). Effects of training on the divergent thinking abilities of kindergarten children, Child Development, 51, 1061-1064 https://doi.org/10.2307/1129544
  24. Davis. B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Inc
  25. Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questiouiug and testing : A manual of practice, London: Croom Helm, 45-71
  26. Edward, D., & Mlercer, N. (1987), Common Knowledge: TIle development understanding in the classroom. London: New York: Routledge
  27. Gall, M. D. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers' questioning. Educational Leadership, November, 40-47
  28. Gallagher, J.J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child, Boston: Allyn & Bacon
  29. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books
  30. Guilford, J. P. (1967). TIle Nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Bock Company
  31. Hiebert, J. & Wearne, D. (1993). Irstructional tasks, classroom discourse, and student' learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393-425 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030002393
  32. Hyman, R. T. (1987). Discussion strategies and tactics. In W.W.Wilen(Ed.), Question, questioning techniques, and effective teaching, Washington, D.C National Education Association. 23-48
  33. Kaplan, S. N. (1986). The Gtid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press
  34. Lang, Q. C., Wong, A. F. L. & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Student perceptions of chemistry laboratory learning environments, student-teacher interactions and attitudes in secondary school gifted education classes in singapore, Research in Science Education, 299- 321
  35. Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. Austin, TA: Pro-Ed, Inc
  36. Martorella, P. H. (1991). Teaching Social Studies in Middle and Secondary Schools. New York: Macmillan co
  37. McNay, M. (1984). Science: All the wonder things, Childhood Education, 61(5), 375-378
  38. Moore, K. D. (2000) Classroom teaching Skills. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc
  39. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2000), Analysing discourse in the science classroom In R. Miller, J. Leach & J. Osborne (Eds, J, Improving science education : the contribution of research (pp. 126-142). Buckingham: Open University Press
  40. Perry. M., VanderStoep, S., & Yu, S. L. (1993). Asking question in first-grade mathematics classes: Potential influences on mathematical thought, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 31-40 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.1.31
  41. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). 'What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition.' Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180- 184, 261
  42. Robinson, H. P. (1977). 'Current myths concerning gifted children.' Gifted and Talentecl Brief 5, 1-11, Verrura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute
  43. Sanders, N. (1996), Classroom questions: What kinds? New York: Harper and Row
  44. Seo, H-A., Lee, E. A. & Kim, K. H. (2005). Korean science teachers' understanding of creativity in gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(2-3), 98-105
  45. Starko, A. J. (1995). Creativity in the classssroom; Schools of curious delight. White Plains, New York: Longman. 45p
  46. Stephanie, S. A, (1982). A study of the relationship between teaching techniques and student's achievement on high cognitive level question-asking skill(Dotoral dissertation, the university of Chicago, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42
  47. Sternberg, R. J. (1981). A Componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86-91 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628102500208
  48. Stigler, J., Fernander, C., & Yoshida, M (1996). Traditions of school math maries in Japanese and American elementary classrooms. In L.P. Steffe & P. Nesher(Eds), Theories of mathematical learning, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 149-175
  49. Tannenbaum, A. (1913). Gifted Children, New York: MacMlillan
  50. Terman, L. M. (1925), Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
  51. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom; Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisioi and Curriculum Development
  52. Tunstall. P., & Gipjus, C. (1996). 'How does your teacher help you to mak: ypur work better?' Children's understanding of formatse assessment. The Curriculum Journal 7(2), 185-203 https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517960070205
  53. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted learner: Denver, CO: Love Publishing. 89p
  54. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum planning & instructional design for gited learners. Denver: Lover Publishing Company
  55. Wilen, W. W. (1991). Questioning skills for teachers (4th Ed.) Washington, D. C .: National Education Association
  56. Williams, F. E. (1985). The cognitive-affective interaction rnxlel for enriching gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (,pp. 461-484). Mansfield, CT:Creative Learning Press
  57. Woolever, R. M & Scott, K. P. (1988). Active Learning in Social Studies. Illinois: Scott Foresman & Co
  58. Wubbels, Th. & Leay, Jack. (1993). Do you know what you look like? : ir terpersonal relationships in education. London ; Washingt;n, D.C. : Falmer Press