Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison Between the Perceptions of Elementary Gifted Child and Science Teacher about the Good Science Class

좋은 과학 영재 수업에 대한 학생과 교사의 생각 비교

  • Received : 2013.09.03
  • Accepted : 2014.02.11
  • Published : 2014.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study compares the perceptions of elementary gifted child and science teacher in a science class for the gifted. In order to explore the research problem, students and teachers answered a written semi-structured questionnaire and participated in interviews regarding the gifted science class. The data was collected and analyzed. Science teachers recognized the characteristics of a good science class, especially in terms of educational content and teaching methodology. First, they suggested promoting inquiry skills, presenting a challenging task in atypical topic selection, student-centered curriculum, and controlling the pace of learning to recognize individual differences. Second, in terms of the science class skills and attitudes category, teachers recommended raising mutual satisfaction through vigorous interaction within a permissible atmosphere. Finally, science teachers need to strive for continued professional growth. Gifted children, meanwhile, want to investigate a wide range of topics without time constraints. Additionally, they may have to explore challenging topics further. They prefer to act like scientists in that they enjoy group activities, communication and cooperation. In particular, they want to be evaluated by others in a totally embedded assessment. Gifted children also expect teachers to understand the life circumstances and needs of the students. In addition, they asked for teachers to respect individual experiments and to show them how to safely use new equipment or research methods. As a result, gifted children and science teachers have to recognize the differences of opinion concerning a good science class for the gifted. This study can help formulate strategies to establish quality management of materials in gifted science classes.

이 연구는 교육지원청 영재교육원 학생들과 수업을 담당하고 있는 교사들을 대상으로 좋은 과학 영재 수업에 대한 인식을 비교 하였다. 연구 문제 해결을 위해 과학 영재 수업이라는 공통의 경험과 그 현상에 대해 어떻게 인식하고 있는지 면담을 통해 그 의미를 탐색해 보았다. 연구문제는 '좋은 과학 영재 수업에 대한 학생과 교사의 인식은 어떠한가?'로 설정하였다. 연구문제를 탐구하기 위하여 반구조화된 설문지를 작성하여 과학 수업에 참여하는 학생과 교사 면담을 통하여 자료를 수집하고 분석하였다. 좋은 과학 영재 수업에 대해 교사들은 첫째, 교육내용 및 방법의 범주면에서 학생 중심의 주제 선정과 교육과정의 비정형성, 개인차를 인정하는 학습 속도의 조절과 탐구 능력을 촉진하는 도전적인 과제를 제시해야 한다고 말하고 있었다. 둘째, 과학 수업기술 및 태도 범주면에서는 허용적인 분위기에서 활발한 상호작용을 통해 상호 만족도를 높이며, 학생들의 의견을 수용하는 과정 중심의 평가가 이루어질 것을 권장하였다. 셋째, 영재학생 지도교사의 지속적인 전문성 신장을 위해 노력할 것을 포함하였다. 영재 학생들은 첫째, 수업 내용면에서 주제 선택의 자유와 심화된 탐구에 도전 의지를 갖고 해결하는 즐거운 수업을 좋은 과학 수업으로 인식하였다. 둘째, 수업 활동면에서 탐구 방식의 자율적 선택과 과학자처럼 활동하기, 소통과 협력이 가능한 모둠활동, 과정 중심 프로젝트나 산출물에 대한 총합적인 평가를 선호하였다. 셋째, 수업 환경면에서는 물리적 환경이 잘 갖춰진 실험실에서 허용적인 분위기와 학생에 대한 존중을 요구하였다. 이 연구를 통해 영재학생과 지도교사 사이의 좋은 과학 영재 수업에 대한 인식의 차이를 밝혀 영재학생을 위한 과학 영재 수업의 질 관리 및 효과적인 좋은 과학 영재 수업 전략을 수립하는 자료로 활용 될 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Association for Science Teachers and Laurence Erlbaum.
  2. Bae, J. H., & Ok, S. K. (2009). The Effects of Elementary Science Lessons Emphasizing Social Interactions on the Metacognition, Learning Motive and Academic Achievement. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(4), 519-527.
  3. Brophy, J. E. (1999). Perspectives of classroom management: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In H. Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: changing the classroom management paradigm, 43-56. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  4. Chan, M. T. (2002). The teaching of science process skills: primary teachers' self-perception. Department of Science the Hong Kong institute of Education, 5. 91-111.
  5. Cho, H. J., Yang, I. H., Jeong, J. H., Shin, A. K., & Sohn, J. J. (2008). Analysis of the Elementary School Students' Views about Lab-based Science learning . Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(2), 117-133.
  6. Colaizzi, P. E. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist view it existential phenomenology, New york: Oxford University press.
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches(2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  8. Cuban, L. (1998). How schools chang reforms: redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453-477.
  9. Gagne', M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
  10. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of 'context' in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957-976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
  11. Gim, C. C., & Byeon, H. J. (2005). A Critical Analysis of the Meaning of 'Good Instruction'. Journal of the Korean Society for Fish & Marine Sciences Education, 17(3), 373-82.
  12. Giorgi, A. (1985). Sketch of a psychological phenomenological method. In A Giorgi (ed) Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
  13. Gowin, D. B. (1981). Educating. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
  14. Harwood, W.S. (2002). Mercury Breaks the Law! The Hoosier Science Teacher, 27(2), 50-54.
  15. Ha, S. W., Kim, S. J., & Park, J. W. (2008). A Study on the Effect of Educational Activities at Science Gifted Education Center on the Student's Science-related Career Choice . Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 18(3), 497-518.
  16. Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research, Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201
  17. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  18. Kang, H. K., & Choi, S. Y.(2004). The Professional Development Program for Teacher of Science Gifted Students. Science Eduction Center Inchon National University of Education, 16, 137-160.
  19. Kim, J. B. (2006). Learning strategies for scientifically gifted children. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 5(2), 19-32.
  20. Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation of learning in science. In Bloom, B. S., Hastings J. T., & Madsus, G. F. (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  21. Kumpulainen, K. & Wray, D. (2002.) Classroom Interaction and Social Learning London: Routledge Falmer.
  22. Kwak, Y. S., & Kang, H. S (2005). Teacher assessment, Instruction assessment. Seoul: Wonmi Press.
  23. Kwak, Y. S., & Kim J. H.(2003). Qualitative research on common features of best practices in the secondary school science classroom. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(2), 144-154.
  24. Kwon, Y., & Lawson, A. E. (2000). Effect on development of proportional reasoning skill of physical experience and cognitive abilities associated with prefrontal lobe activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37(10), 1171-1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1171::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-A
  25. Lee, M. S. (2002). Depth interview study. Journal of Elementary Education, 18(1), 215-241.
  26. Lim, J. K., & Yang, I. H. (2008). A study on the professional development process of elementary teacher. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(2), 93-101.
  27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  28. Maker, C. J., & Neilsen, A. B. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted (2nd ed.) Austin, TX: PRO-EDUCATION.
  29. Miedijensky, S., & Tali, T. (2009). Embedded assessment in project-based science courses for the gifted: insights to inform teaching all students. International Journal of Science Education, 1-25.
  30. Meyer, J.D., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2003). The role of sustained professional development in science teacher renewal and retention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
  31. Oh, P. S. (2011). Unfillable Cups: Meanings of science classes to elementary school teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 31(2), 271-294.
  32. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Students' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 441-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010006518
  33. Park, J. S., & Kim, J. Y. (2011). Perception of pre-service science teachers on the classes for the gifted in science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 31(4), 609-620.
  34. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  35. Pfeiffer, S. I., & Blei, S. (2008). Gifted identification beyond the IQ test: Rating scales and other assessment procedures. In S. I. Pfeiffer, Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 177-198). NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
  36. Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (1), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0901_3
  37. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research. NY: Teachers College Press.
  38. Seo, H. A., & Lee, S. K. (2004). Analysis of science teaching and learning for the gifted at elementary school level. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 23(3), 219-227.
  39. Stake, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Evaluation.
  40. Subotnik, R., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
  41. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). What matters in curriculum for gifted learners: Reflections on theory, research and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 174 -183). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  42. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  43. Yu, H. W., Cha, H. J., Kim, M. S., Ham, D. C., Kim, H. B., Yoo, J. H., Park, H. J., Kim, C. J., & Choe, S. U. (2012). Relation between the personal and social factors and the interacting role of science gifted students in social co-construction of scientific model class. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(2), 265-290. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.2.265

Cited by

  1. '좋은 중등 과학 수업'에 대한 탐색: 대안학교 학생의 사례를 중심으로 vol.39, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2015.39.2.180
  2. 초등교사의 과학수업에 대한 기대도와 실행도에 관한 학생의 인식 vol.36, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2017.36.3.255
  3. 좋은 과학수업을 위한 예비교사의 도전 -수업 주제의 의미화 과정을 중심으로- vol.38, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.4.451
  4. 초등 과학영재 학생과 일반 학생의 과학 동시 특성 및 과학 동시 쓰기에 대한 인식 비교 vol.38, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2019.38.1.130
  5. 초등 과학영재학생들의 자유탐구 산출물 특성 분석 vol.39, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.2.243