The Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exploring Teachers' Pedagogical Design Capacity: How Mathematics Teachers Plan and Design Their Mathematics Lessons

수업지도안 분석을 통한 수학교사의 수업설계역량(Pedagogical Design Capacity) 탐색

  • Kim, Gooyeon (The Graduate School of Education, Sogang University) ;
  • Jeon, MiHyun (The Graduate School of Education, Sogang University)
  • Received : 2017.08.28
  • Accepted : 2017.11.29
  • Published : 2017.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to explore mathematics teachers' pedagogical design capacity. For this purpose, we googled and collected 327 lesson plans for middle-school mathematics and investigated how mathematics teachers plan and design their mathematics lessons through the format and structures, objectives and mathematical tasks, anticipation for students' thinking, and assessment and technology use. The findings from the data analysis suggest as follows: a) all the lesson plans are structured in a very similar way; b) the lesson plans seem to be based on the textbooks exclusively, that is, the mathematical tasks and flow is strictly followed and kept in the lesson plans in the way the textbooks suggested; c) the lesson plans do not include any evidence of what teachers anticipate for students' thinking and would do to resolve the students' issues; and d) the lesson plans do not contain any specific plans to assess students' thinking processes and reasoning qualitatively, and not intend to use technology in order to promote effective teaching and meaningful understanding.

Keywords

References

  1. 권지현, 김구연 (2013). 중학교 수학 교과서에 제시된 기하영역의 수학 과제 분석. 수학교육 52(1), 111-128. (Kwon, J. & Kim, G. (2013). An analysis of mathematical tasks in the middle school geometry. The Mathematical Education 52(1), 111-128.)
  2. 김구연 (2011). How teachers use mathematics curriculum materials in planing and implementing mathematics lessons. 학교수학 13(4), 485-500. (Kim, G. (2011). How teachers use mathematics curriculum materials in planing and implementing mathematics lessons. School Mathematics 13(4), 485-500.)
  3. 김구연, 전미현 (2017). 중학교 수학교과서가 학생에게 제공하는 함수 학습기회 탐색. 학교수학 19(2), 289-317. (Kim, G. & Jeon, M. (2017). Exploring how middle-school mathematics textbooks on functions provide studentsa an opportunity-to-learn. School Mathematics 19(2), 289-317.)
  4. 김대영, 김구연 (2014). 중등 수학교사의 교과서 수학과제 이해 및 변형 능력. 학교수학 16(3), 445-469. (Kim, D. & Kim, G. (2014). Secondary mathematics teachers' understanding and modification of mathematical tasks in textbooks. School Mathematics 16(3), 445-469.)
  5. 김민혁 (2013). 수학 교사의 교과서 및 교사용 지도서 활용도 조사. 학교수학 16(3), 503-531. (Kim, M. (2013). Secondary mathematics teachers' use of mathematics textbooks and teacher's guide. School Mathematics 16(3), 503-531.)
  6. 문진수, 김구연 (2015). 중등 수학교사의 함수에 대한 지식(MKT)측정 및 분석. 학교수학 17(3), 469-492. (Mun, J. & Kim, G. (2015). Measuring and analyzing teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching[MKT] of functions.. School Mathematics 17(3), 469-492.)
  7. 이혜림, 김구연 (2013). 수학교과서 문제에 대한 예비중등교사의 이해 및 변형 능력. 수학교육학연구 23(3), 353-371. (Lee, H. L. & Kim, G. (2013). Pre-service secondary matheamtics teachers' understanding and modifications of tasks in mathematics textbooks. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics 23(3), 353-371.)
  8. 전미현, 김구연 (2015). 예비교사들의 수학교수지식(MKT) 측정 및 분석 연구. 수학교육학연구 25(4), 691-715. (Jeon, M. & Kim, G. (2015). Measuring and analyzing prospecitve secondary teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching[MKT]. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics 25(4), 691-715.)
  9. 홍창준, 김구연 (2012). 중학교 함수 단원의 수학 과제 분석. 학교수학 14(2), 213-232. (Hong, C. J, & Kim, G. (2012). Functions in the middle school mathematics: The cognitive demand of the mathematical tasks. School Mathematics 14(2), 213-232.)
  10. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers' mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433-456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  11. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
  12. Brahier, D. J. (2009). Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  13. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). Routledge: New York.
  14. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. Elementary School Journal 103, 287-311. https://doi.org/10.1086/499727
  15. Davis, E. A. & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher 34(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  16. Hill, H. C. & Charalambous, C. Y. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Lessons learned and open issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies 44, 559-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.716978
  17. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  21. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
  22. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  23. Posamentier, A. S., Smith, B. S., & Stepelman, J. (2010). Teaching secondary mathematics: Teaching and enrichment units (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  24. Remillard, J. T. (1992). Teaching mathematics for understanding: A fifth-grade teacher's interpretation of policy. Elementary School Journal 93, 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1086/461721
  25. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry 29, 315-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00130
  26. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research 75, 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
  27. Sanchez, W. B. (2013). Open-ended questions and the process standards. Mathematics Teacher 107, 206-211. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.107.3.0206
  28. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860
  29. Stein, M. K., & Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building students capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classroom. American Educational Research Journal 33, 455-488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455
  30. Stein, M. K. & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 37-55). Routledge: New York.
  31. Stein, M. K., Kim, G., & Seeley, M. (2006). The enactment of reform mathematics curricula in urban settings: A comparative analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  32. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319-370). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
  33. Stein, M. K. & Smith, M. S. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Cited by

  1. 수학 교사의 교과서 이해 및 활용 의도 탐색 vol.60, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2021.60.1.111
  2. 수업 설계안 구조 변화에 따른 예비교사들의 수업 설계 특징 분석 vol.60, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2021.60.1.77
  3. 교사가 수업 설계에서 중요하게 고려하는 요소: 초등 수학 수업지도안에 대한 분석을 중심으로 vol.35, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmee.2021.35.1.15