소집단과학논변활동에서초임교사의반응적교수실행의특징과한계탐색: 프레이밍을중심으로

Abstract

과학지식은사회적합의를통해구성된다. 이러한관점에따라과학수업에서학생들에게과학지식의구성과정을경험시켜야한다는관점이대두되었으며, 과학적논변활동을과학수업에도입해야한다는주장이제기되어왔다. 하지만전통적인수업에익숙한학생들은논변활동에참여하는것에어려움을느끼므로논변활동을과학수업에도입할때교사의역할은중요하다. 학생들을논변활동에생산적으로참여시키기위한방법으로서반응적교수가대두되었으며, 교사의프레이밍은교사의반응적교수실행에영향을미친다. 하지만초임교사의경우논변활동을생산적으로프레이밍하더라도반응적교수를실행하는데에어려움을겪는다.

본연구는과학논변활동을생산적으로프레이밍하는초임과학교사의반응적교수실행의특징과한계에대해프레이밍관점에서분석했다. 논변수업을해본적이없는초임교사와2개학급총52명의중학생이연구에참여하였고, 자극과반응단원에서논변활동을도입하였다. 학생들은귀의구조와기능을학습한뒤, 고막이찢어지면들을수없을까에대한개인의논변을구성하고논의를통해소집단논변을구성하는활동에참여하였다. 소집단논의중에교사의개입이활발했던소집단중에서소집단구성원의특징은유사했으나논변활동의양상이달랐던두소집단을초점집단으로선정하였다. 교사가수업에논변활동을도입하기전참여했던워크숍, 학생들의소집단논의과정과교사면담, 학생면담, 학생추가면담은녹화·녹음되었다. 교사가참여했던워크숍, 교사면담전사본은교사의프레이밍을분석하기위한주자료로사용되었으며, 학생들의소집단논의과정전사본은교사의반응적교수실행을분석하기위한주자료로사용되었다.

연구결과, 교사는논변활동에서촉진자로서학생들의아이디어를공유시킨후, 서로다른의견을합의해야한다고프레이밍하고있었다. 이는반응적교수실행에서일치하게나타났다. 교사는소집단과학논변활동에서촉진자로서학생사고를이끌어내고탐색함으로써학생의견을더욱명료하게제시하도록논의를아이디어공유논의로프레이밍한후, 서로다른의견의불일치를부각시키며논의를논쟁적논의로전환시키고자노력하였다. 그결과, 소집단1의구성원들은서로의의견을합의하기위하여논쟁적논의에참여하였다. 하지만교사의생산적인프레이밍이학생들의생산적인실행을보장하지는않았다. 교사는소집단2의논의에서성공적으로학생들의아이디어를이끌어내고탐색하지못했다. 그결과, 소집단2의구성원들은논쟁적논의에참여하지않았으며, 의견을합의하지못한 채로교실전체논의에참여하였다. 초임교사는학습자에대한이해가부족하여학생들의추론을정교화시킬때개념을활성화시켜주는데에한계를보였으며, 이로인해학생들의현재논변과최종적으로구성해야할논변사이의간극을좁혀주지못했다. 또한, 교사는학생들의인식론적프레이밍에주목하지못했다는한계를보였다. 교사는논변활동을개념학습을위한도구로만인식하여수업에도입하였으며, 이로인해교사는논변활동동안학생들의개념이해와개념적용에주로집중하였고학생들이어떻게논변활동에참여하고있는지에대해서는주목하지않은모습을보였다. 본연구는과학수업에서학생에게반응적인교수를실행하는문화를정착시키는데에기여할것이다.

The purpose of this study is to explore characteristics and limitations of a novice teacherss responsive teaching practice, who framed argumentation productively. One novice teacher and two eighth-grade classes participated in this study. Two of the small student groups with active teacher intervention were selected as focus groups. Students engaged in argumentation activity where they built an argument for hearing if the eardrum was torn. We recorded the class and interviews with the teacher and the students, which were transcribed for use in the analysis of the teachers responsive teaching practices and epistemological, positional framing. We discovered that teacher thought that he should position himself as a facilitator to encourage students to present ideas clearly and to reach consensus. His framing was consistent in responsive teaching practices. Positioning himself as a facilitator, after he framed the discussion as idea sharing discussion by eliciting and probing students idea, he framed the discussion as argumentative discussion by taking up students idea and pointing out disagreement between them. As a result, members of small group 1 engaged in argumentative discussion and reached consensus. However, the teachers productive framing did not guarantee students productive argumentation practice. In small group 2, he did not elicit and probe students ideas successfully. As a result, members of small group 2 did not engaged in argumentative discussions. He responded limitedly to the lack of students' conceptions because of lack of understanding about learners. Also, he mainly attended to students reasoning, and not to students framing about argumentation because he considered argumentation only as a tool for conceptual learning. The result of this study will contribute to the establishment of responsive teaching in science classrooms.