산업진흥연구 (Industry Promotion Research)

  • 제5권1호
  • /
  • Pages.53-62
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2466-1139(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2714-013X(eISSN)
산업진흥원 (Industrial Promotion Institute)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

교사 전문성 향상 방안 연구 -한국의 학습 커뮤니티 사례-

Developing Teachers' Professionalism -Focusing on Korean Cases-

  • 투고 : 2020.01.03
  • 심사 : 2020.01.16
  • 발행 : 2020.01.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 한국 사회의 두 전문 학습 커뮤니티인 '전국역사교사모임'과 '초등학급경영연구회'의 구조 및 운영체제를 검토하고, 그 장·단점을 분석한 연구이다. 이러한 사례를 분석하기 위해 로비(Robey)의 조직 변화 모델을 이론적 틀로 활용하였다. 이 연구에는 주로 문헌 검토와 현장 인터뷰라는 두 가지 연구방법이 채택되었다. 분석 결과, 여러 가지 장점(교사의 진취성과 자율적 의지에 의해 주도되는 쉬운 접근성, 풍부하고 실용적인 교육 해결책)과 약점(재정적 부담, 이론적 배경의 결여, 산발적인 참여자)이 발견되었다. 결론에서 이 연구는 교사의 전문성 함양에 중요한 역할을 하는 교육 리더 그룹이 되기 위한 세 가지 전략을 제시한다. 1) 교사의 학습 동기를 자극하기 위한 제도적 노력을 기울인다. 2) 교사라는 직업 자문을 위해 대학교수 및 다른 전문가들로 구성된 강한 네트워크를 구축한다. 3) 종합적이고 탄탄한 통합 시스템을 구축한다.

This study reviewed the structural and operational systems of two professional learning communities in Korean society and analyzed their strengths and weaknesses: the Association of Korean History Teachers and the Communities of Elementary School Classroom Management. In order to analyze these cases, Robey's organizational change model was used as a theoretical frame. Two research methods were mainly employed for this study: literature review and on-site interviews. The analysis found several strengths (easy accessibility, led by teachers' initiative and autonomous will, abundant and practical teaching solutions) and weaknesses (financial burden, lack of theoretical background, sporadic participants). In conclusion, this study suggests three strategies for an educational leader who has an important role in developing a teacher's professionalism: 1) Make an institutional effort to stimulate teachers' motivation to learn, 2) Create a strong network of university professors and other experts for career advice, 3) Build a synthesized and consolidated system.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Astuto, T., Clark, D., Read, A., McGree, K., & Fernandez, L. (1993). Challenges to Dominant Assumptions Controlling Educational Reform. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for the Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Island.
  2. Barth, R. (2000). Building a community of learners. Principals, 79(4), pp. 68-69.
  3. Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  4. Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), pp. 597-604.
  5. Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. (2002, December). Defining "highly qualified teachers": What does "scientifically-based research" actually tell us?. Educational Researcher, 31(9), pp. 13-25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031009013
  6. Dufour, R. (2004, May). What is a "professional learning community"?. Educational Leadership, 61(8), pp. 6-11.
  7. Firestone, W. A., Monfils, L. F., & Schorr, R. Y. (2004). The ambiguity of teaching to the test: standards, assessments, and educational reform. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erbaum Associates Publishers.
  8. Fullan, M. (1995). The limits and potential of professional development. In T. R. Guskey, & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: new paradigms and practices (pp. 253-267). NY: Teachers College Press.
  9. Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2001). Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A developmental approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  10. Gordon, S. (2004). Professional development for School Improvement: Empowering learning communities. Boston: Pearson.
  11. Green, R. & Etheridge, C. (2001). Collaboration to establish standards about accountability: Lessons learned about systemic change. Education, 121(4), pp. 821-829.
  12. Hipp, K., Olivier, D., Huffman, J., Beaty, D., Pankake, A., & Moller, G. (2001, April). Learning about Learning communities: A case study approach. Proceedings from the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
  13. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  14. Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in Education, 27, pp. 109-157. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X027001109
  15. Kovalik, S. & Olsen, K. (1994). Integrated Thematic Instruction: The model. Kent, WA: Books for Educators.
  16. Leavitt, H. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry: structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In March, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizations (pp.1144-1170). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  17. Leithwood, K. (1992), The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 58(8), pp. 75-77.
  18. Little, J. W. (2001). Professional development and the pursuit of reform. In A. L. a. L. Miller(Ed.), Teaching as the learning profession. handbook of policy and practice (pp.233-262), San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  19. Louis, K., & Marks, H. (1998, August). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teacher's work and student experience in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), pp. 532-575. https://doi.org/10.1086/444197
  20. Robey, D. (1986). Designing Organizations. Homewood, IL: Irwin Inc.
  21. Song, K. (2008). The impacts of district policy and school context on teacher professional development. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(4), pp. 436-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03025661
  22. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
  23. Sweetland, S. (2001). Authenticity and sense of power in enabling school structures: An empirical analysis. Education, 121(3), p. 581-588.
  24. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.