예비 생물교사들의 마이크로티칭에 대한 동료평가 분석

Abstract

In this study, we examined what factors preservice biology teachers evaluate in a simulated instruction at a college of education in a metropolitan city. For this purpose, 650 lesson evaluations written by preservice biology teachers were collected, and key words were extracted from each evaluation, divided into advantages, disadvantages, and complementary points, and the frequency of each item was extracted. The results of the study showed that the priority frequency of the key words of the strengths described by the preservice biology teachers in the lesson evaluations were 'voice', 'writing on the blackboard', 'lesson organization', 'explanation' and 'interaction' in order. On the other hand, the following words were ranked lower: 'checking student activities', 'consideration of student level', 'nature of science', 'review' and 'experimental exploration'. The priority of frequency of disadvantages was high in the order of 'voice', 'writing on the blackboard', 'behavior', 'lesson plan' and 'lesson organization'. On the other hand, the following words were ranked lower: 'Nature of science', 'Examples', 'Experimental inquiry', 'Review' and 'Attention'. The priority of frequency of complementary points was 'writing on the blackboard', 'utilizing media', 'explanation', 'behavior' and 'voice'. On the other hand, the following words were ranked lower: 'Consideration of student level', 'Class atmosphere', 'Nature of science', 'Class flow', and 'Class pace'. Among the key words extracted from the evaluation sheets, the key words 'voice' and 'writing on the blackboard' were common in the priority order of strengths, weaknesses, and complementary points, indicating that preservice teachers were mainly evaluating the behavioral factors of teachers rather than the design and implementation factors of the class. In addition, the key word 'nature of science' was extracted as the common lowest ranking key word in the priority order of advantages, disadvantages, and complementary points, indicating that the specificity of science as a subject was not taken into account when evaluating the class.