:: ±âÇÑÁ¦ ȨÆäÀÌÁö¿¡ ¿À½Å°ÍÀ» ȯ¿µÇÕ´Ï´Ù.::
µµ¼­°Ë»ö   
 
µµ/¼­/Ä«/Å×/°í/¸®
ÃÑ·ù
¾Æ»ê¿¬±¸Àç´ÜÃѼ­
¾Æ»ê¿¬±¸Àç´Üº¸°í¼­
±¹¾î/±¹¹®ÇÐ/¹Î¼ÓÇÐ
Àι®/¿ª»ç/»çȸ°úÇÐ
Á¾±³/öÇÐ
ÇÑÀÇÇÐ
¼­¾çÀÇÇÐ
»çȸº¹ÁöÇÐ
¿¹¼ú
½Ã/¼Ò¼³
񧯇
ÀÚ¿¬°úÇÐ/±â¼ú°úÇÐ
±âŸ
ÀüÀÚÃ¥
À§Å¹ÆǸŵµ¼­
 
 
 
ÀÛ¼ºÀÏ : 13-05-29 20:23
 Reflective language teaching in the Korean context (Çѱ¹¿¡¼­ÀÇ ¼ºÂû ¾ð¾î±³À°)
Kil Su Park(¹Ú±æ¼ö)
2009-02-20
½ÅA5
978-89-6297-006-7
18,000
ÆǸű¸ºÐ ÆǸÅ
¿ªÀÚ
ÆíÀúÀÚ


[Korea Dissertation Series 7]

Over the past few decades the national curricula of Korean ELT have heavily depended on the theory of Communicative Language Teaching, but CLT alone cannot do the job of successful English teaching in Korea. The author thus introduces the ""reflective teaching"" which, originating from the Socratic questioning, is a way of problem-solving using reflection, the fundamental faculty of man. The protagonist of Reflective Language Teaching is teacher. In order to hoist the purport of RLT that basically aims at changed dispositions of teachers, the present study used a survey to find out what the preservice and inservice teachers think of their profession, their classroom behavior, their reflective practice, and education in general. The results analyzed and discussed in terms of descriptive and inferential statistics show that the subjects have many traits conducive to the introduction of RLT to Korean contexts. Based on the findings of the survey and on other resources, the RLT model consisting of three modules¡ªPlanning, Teaching, and Reflection¡ªhas been proposed. With the micro- and macro-variables incorporated, the model expands into a seven-stage model including micro-planning and macro-planning. Long story short, the RLT models are to provide some balance to Korean ELT which is deemed a little lopsided due to the strong influence of CLT. The ultimate goal of RLT is to enhance the personal awareness of the act of teaching and promote the continuous development of classroom English teachers to the extent that they find their teaching life full of worth and reward.

¿ì¸®³ª¶ó ¿µ¾î±³À°ÀÇ ±Ù°£ÀÌ µÇ°í ÀÖ´Â ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅë±³¼ö¹ýÀº ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ¾àÁ¡µéÀ» º¸¿ÏÇÏ´Â ¹æÇâÀ¸·Î ¿µ¾î±³À°À» ¹ßÀü½ÃŲ °ø·Î´Â ÀÖÁö¸¸ ±Ùº»ÀûÀ¸·Î ¸ñÇ¥¾ð¾î¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³ëÃâÀÌ ¿ëÀÌÇÑ ¿µ¾î±Ç ±¹°¡¿¡¼­ Á¦2¾ð¾î·Î¼­ÀÇ ¿µ¾î¸¦ ±³À°Çϱâ À§ÇØ °³¹ßµÈ ¸ðµ¨·Î ¾Æ½Ã¾ÆÀû ȯ°æ¿¡¼­´Â ±× Àû¿ëÀÌ °áÄÚ ½±Áö ¾Ê´Ù´Â ´ÜÁ¡ÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ·± ¸Æ¶ô¿¡¼­ ÃÖ±Ù 30¿© ³â µ¿¾È ¹Ì±¹ ±³À°°èÀÇ È­µÎ°¡ µÇ¾î¿Â ¼ºÂû±³¼ö¹ýÀ» ¿µ¾î±³À°¿¡ Àû¿ë½ÃŲ ¼ºÂû¾ð¾î±³¼ö¹ýÀ» ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó ¿µ¾î±³À°ÀÇ ÇÑ ÃàÀ¸·Î ÀÚ¸®¸Å±èÇÏ´Â ÀÏÀº ¸Å¿ì ÀÇÀÇ ÀÖ´Â ÀÏÀ̸®¶ó º¸°í, º»¼­´Â µàÀÌ¿Í ½´¿ÞÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î ÇÏ´Â ¼ºÂû±³¼ö¹ý À̷п¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÌÇØ¿Í ´õºÒ¾î ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó ÃÊÁß°í ¿µ¾î±³»çÀÇ Àǽİú ŵµ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼³¹®Á¶»ç¸¦ ¹ÙÅÁÀ¸·Î ¿µ¾î±³À°ÀÇ ¿©·¯ º¯Àε鿡 ´ëÇÑ Ã¼°èÀû ¼ºÂû ±â¹ýÀ» ÅëÇÏ¿© ÇнÀÀÚ¿Í È¯°æ¿¡ ¹ÐÂøÇÑ ±Í³³Àû ±³¼ö¸ðÇüÀ» °³¹ßÇÏ°íÀÚ ½ÃµµÇß´Ù. ±× °á°ú ¾ò¾îÁø ¾ð¾î±³¼ö¸ðÇüÀº °èȹ¡æ±³¼ö¡æ¼ºÂûÀÇ 3´Ü°è ¼øȯ¸ðÇüÀ̸ç, À̸¦ ±Ù°£À¸·Î ¹Ì½ÃÀû ¹× °Å½ÃÀû º¯ÀεéÀÌ °í·ÁµÇ°í, ±³»ç³ª ÇнÀÀÚÀÇ ¼ºÂûÀÏÁö³ª Æ÷Æ®Æú¸®¿À ÀÛ¼º, ±³»çµéÀÇ Áý´Ü¼ºÂû µî ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¼ºÂû±³¼ö¹ýÀÇ ¹Ý¼º ±â¹ýÀ» È°¿ëÇÔÀ¸·Î½á °èȹ°ú ¼ºÂû ±¹¸éÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ÀԷµǴ ±³¼ö¿ä¸ñÀ» È®¸³ÇÏ°í ¹Ýº¹ÀûÀÎ ½Çõ°ú °üÂû·Î ÃÖÀûÈ­µÇ´Â ±³¼ö¸ðÇüÀÌ´Ù. Áï º»¼­´Â ¿µ¾î Ãø¸éº¸´Ù´Â ±³À° Ãø¸é¿¡ ºñÁßÀ» µÎ´Â »õ·Î¿î °üÁ¡ÀÇ ¿µ¾î±³¼ö¹ýÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇÏ¿© ÇÑÂÊ¿¡ Ä¡¿ìÄ£ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ¿µ¾î±³À°¿¡ ±ÕÇüÀ» Á¦°øÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸¸®¶ó º»´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ±³¼ö¸ðÇüÀÇ È®¸³À» ÅëÇØ ¿µ¾î±³»ç´Â ±³»ç»ý¾Ö¸¦ ÅëÇØ ³»³» ¹ßÀüÀ» ¸ØÃßÁö ¾Ê°í ºÎ´ÜÈ÷ ¿¬±¸ÇÏ°í ³ë·ÂÇÏ´Â Ç°¼ºÀ» °è¹ßÇÏ°í À̸¦ ±â¹ÝÀ¸·Î ½ÇÁúÀûÀÎ Áö½Äü°è¸¦ ±¸ÃàÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ¼ºÂûÀû Á÷¾÷ÀÎÀ¸·Î¼­ÀÇ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ Á÷´ÉÀ» Á¦°íÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°Ô µÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

Preface
Acknowledgements

I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Purpose of the Study
1.3 Scope of the Study

II. THE NATURE OF REFLECTIVE TEACHING
2.1 The Genealogy of Reflective Thinking
2.2 The Knowledge Base and the Dispositions
2.3 Models of Enhancing Reflectivity in Teaching
2.4 Methodological Eclecticism

III. SURVEY ON TEACHERS󰡑 BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES
3.1 Purport of the Survey Research
3.2 Method
3.3 Results and Discussion

IV. DEVELOPING THE REFLECTIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING MODEL
4.1 Assumptions of Reflective Language Teaching
4.2 The Three-Phase Cyclic Model
4.3 Putting Together Micro- and Macro-Reflection

V. THE APPLICATION OF THE RLT MODEL
5.1 Activating the Planning Phase to Develop RLT Syllabus
5.2 Tools for Activating the Reflection Phase
5.3 Individual vs. Collective Reflection
5.4 A New Empowered Vision of Teaching English
5.5 The Usability of the RLT Model
5.6 Implications for Teacher Education

VI. CONCLUSION

Appendix
References
Index

 
 
 

 
  Áö¹®´ç , ´ëÇ¥ : ÀÓ»ï±Ô , 10881 °æ±âµµ ÆÄÁֽà ±¤Àλç±æ 85 , »ç¾÷ÀÚµî·Ï¹øÈ£ : 101-90-03301,
´ëÇ¥ ¹øÈ£ : 02-743-3192~3 , Æѽº : 02-742-4657 , ´ëÇ¥ À̸ÞÀÏ : sale@jimoon.co.kr