81
()
() ()
( )
.
.
.
,
, , ,
. ,
.
I.
, ,
.
,
.
( )
.
,
.
.
74
() .
* (2014 2 12), (2014 2 13), (2014 2 14)
* ZDM : D44, U34
:
[email protected]
82
,
. ( )
.
.
.
II.
1.
.
“ ”
,
“underachiever”
“slow learner” .
(1984) . , “
,
” , ,
( )
.
2. ( )
, , ( , 2011;
, 1989).
, . ,
,
.
, .
.
, . ,
,
.
.
83
( , )
< -1>
, , ,
.
3.
.
, (2002)
,
, .
,
.
, (2001)
. ,
,
.
, (2006)
84
.
.
, (2008)
. ,
, ,
, .
, (2011)
, .
, 5
.
.
.
1.
1 89, .
( ) . 3 3 (A,
B, C).
A, B, C C 1 B 89
( ) 89 30(1), 59(2)
.
6, 7, 8 C( 2 ), 1, 2 B, C 3, 4, 5 C
.
.
1, 2 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8
A B, C
1 58.7 27.5 68.8 40.0 24.4 67.1 39.5 24.6
< -1>
85
24.427.5
, (A, B) 58.768.8
.
2.
30
.
1 26
, 1 31%, 2
52% , 34 17% . 26 5
.
2 3
. 30 .
,
.
.
.
/ .
1 5 (17%) 18 (62%) 4 (13%) 2 (6%)
2 2 (6%) 8 (27%) 14 (48%) 5 (17%)
< -2>
, 30 23 .
, ‘ ’, ‘
’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘1
’ . 1
()
.
86
3 2 (7%) 4 (13%) 12 (41%) 5 (17%) 6 (22%)
(4)
(8)
(6)
1 (1)
< -3>
, 80%
,
.
.
, 30 26
. .
.
5 26 (90%) 3 (10%)
18 (40%) 16 (36%) 6 (13%) 5 (11%)
< -4>
, 86% 25
‘ .’
93% . ‘ .’, ‘ .’, ‘
.’
.
,
.
87
6 25 (86%) 4 (14%)
6-1
2 (7%) 17 (59%) 6 (34%)
< -5>
, ‘
.’, ‘ .’, ‘ .’ ,
.
.
, , , , ,
, ( ).
‘’ ‘’ 24% 28% , ‘ ’ ‘ ’
18%, ‘’ 2% , ‘’, ‘ ’ 41%, 28%
‘ ’, ‘’, ‘’ 14%, 13%, 12% . ,
.
/
.
, ,
.
1.
.
2007 1
.
88
2011 3 2011 7 ‘
’ ‘ ’.
.
, .
2.
,
.
.
Rosenshine Stevens(1986) .
, ,
.
- ()
*
-
* (* )
-EBS ( )
*
-
3.
. ( )
.
, , ,
,
.
.
.
.
[ ] [ ]
90
A4
. (2008), (2008), (2008)
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
91
.
.
.
,
. .
92
.
, ,
.
1.
3 4
2 .
30 .
, 90% 27
.
1 8 (27%) 19 (63%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
< -1>
, 94% 28
.
,
.
2 11 (37%) 17 (57%) 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
< -2>
, 80% 24
. 1 3 1
,
.
93
<-3>
3 4 (13%) 20 (67%) 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 2 (7%)
, 60% 18
, 37% (11) .
.
,
, 80% 24
.
.
, 13% 4, 37% 11,
50% 15 , 5
.
.
.
2.
.
1 , 2011 5 6
2 .
24.6 27.5, 24.4
.
( ) , 1 2
23 .
1416
.
94
1 ,2 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8
A B, C
1 58.7 27.5 68.8 40.0 24.4 67.1 39.5 24.6
2 71.9 31.5 80.7 51.6 33.0 78.1 52.3 47.2
+13.1 +3.9 +11.9 +11.5 +8.6 +11.1 +12.7 +22.6
< -4>
[1 (2011. 2. 18) : 43.8, 2 (2011. 5. 6) : 57.0]
.
“
.”
. ,
.
.
.
, ,
,
.
.
.
1 .
. 2, 3
.
,
.
95
(2006). . , 9(1), 19-40.
(2002). .
E <>, 14, 327-348.
(2008). . ().
(1984). . , RR 84-12.
(2011). 5 .
, 14(4), 459-476.
(1999). , .
(2008). . ().
(2008). . ().
(2008). . ().
(2008). . ().
(2001). - . A <
>, 40(1), 27-51.
(2011). , .
(2008). , .
Rosenshine, V. B. & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching Functions. In
M.C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Teaching(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
96
Efficient Teaching Method for the Underachieving Students through
Level Differentiated Classes
Joonkook shin Department of Mathematics Education, Chungnam
National University, Daejeon, 305-764, Korea
E-mail :
[email protected]
Sang-In Yun Chungnam girl’s high school, Daejeon, 301-807,
Korea
E-mail :
[email protected]
Yang-Hee Kim
*
Now, most of programs developed were presented as form of item pool
by dividing problems by section and level for the level
differentiated course, so the utilization is decreasing at the
field caused by unconsidered school underachievement elements by
achievement.
Especially, the study on teaching materials and effective measures
map for mid-low level students with low utilization is more
urgent.
Therefore, in this study we will promote teaching method for
improving learning achievement at high school. The development
teaching materials(the performance evaluation and diagnostic
assessment, reconstruction of textbooks) will be applied to classes
for the underachieving students directly, and the achievement in
the experimental class was significantly improved compared to the
comparative class and the meaningful conclusions could be drawn as
results of conducting same assessment based on the experimental
class and the comparative class.
* ZDM Classification : D44, U34
Corresponding author
