교수 스타일: 우리는 지금 어디에 있는가? (New directions for adult and continuing education, 2002)

교수 스타일: 우리는 지금 어디에 있는가? (New directions for adult and continuing education, 2002)

Teaching Style: Where Are We Now?

Joe E. Heimlich, Emmalou Norland

"교수 스타일"은 종종 서로 다른 것을 표현한다. 교육 방법이나 교육 기술을 표현하기도 하지만 다음의 것도 있다.

Teaching style is a phrase sometimes used to describe different things. Although some authors use it as if it is synonymous with teaching method or technique, most researchers who have defined teaching style refer to style as 

• 교수 행동에 관한 선호, 교육자의 교수행동과 교수신념 사이의 일치 a predilection toward teaching behavior and the congruence between an edu- cator’s teaching behaviors and teaching beliefs (Heimlich and Norland, 1994), 
• 교육 내용이 변하더라도 유지되는 교육활동의 질 a pervasive quality in the educational activities of an educator that persists even when content changes (Fisher and Fisher, 1979), 
• 한 교사에게서 지속적으로 나타나는 특성 the distinct qualities a teacher displays that are persistent (Conti, 1998), or 
• 개인이 정보를 수집하고, 조직하고, 유용한 지식으로 전환하는 방법 the characteristic ways each individual collects, organizes, and transforms information into useful knowledge (Cross, 1979).

'스타일'이란 방법이 아니라, 교수-학습에 전체와 관련된 더 큰 것이다.

Style is not method but something larger that relates to the entire teaching-learning exchange.

어떤 교육사건에서든지 일관되게 나타나는 다양한 요소들이 있다. 이 다섯 개의 요소 teacher, learner, group, con-tent, and environment 가 교수-학습 교환(teaching-learning exchange)의 모델을 구성한다.

In any educational event, several elements are constant: there is an edu-cator who conveys or facilitates the content to each learner and the group of learners within a situation that is both physical and the affective reaction to the physical environment. These five elements—teacher, learner, group, con-tent, and environment—comprise a model of the teaching-learning exchange.

대부분의 교육자들은 모든 학습자들이 학습에 대해 서로 다른 선호와 스타일을 가지고 있으며, 한 학습사건에서 다양한 학습스타일을 만족시킬 수 있는 기술과 전략을 사용하는 것이 중요함을 안다. 그러나 교육현장에서의 교수와 학생 간 상호작용에 대한 스스로의 신념에 대해 성찰해본 사람은 더 적다. 교육자들이 교수-학습에 관한 스스로의 신념과 가치를 아는 것이 중요하나, 그들의 가치와 신념, 철학을 행동과 매칭시키는 것이 더 중요하다. 이러한 일치(match, congruence)가 교수스타일을 이해하는데 중심이 된다.

Most educators understand that all learners have different preferences and styles of learning and believe that it is important to teach using techniques and strategies that will satisfy the variety of learning styles in the learning event (Seaman and Fellenz, 1990). Fewer educators, however, have reflected on their own beliefs regarding the interaction around the educational event between the teacher and the learner that we call the teaching-learning exchange. Although it is impor- tant for educators to know their own beliefs and values regarding learning and teaching, it is more important for them to understand the match between their values and beliefs, or their philosophy, with their behavior in the exchange. This match, or congruence, is the central element of under- standing teaching style (Brookfield, 1990).

교수-학습 상호교환의 합치(congruence)를 통한 학습의 효과가 제시하는 바는, 스타일을 이해함으로써 교수자와 학습자 마음 사이에 상호교환이 더 성공적일 수 있다는 것이다.

The impact on learning through congruence in the teaching-learning exchange suggests that understanding style can enhance the likelihood that the exchange will be successful in both the learners’ and the educators’ minds.

그러나 스타일은 성찰적 실천 혹은 교육 철학과 동일한 것이 아니다. 성찰은 교육자가 자신의 스타일을 점검하는데 중요하지만 교수스타일은 단순히 행동과 관련된 것이 아니기에 그와 다르며, 스타일은 마찬가지로 신념하고만 관련된 것이 아니므로 철학과 다르다. 스타일은 '합치'에 대한 것이다. '합치'를 이루기 위해서 교육자들은 그들의 교육과 학습에 대한 가치를 고려하고, 교수-학습 상호교환에 대한 신념을 점검해야 한다. 그리고나서 이 신념을 실천과 비교하면서 다양한 방식으로 '합치'를 위해 노력할 수 있다.

But style is not the same as reflective practice or philosophy of teaching. Reflection is an important activity when an educator examines his or her style, but teaching style differs fromreflec- tive practice in that it is not just about behaviors, and style is different from philosophy in that it is not just about beliefs. Style is about congruence. To achieve congruence, educators must consider their values about teaching and learning and examine their beliefs regarding each of the elements of the teaching-learning exchange. They must then compare this set of beliefs with their practice and work for congruence in one of several ways.

왜 교수스타일을 공부해야 하는가?

Why Should We Study Teaching Style?

대부분의 성인교육자에 대한 연구에 있어서 우리는 교육자를 평생학습자로 대하지 않고 있다. 성인교육자에 대한 Knowles의 가설부터 Brookfield의 목표까지, 성인교육분야는 '학습자를 이해하기 위해서 무엇이 필요한가'에 대한 특정 측면을 정의했다. 평생학습자에 대한 이해는 성인을 가르치는 사람에 대한 것까지 확장되어야 한다. 모든 성인교육자들이 해야 하고 할 수 있는 것은 스스로에 대해서 공부하는 것이며, 그 결과를 교육에 적용해야 한다.

One major concern is that in much of the study of adult educators, we are not treating the educator as a lifelong learner. From Knowles’s (1980) assumptions to Brookfield’s (1986) goals for adult educators, the field of adult education has defined certain aspects of what is necessary to under- stand learners. The understanding of the lifelong learner should and must extend to ourselves as the teachers of adults. One of the things all adult edu- cators can and should continue to study is themselves—and the application of the resultant understanding to their teaching.

스타일에 대한 연구

The Study of Style

스타일에 대한 연구는 교육자가 가진 신념/가치/태도/근무철학/기술/인격 등으로부터 시작한다. 교육의 합치를 이루기 위해서는 '내가 누구이며 내가 믿는 것은 무엇인가'를 찾아가는 과정을 요구하며 이는 끝나지 않는다. Eble이 말한 바와 같이  '교수 스타일을 습득하는 것은 총체적이며 일생에 걸친 과정이다. 비록 스타일이 스킬과 테크닉의 형태로 나타나더라도 스타일을 개발한다는 것은 그 이상의 것이다'

The study of style starts with what each educator holds: beliefs, values, atti- tudes, working philosophy, skills, and personality. The core of the individ- ual is what makes that individual a unique, potentially powerful educator of adults. Congruence in teaching demands that the personal exploration of “who I am and what I believe” be unending. As Eble (1980) suggests, the acquisition of teaching style “is a whole and lifetime process, and . . . though style may manifest itself in skills and techniques, the development of style involves much more than these” (p. 1).

교육자의 선호가 무엇인지 결정하는 것에는 여러 차원이 관계된다. 대표적인 두 가지 Inclusion과 sensitivity

Many dimensions could be used to determine an educator’s preferences and predilections in teaching. Two used to measure the beliefs about teach- ing are those of 

• inclusion, which can be considered as level of control of the exchange held by the educator, and 
• sensitivity or orientation to the five elements in a continuum of the nonhuman to the most human of consider- ations (Heimlich and Norland, 1994). 

Zinn’s (1983, 1994) Philosophy of Adult Education Inventory provides a measure of the educator’s philosophy regarding decisions and actions the educator holds regarding determination of the purpose and outcomes of the learning activity. Conti’s (1985)

Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) 

Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) compares the frequency of an educator’s practice with the principles described in the adult education lit- erature. Seevers (1991) found that sensitivity and inclusion, followed by number of adult education courses taken and attitude toward being an adult educator, were the best predictors of teaching style as measured by PALS.

교수 스타일을 탐색하는 것은 교육자의 행동을 철학과 매칭시키는 과정을 포함한다. 교수 스타일은 나쁜 교육의 변명이 될 수 없으며, 교실에서의 부적절한 행동, 잘못된 교육법 등의 변명도 될 수 없다. 교수 스타일에 깔린 전제는 비록 '나쁜' 스타일은 없다 하더라도, 교육자의 교육행위 중 안 좋은 것은 있다는 것이다. 스타일을 공부하는 목적은 개개 교육자들이 그들의 신념이 무엇인지 알고 그들의 신념이 그들의 행동과 어떻게 연결되는지를 이해함으로써 학생의 학습기회를 개선하는 것이다. 교수 스타일은 교육자로하여금 스스로의 교육을 살펴볼 수 있는 시작점이 된다.

The exploration of teaching style ultimately involves matching the edu- cator’s behavior with his or her philosophy. Teaching style is not an excuse for bad teaching, inappropriate classroom behaviors, or the use of poorly conducted teaching methods. An underlying premise of teaching style is the understanding that although there are no “bad” styles, there are poor prac- tices by educators. The purpose of studying style is for individual educators to understand better what they believe and how those beliefs can be con- gruent with their teaching behaviors in order to improve the opportunity for learning by students or participants in programs. Teaching style gives educators a starting point for exploring their own teaching.

종종 교육자들은 내용과 학습자에 맞는 교육법을 쓸 것을 요구받는다. 좋은 교육은 언제나 다양한 교육법을 다양한 학습의 지향과 학습 감각에 맞게 사용하는 것이지만, 모든 교육법이 모든 교수 스타일에 다 맞는 것은 아니다. 스타일이 반드시 달라져야 하는 것은 아니며 반드시 그럴 필요도 없다. 어떻게 교육자들이 교수 전략을 선택하고 테크닉을 적용하는가는 교육법에 관한 신념과 가치의 함수이며 교육자의 독특한 신념체계에 따라 변화될 수 있다.

Often, educators are implored to match their methods to the content and the learner (Draves, 1997; Lovell, 1987). Good teaching always involves using a variety of methods to appeal to multiple learning orientations and senses, but all teaching methods are adaptable to every teaching style; style does not necessarily change, nor should it. How educators select their teaching strategies and implement techniques is a func- tion of their beliefs and values regarding the methods and can be modified to fit within the unique belief systemof the educator.

합치를 이루는 방법

Options for Congruence

There are three ways in which educators who are exploring their beliefs and their behaviors can move to congruence: (1) a change of teaching behav- iors, (2) a change of beliefs, or (3) a change in both or neither.

행동을 바꾼다.

Changing Behaviors.

많은 교수자가 학습자가 교육자-학생의 상호교환을 조절해야 하며, 학습과정에 포함되어야 한다고 생각하면서도, 70%의 교육시간은 강의와 같은 발표 형식으로 이뤄진다. 이들 교육자는 학습자의 참여가 높아야 하며, 교육자의 통제가 낮아야 한다는 신념을 가지지만, 강의는 통제수준이 높고 학습자-중심 수준은 낮다. 

The most obvious area for exploration is that of methods used in the exchange. In a study of nonformal adult educators, Heimlich and Meyers (1999) found that a large majority of the educators held beliefs that learners should control the exchange and be involved in the learning process. Yet over 70 percent of instruction time was spent in presentation methods (lec- tures and lectures with visuals). These educators held beliefs that suggested a high degree of inclusion of the learner in the learning event and low con- trol by the educator over the learners, but the high control and low learner orientation of the predetermined lecture, even with questions and answers or visual aids, suggests dissonance between beliefs and behaviors. In prac- tice, the need to “excuse” or “apologize” for teaching in a certain way is often an indicator of dissonance between beliefs and behaviors. Understanding the purposes of different methods and then exploring ways in which the method can better be used to match the beliefs would strengthen the teaching- learning event.

신념과 행동은 완전히 구분되는 것이 아니며, 정서-행동-인지 사이에는 상호작용이 있다.

It is impossible to view beliefs and behavior as fully separate, and it is well understood that there is interaction among affect, behavior, and cog- nition (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).

신념을 바꾼다.

Changing Beliefs.

신념을 바꾸는 것은 종종 더 어려운 과정이지만, 더 근본적이고 더 오래가는 변화일 수 있다. 많은 성인교육자들은 그들이 배워온 신념체계를 미리 정해진 신념체계인 것처럼 해석한다. 공식교육과정에는 교육자가 가져야 하는 다양한 신념을 제시한다.

The process of changing beliefs is often a more dif- ficult, but perhaps more fundamental and long-lasting, change. Many adult educators have been instructed in a system of beliefs about teaching and learning that they may interpret as suggesting a prescribed series of beliefs. Formal education, too, has laundry lists of suggested beliefs that educators should hold: 

• student centered is better than teacher or content centered; 
• teach to the various learning styles of the students; 
• engage the students in defining learning outcomes or qualities of success; and so on.

학습자-중심을 지향하는 교육자도 서로 완전히 다를 수 있다.

As an illustration, any two educators can be learner centered in dra- matically different ways: 

• an educator can be high control, low sensitivity and still be oriented to the needs of the learner and be correct in the man- ner in which he or she is learner centered. 
• Another educator can involve the learners in defining their learning needs, organizing their learning activi- ties, and guiding the learning process and be no more or less student cen- tered than the other educator.

교육 내용에 대한 교수자의 방식도 다양하다.

The teacher’s orientation toward content also varies widely. Budak (1993) found, for example, that a teacher’s philosophy was not significantly related to training, attitude toward teaching, nature of content, or physical environment but was related to experience and the sta- tus of content held by the teacher.

Rokeach은 신념을 양파껍질에 비유했는데, 더 핵심부로 갈수록 더 변할 가능성이 낮다. 행동의 근간이 되는 핵심 가치는 소수이며, 문화적으로 규정된다. 핵심 신념에서 멀리 떨어진 신념일수록(주변부 peripheral) 상황에 따라 변하기 쉽다. 이들 신념은 경험, 가족, 교육, 상황, 외부 환경에 따라 형성된다.

Rokeach (1968) described beliefs as an onion skin in which the closer to the core the beliefs are held, the less likely they are to change. At the core, he suggests, there are only a few central values on which all behaviors are based and that tend to be culturally bound. The beliefs that lie further from the core are those (derived and peripheral) likely to vary depending on the situation; these beliefs are formed from experiences, family, instruction, sit- uations, and outside influences.

종종 이들 external belief가 공개적으로 천명되는 신념이 되며, 개개인은 그것을 믿어야 한다고 생각하여, Bem은 사람들은 그들 자신이 특정한 행동을 한다고 믿으며, 그 인식에 부합하는 태도를 지속적으로 보고할 것이라고 했다. 성인교육자에게 있어서 이는 기술된 신념이며, 그 직종에 종사하는 사람이 이상적으로 가져야할 것이어서, 교육자가 깊은 곳에 가지고 있는 신념과 반드시 부합하는 것은 아니다.

Sometimes these more external beliefs are professed beliefs and are assumed by an individual as the things they should believe, which Bem (1967) summarizes in his self-perception theory stating that if people perceive themselves to have certain behaviors, they will report consistent attitudes to match that perception. For adult educators, these may be the stated beliefs that echo the ideals of the profession but do not necessarily match the more deeply held beliefs of the educator.

모든 사람은 상반되거나 서로 경쟁하는 신념을 가지고 있으나, 이 신념들도 스스로에 대한 이해에 통합된다.

Contradictory or competing beliefs exist in all people. Yet these con- tradictory beliefs somehow become integrated into an individual’s under- standing of self.

많은 교육자들이 쉽게 빠지는 함정은 교육과 관련한 신념을 더 넓은 차원 - 자신의 삶 - 의 신념과 무관하게 생각하는 것이다. 교육자들이 그들 자신을 자신의 삶에서 떼어놓는 것은 교육의 가장 인간적 특성을 거부하는 것과 같다. 교육자도 하나의 인간으로서 다른 사람과 연결을 통해서 통찰과 지식과 인식과 정서와 기술을 습득한다. 교육자가 자신의 whole self를 교수-학습 상호교환에 더 많이 통합시킬수록 그 상호작용의 초점이 교수자와 교육모델이 아닌 학습과 학습과정에 집중될 수 있다.

The trap for many educators is to explore their beliefs around teaching and learning without placing those beliefs in the context of their larger belief systems—their lives. To suggest that edu- cators are able to separate themselves completely from their life outside the teaching event is to deny the very human nature of teaching. The educator is a human who, by connecting with other humans, is facilitating acquisi- tion of insights, knowledge, awareness, affect, or skills. The more fully the educator is able to integrate his or her whole self into the teaching-learning exchange, the more the focus of the exchange can be on the learning and the learning process rather than the teacher and the methods or models for teaching (Tight, 2000).

행동과 신념을 모두 바꾸거나 모두 바꾸지 않는다.

Changing Both Beliefs and Behaviors or Neither.

If through reflection and consideration, an educator finds that her professed belief sys- tem does not match what she truly believes on a deeper level, and that her behaviors do not match what she thinks she truly believes, she can choose to change both or change neither.

Changing both suggests that an educator has found no clarity in either her current philosophy or behavior. This is not to say that an individual seeking to change both philosophy and behavior is not a good teacher, but that this person has discovered that her beliefs may be inconsistent or inher- ently contradictory and that what she does in a teaching event may not always feel genuine. Seeking change of both beliefs and behavior requires intense critical reflection and a willingness to grow in ways that may be somewhat difficult, at least for a while.

There are, of course, those who may find beliefs or behaviors inconsis- tent or forced but choose to change neither. In some cases, the fear of change or the fear of trying something new can create a barrier to an indi- vidual’s willingness to change. In other situations, an educator may truly believe there is no reason to change. Challenging one’s beliefs or behaviors is what we call growth as educators. Not all educators are prepared for, or willing to work on, growth at all times during their careers.

In any of these situations, the educator will be unlikely to growin con- gruence or as a teacher. In other situations, educators may understand that there is potential for growth, but they do not have the tools, resources, or access to tools and resources to know how to effect change.

---

Teaching Style: Where Are We Now?

1. Joe E. Heimlich¹ and
2. Emmalou Norland²

Article first published online: 20 MAR 2002

DOI: 10.1002/ace.46

Copyright © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Issue

New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education

Special Issue: Contemporary Viewpoints on Teaching Adults Effectively

Volume 2002, Issue 93, pages 17–26, Spring 2002