+ All Categories
Home > Documents > 외국어로서의 한국어 교육에서 · 2021. 4. 7. · 외국어로서의 한국어...

외국어로서의 한국어 교육에서 · 2021. 4. 7. · 외국어로서의 한국어...

Date post: 31-Jul-2021
Category:
Author: others
View: 2 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Embed Size (px)
of 18 /18
외국어로서의 한국어 교육에서 교사의 쓰기 지도 능력 신장에 대한 연구 진대연 (호원대학교) JIN, Dae-Yeon. (2015). A study on improving teachersability of teaching writing in Korean as an L2. Foreign Language Education Research, 18, 149-166. The purpose of this study is to examine phenomena of teaching writing in Korean as a foreign or a second language, and to propose contents and methods for improving teachersability of teaching writing. I presented 3 reasons that mainly cause the difficulty in teaching writing for nonnative speakers of Korean. Among the reasons, teacherslack of confidence and insufficiency of expertise in teaching writing is the most important one which we have to compensate in terms of improving teachersability. First, in chapter , I analyzed the trend of teaching writing in Korean as an L2, and examined the characteristics of teacher training for teachers-to-be in Korean language education. Next, in chapter , I defined the concept of ability of teaching writing, and summarized the categories of the ability. Finally, in chapter , I suggested the contents and methods for improving teachersability of teaching writing with regard to teachersexpertise. Specially, I focused not only on the pedagogic content knowledge (PCK), but also on the content knowledge (CK). In this paper, I explored teacher education which is considered as one of the most important area for better teaching Korean as an L2. However, this paper remains only as a pioneer attempt at teacher education research for the area is not fully discussed yet. Key Words: Korean as an L2, teaching writing, teacher education, teachersability/expertise, content knowledge (CK), pedagogic content knowledge (PCK) . 서론 외국어로서의 한국어 교육 현장에서 쓰기 지도는 한글 자모의 교수를 시작 으로 해서 기본적인 문형과 어휘를 익혀 정확성을 함양하게 하고 단계적으로 쓰기 능력을 향상시키도록 하는 것이 대강의 틀로 자리 잡혀 있다. 그런데 한국어 쓰기 지도와 관련된 여러 측면의 조사에서 알려진 바에 따르면 한국 어 교사 가운데 쓰기 지도를 제대로 또는 체계적으로 하고 있다고 표명하는 경우는 많지 않은 실정이다. 그 이유는 여러 가지가 있겠지만 중요한 몇 가 지를 꼽아 보면 다음과 같다. 이 글은 국제한국어교육학회의 제44차 추계 학술대회에서 ‘한국어 교사의 쓰기 지도 능력 신장’이 라는 주제로 발표한 내용을 수정 보완한 것이다.
Transcript

()
JIN, Dae-Yeon. (2015). A study on improving teachers’ ability of teaching writing in Korean as an L2.
Foreign Language Education Research, 18, 149-166.
The purpose of this study is to examine phenomena of teaching writing in Korean as a foreign or a second language,
and to propose contents and methods for improving teachers’ ability of teaching writing. I presented 3 reasons that
mainly cause the difficulty in teaching writing for nonnative speakers of Korean. Among the reasons, teachers’ lack
of confidence and insufficiency of expertise in teaching writing is the most important one which we have to
compensate in terms of improving teachers’ ability. First, in chapter , I analyzed the trend of teaching writing in
Korean as an L2, and examined the characteristics of teacher training for teachers-to-be in Korean language
education. Next, in chapter , I defined the concept of ‘ability of teaching writing’, and summarized the categories
of the ability. Finally, in chapter , I suggested the contents and methods for improving teachers’ ability of teaching
writing with regard to teachers’ expertise. Specially, I focused not only on the pedagogic content knowledge (PCK),
but also on the content knowledge (CK). In this paper, I explored teacher education which is considered as one of the
most important area for better teaching Korean as an L2. However, this paper remains only as a pioneer attempt at
teacher education research for the area is not fully discussed yet.
Key Words: Korean as an L2, teaching writing, teacher education, teachers’ ability/expertise, content knowledge
(CK), pedagogic content knowledge (PCK)
.


.


.
.
44 ‘ ’
.
150
2
.
1
.
,
.
-
.
, , ,
.

.

.

.

.
(knowledge-telling)
(knowledge-transforming)
.
.

.
3

. ‘ ’ ‘-

.

() .

.
()
.

.

151
.
.
-
.
. ()
1.
4
.
, ,

.
.
(support skill),
.
‘ ’
. (composition),

. ,
‘ ’ .
2015
10 H
. (focus group interview)
5
. 20 40
5 10 .
.

,

.
, , .

.

.
152

,
.


.
“ ,
. ()
‘! !’
.
. ‘
!’
” (H J ).

.
(2013) .
, ,
,
, , , 5
.
,
. , , ,

.

.
2015 11 2
21,798 1 436, 2
14,696, 3 6,666. 2 3
1 2
. 1
.
(, ,
153
)
.
1
868 639 842 1037
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



‘ ’ . ‘

.


.
2
3
.
2

. 2015 10 6 16 ()
2
.1)
1) 32 () ,
.
.
154
.2)

.
2

2 ‘ ’ ‘
’ .
2 3
2

.

.
3
2
. 2006 1 2014 9
77 .

.
2
1 ‘ ’ .
1
2) 6~7
.

.
155

. 1
,
.

.
1
2013
8
(A)
51.
52.









62.


65.
66. (dicto-comp)

2~8
3

.
.
, ,

.
(teacher training) (teacher education)
(teacher development)
.
156

,
, (Thornbury, 2006, pp. 224~225).

.
.

, .
,
.

.
.
1.
( , 2014, p. 1167)

. ,
, ,
,
.
.

.

.
.
(Bachman, 1990, p. 87) (Canale &
Swain) ‘ (communicative language
ability)’ (Hadley, 2001, pp.
2~19). (language competence) ( ,
) ( , )
.
(Scott, 1996, p. 18)
. (linguistic)
-
157
,
.
.
(Tribble, 1996, pp. 67~68)
, , , .


.
‘ (good writer)’ ‘ (good writing)’
,
.


’ .
,

.
‘’ ‘’
.
2.

.
.
,
. ,
, , ,
, (, 1999, pp.
145~148) .

.

(content knowledge: CK), ( pedagogic
content knowledge: PCK), (general pedagogic knowledge:
GPK), (curricular knowledge), (contextual
knowledge), (process knowledge) (Roberts, 1998, p. 105)
.
158

.
(CK) (PCK)
.

.

.
.

.
1980 90

.
, .

-
.

.
.
PCK ( & , 2013, p. 165)
159
PCK ( & , 2013),
PCK ( & , 2013) .

3 .
‘ , ,
, , ’
. (,
, , ) . ‘ ’
.
.
1.

.

‘, , ’ ‘ , ’.


.
4
160
4 (PCK) 5
. , ,
,
.
, ,
.
‘/2 ’
.


.


.

.
.



. , -

.
1
.
.

.

. ()
,



.
161

.

.
” (H J ).
4
-

.
.
,
2 -, -

.
2


, ,


,

,
/
, , ,




2 2 (orientation)
.
, , ,

.
, , .


.
,
. ‘
’ ,
,
.
.

.

- .
‘ (experience-based)’

.

.

.
.
.
3
.

. (
/) ()
.
, ,
163
.
.

.
3

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


.
, ,

.
‘’
.

.
“ .

.

” (H
L ).

,
.

164
.

.

.
, ” (H K ).

,
. , H
(: )
.
. ,

. ,

.
,
.

.
.
, , .

,
.

,
‘()’
.
,
.
165

.
.

.

. H
“ OOO/
.” .
.
(1) () .
(2) ( ) .
(3) ( ) .
(4) () .
(5) () .

.
, & . (2013). PCK .
, 17, 155-192.
(). (2014). . : .
. (2013). .
, 10(1), 99-129.
, 145-148.
, & . (2013). PCK
. , 13(6), 667-689.
. (2006). . .
, .
. (2009). . , 34,
429-466.
19 , 145-155.
166
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Becoming a language teacher. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. New York: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, J. (1998). Language teacher education. London: Arnold.
Scott, V. M. (1996). Rethinking foreign language writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://kteacher.korean.go.kr/board/view.do

Tel: +82-(0)63-450-7681
Email: [email protected]
Revised version received on November 5, 2015
Accepted on December 24, 2015

Recommended