Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: : * A Study on Appl

Similar documents
Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: : A Study on the Ac

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Mediating Eff

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: (LiD) - - * Way to

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: * Review of Research

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.1-22 DOI: * An Analysis of the Ext

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * Experiences of Af

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: Awareness, Supports

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: 3 * Effects of 9th

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: : A basic research

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Analysis of

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: A study on Characte

27 2, * ** 3, 3,. B ,.,,,. 3,.,,,,..,. :,, : 2009/09/03 : 2009/09/21 : 2009/09/30 * ICAD (Institute for Children Ability

27 2, 17-31, , * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** ( :

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: * The Participant Expe

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: IPA * Analysis of Perc

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Study on Teache

(5차 편집).hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: * Early Childhood T

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: : Researc

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: * A Critical Review

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: : * Discussions on

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: * Suggestions of Ways


118 김정민 송신철 심규철 을 미치기 때문이다(강석진 등, 2000; 심규철 등, 2001; 윤치원 등, 2005; 하태경 등, 2004; Schibeci, 1983). 모둠 내에서 구성원들이 공동으 로 추구하는 학습 목표의 달성을 위하여 각자 맡은 역할에 따라 함께

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: 3 * The Effect of H

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Study on the Pe

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.1-16 DOI: * A Study on Good School

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: * The

.. IMF.. IMF % (79,895 ). IMF , , % (, 2012;, 2013) %, %, %

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Grounds and Cons

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: An Exploratory Stud

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: (NCS) Method of Con

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: Educational Design

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on Organizi

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Research Trend

., (, 2000;, 1993;,,, 1994), () 65, 4 51, (,, ). 33, 4 30, 23 3 (, ) () () 25, (),,,, (,,, 2015b). 1 5,

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: Analysis on the E

Theoretical foundation for the ethics of coaching sport Sungjoo Park* Kookmin University [Purpose] [Methods] [Results] [Conclusions] Key words:

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: : * Research Subject

歯14.양돈규.hwp

09-김선영.hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: Parents Perception

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.1-19 DOI: *,..,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,, ( )

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * The Meaning of Pl

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on the Opti

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Effect of Boa

歯6권2호.PDF

상담학연구,, SPSS 21.0., t,.,,,..,.,.. (Corresponding Author): / / / Tel: /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * Strenghening the Cap

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: : - Qualitative Met

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: NCS : G * The Analy

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: NCS : * A Study on

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * A S

ePapyrus PDF Document

. (2013) % % 2. 1% (,, 2014).. (,,, 2007). 41.3% (, 2013). (,,,,,, 2010)... (2010),,, 4.,.. (2012), (2010),., (,, 2009).... (, 2012).

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: The Effect of Caree

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: : A Case Study on T

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: Exploring Education

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

.,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,, (, 2011)..,,, (, 2009)., (, 2000;, 1993;,,, 1994;, 1995), () 65, 4 51, (,, ). 33, 4 30, (, 201

11¹ÚÇý·É

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: The Exploratory Stu

歯1.PDF

상담학연구. 10,,., (CQR).,,,,,,.,,.,,,,. (Corresponding Author): / / 567 Tel: /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Effect of Paren

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: A Critical Reflecti

:,,.,. 456, 253 ( 89, 164 ), 203 ( 44, 159 ). Cronbach α= ,.,,..,,,.,. :,, ( )

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * A Study on the Resea

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp DOI: * (,, )..,., ( ),.

<30392EB9DAB0A1B6F72CC1A4B3B2BFEE2E687770>

<30315FC0CCB5BFC1D65FC7D1B1B9BCBAB8C5B8C52E687770>

<303720C7CFC1A4BCF86F6B2E687770>

<C1A63236B1C72031C8A328C6EDC1FDC1DF292E687770>

<31335FB1C7B0E6C7CABFDC2E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: ICT * Exploring the Re

서론 34 2

歯제7권1호(최종편집).PDF

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Basic Study on t

Analysis of objective and error source of ski technical championship Jin Su Seok 1, Seoung ki Kang 1 *, Jae Hyung Lee 1, & Won Il Son 2 1 yong in Univ

2

( ) ) ( )3) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4) 1915 ( ) ( ) ) 3) 4) 285

<B1B3B9DFBFF83330B1C7C1A631C8A35FC6EDC1FDBABB5FC7D5BABB362E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * Difference in Paren

초등학교 5 학년의이야기능력발달에관한연구 * 5) 유동엽 ** < 次例 > Ⅰ. Ⅱ. Ⅲ. Ⅳ. Ⅴ. Ⅵ. Ⅰ. 서론 (story).,,., (White & Epston, 1990; Winslade & Monk, 1999).,. Bruner(2002), (, 2006;


#Ȳ¿ë¼®

<313120B9DABFB5B1B82E687770>

레이아웃 1

Research Article Korean J Child Stud 2019;40(4): pissn: eissn: X The Effects of an Ever

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * Relationship Betw


지난 2009년 11월 애플의 아이폰 출시로 대중화에 접어든 국내 스마트폰의 역사는 4년 만에 ‘1인 1스마트폰 시대’를 눈앞에 두면서 모바일 최강국의 꿈을 실현해 가고 있다


[ 영어영문학 ] 제 55 권 4 호 (2010) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1) Kyuchul Yoon, Ji-Yeon Oh & Sang-Cheol Ahn. Teaching English prosody through English poems with clon

ePapyrus PDF Document

<C0DBBEF7C1DF202D20C7D1B1B9BFA9BCBAC0CEB1C7C1F8C8EFBFF85FBFA9BCBAB0FA20C0CEB1C728C5EBB1C736C8A3292DB3BBC1F62E687770>

본문01

노동경제논집 38권 3호 (전체).hwp

Transcription:

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.365-399 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.26.3.201612.365 : * A Study on Application of the Result through Dynamic Assessment in Young Children s Mathematic Activities Purpose: The purpose of this study was to recommend appropriate intervention approaches for developing children s numbers and operations ability. Method: This study examined number and operations test scores of the four groups along with their problem-solving strategies and error patters before intervention, just after the fourth and eighth sessions, and after the twelfth and final session. Results: As a result, Hajeong represented the low-low group which had the least change in arithmetic operation ability in contrast to the other groups. Hayeon represented the group that showed the biggest change in arithmetic operation ability. Sangeun, whose arithmetic operation ability was high, but with low mathematic learning potential, represented the group that did not show much change in their arithmetic operation ability. Sangmin represented the group that did not have much change in ability for arithmetic operations, since he achieved high scores for numbering knowledge, and test after intervention. Conclusion: There was difference according to children s current arithmetic operation ability and their mathematical learning potential and teacher s mediation quantity. Key words : dynamic assessment, mathematical learning potential, arithmetic problem-solving ability, teacher s mediation quantity * 2015. Corresponding Author: Cho, Eun-Lae. Kangneung-Wonju National University, Dept. of Early childhood education, Heungeop-myeon, Wonjusi, Kangwondo, Korea. e-mail: zpd2015@naver.com

. 21,..,... Piaget,, (, 1995). 1980 2 7 (Wilson & Rowland, 1993).. Baroody(2000),,, (2004), 2000 NCTM( ). 3-5 -. (,, 2007), (Siegler, 1998). (, 2010)

. (, 2005;, 2010;,, 2007).. Vygotsky(1978) (Zond of Proximal Development: ZPD). (Vygotsky, 2011)., Vygotsky.. (, 2013). Vygotsky,,, (Bodrova & Leong, 2010; Ginsburg & Golbeck, 2004).. (scaffolding). Wood, Bruner Ross(1976) Vygotsky., (, 2000)..,. (dynamic assessment) (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979; Vygotsky, 1978).

( ) (Berk & Winsler, 1995),. Ferrara(1987),. (2008),,....,,,.,. (2006),..,

,...,,?,?. 4 4 1., Y 4 20 (KISC),,. (, 2007). 6.5, 4.93,, 3, 3., ( - ), ( - ), ( - ), ( - ), 4. 1, 4. 3 1, 6

6,,. - 2.52, - 10.91. - 2.13-6.09. < -1>. ( 24 ) ( ) - 5 2.52-3 10.91-7 2.13-20 6.09,,. 12 A Y 4 14.. A. 3. 1) 유아수연산능력검사. (2006)

., 4, 8 12. 24 1 0 0 24. 2) 유아수학학습잠재력검사 (2006). 24, 10, 10, 24. (Bryant, Brown & Campione, 1983). 잔여획득점수 (a:, b:, r(ab): a, b, Sa, Sb: a b ) 3) 전략및오류유형측정도구. (2002), (1995),,,,,. (2006), (2006),,,,,. 4) 유아수학태도검사, (2008). 12,,,,, 2.. 5 1 5 12

60.., 3-5 1. 1 6,,. 2. 15 2 1, 2 4 16,. 5 12. < -2>. 1, 2, 3, 4,, 5, 6, 7,, 8,, 9,, 10,, 11,, 12, ( ). 4. (9 10 30 ) 1 1 12..

2.,, 4, 8,.,. 12. A4 277. Hogan Pressley(1997) 14. 2, 1, 10 2. < -3>. 7. 1. (, ) 2. 3.....

( ) 4., 5., 6. 7...., (, 2008).,.,,.., 1 4 1, 5 8 2,,,.

1) 수연산능력과수학학습잠재력이낮은집단의대표유아.. -,,. (1) 4 62 64. 16, 5 6 2.52 10.91 2.52. -,, 1, 2,, 4 < -1>. 1 2 (24) 6 5 8 14 5-16 (10) 2 2 3 6 2-8 (10) 2 2 4 6 2-10 (10) 2 2 2 2 2-6 (10) 2 2 2 3 2-8 (10) 2 2 2 2 2-5 (10) 2 2 3 3 2-4 (60) 12 12 16 21 12-41 n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) 3(50.00) 5(100) 3(37.50) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 5(62.50) 14(100) 3(50.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 6(100) 5(100) 8(100) 14(100)

( ) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) 10(90.91) 11(90.90) 1(11.11) 1(12.50) 1(9.09) 1(9.10) 6(66.67) 6(75.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2(22.22) 1(12.50) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(100) 12(100) 9(100) 0(100) < -1> 6 1 1 5, 2 8, 14. 1 4. 6 8 2 8 2 12 14 6.. 6. 4 1 8 2 14. 90% 8 1 2. < -1> (Mislevy, 1989).

-. (2).. < -2> 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14 6. 7 14. ( ) 7. 1 1 5 15, 16, 17. 5 8 15, 16, 17. 2 1, 8, 9, 17. 1. 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 9 9 2 9 9 1 1 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 5 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 9 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

( ) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 9 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 1 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 9 3 9 2 3 9 9 9 9 2 2 2 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 2 2 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 2 2 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 2 9 2 9 2 2 9 2 9 2 8 8 : 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 : 1 2 3 4 8, 9 1. 2. 4 8. 2) 수연산능력은낮고수학학습잠재력이높은집단의대표유아

. -.,,. (1) 4 58 61. 8, 3 10.91. -,, 1, 2,, 4 < -3>. < -3> 12 1 7 19, 2 1 20, 24. 12. 4 1. 25% 4 1. 1 2 100%.

1 2 (24) 13 17 20 21 7-24 (10) 8 8 10 10 7-10 (10) 6 8 10 10 6-10 (10) 10 10 10 10 8-10 (10) 6 8 10 10 6-10 (10) 10 10 10 10 9-10 (10) 2 2 4 4 2-10 (60) 42 46 54 54 38-60 n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) 11(91.67) 16(84.21) 16(80.00) 10(41.67) 1(8.33) 2(10.53) 2(10.00) 10(41.67) 0(0.00) 1(5.26) 2(10.00) 4(16.66) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 00(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 00(0.00) 12(100) 19(100) 20(100) 24(100) 2(25.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 4(50.00) 2(40.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2(25.00) 3(60.00) 4(100.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 8(100) 5(100) 4(100) 0(0.00) (2) < -4> 13 11 2 5, 3. 1 4 80%. 2 1 1 12

. 1. 21. 1,. 2 21. -,. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 8 8 1 9 2 9 2 2 9 2 2 2 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 9 2 9 9 9 9 3 9 3 3 3

( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 9 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 3 : 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 : 1 2 3 4 8, 9 3) 수연산능력은높고수학학습잠재력은낮은집단의대표유아 (1) 4 58 61. 13, 7 6 2.13 6.09 2.13. 1 2 (24) 7 12 17 19 7-20 (10) 8 8 6 6 6-8 (10) 8 6 6 6 6-10 (10) 7 6 3 4 3-7 (10) 7 4 4 5 4-8 (10) 6 6 6 6 6-8 (10) 6 6 8 6 4-8 (60) 42 36 33 33 3-20

( ) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) 7(100) 8(66.67) 6(35.29) 6(31.58) 0(0.00) 3(25.00) 8(47.06) 11(57.89) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 3(17.65) 2(10.53) 0(0.00) 1(8.33) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 7(100) 12(100) 17(100) 19(100) 2(20.00) 1(11.11) 1(14.29) 0(0.00) 4(40.00) 4(44.44) 3(42.86) 2(40.00) 2(20.00) 3(33.33) 2(28.57) 3(60.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2(20.00) 1(11.11) 1(14.29) 0(0.00) 10(100) 9(100) 7(100) 5(100) -,, 1, 2,, 4 < -5>. < -5> 7 1 5 12, 2 1 5 17, 19 5... (2) 12. 4 1, 8 2..

< -6>. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 9 9 3 9 5 9 9 3 9 2 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 5 2 2 2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 5 2 2 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 2 9 9 9 9 2 2 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 9 2 9 9 4 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 2 9 5 3 9 9 3 3 1 8 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 5 2 9 9 9 9 9 2 9 9 9 9 5 3 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 2 9 9 2 9 9 9 9 3 9 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 9 3 9 9 9 9 2 9 2 9 9 : 1 2 3 4 5 8 : 1 2 3 4 8, 9 < -6> 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 7. 9.

1 5 12. 2 50%, 11, 22, 23. 24 6... 4) 수연산능력과수학학습잠재력이모두높은집단의대표유아 (1) 4 62 65. 23, 20 6 2.13 6.09 6.09. -,, 1, 2,, 4 < -7>.

1 2 (24) 20 20 24 24 12-24 (10) 10 10 10 10 10 (10) 10 10 10 10 10 (10) 10 10 10 10 8-10 (10) 10 10 10 10 8-10 (6 (10) 6 6 10 10 7-10 0) (10) 10 10 10 10 9-10 (60) 56 56 60 60 52-60 n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) 7(35.00) 5(25.00) 18(75.00) 19(79.17) 13(65.00) 6(30.00) 1(4.17) 1(4.17) 0(0.00) 4(20.00) 2(8.33) 1(4.17) 0(0.00) 3(15.00) 3(12.50) 3(12.50) 0(0.00) 2(10.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 20(100) 20(100) 24(100) 24(100) 1(25.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 1(25.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 1(25.00) 4(100) 0(100) 0(0.00) 1(25.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 4(100) 4(100) 0(100) 0(0.00) < -7> 20 1 20, 2 4 24 2 24.. (2) 20. 4 1,, 2.,,, 25% 1 2

. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 1 4 2 1 1 5 2 5 5 2 2 9 3 9 9 3 3 9 9 9 3 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 4 9 1 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 : 1 2 3 4 5 8 : 1 2 3 4 8, 9,,.. 1

. 2 24 15,,.. 1) 하 - 하집단의교사중재량 < -9>. (1-4 ) (5-8 ) (9-12 ) n(%) n(%) n(%) 7(10.14) 4(6.78) 2(3.39) 7(10.14) 4(6.78) 0(0.00) 6(8.70) 4(6.78) 3(5.08) 6(8.70) 6(10.17) 6(10.17) 10(14.49) 8(13.56) 12(20.34) 13(18.84) 13(22.03) 15(25.42) 20(28.99) 20(33.90) 21(35.60) 69(100) 59(100) 59(100),,.,,,,,. - 45,,

,. 2) 하 - 상집단의교사중재량 < -10>. (1-4 ) (5-8 ) (9-12 ) n(%) n(%) n(%) 9(15.79) 5(11.63) 1(3.13) 8(14.04) 5(11.63) 0(0.00) 5(8.77) 7(16.28) 7(21.88) 4(7.02) 3(6.98) 8(25.00) 7(12.28) 8(18.60) 10(31.25) 11(19.30) 12(27.91) 6(18.75) 13(22.81) 3(6.98) 0(0.00) 57(100) 43(100) 32(100) < -10> (22.81%) (6.98%) (27.91%) (18.60%), (16.28%). (31.25%) (25.0%), (21.88%). -,,,,,. 3) 상 - 하집단의교사중재량 - < -11>.

(1-4 ) (5-8 ) (9-12 ) n(%) n(%) n(%) 8(14.55) 6(9.84) 4(8.00) 7(12.73) 3(4.92) 0(0.00) 7(12.73) 6(9.84) 5(10.00) 9(16.36) 7(11.48) 7(14.00) 6(10.91) 9(14.75) 7(14.00) 12(21.82) 14(22.95) 13(26.00) 6(10.91) 16(26.23) 14(28.00) 55(100) 61(100) 50(100) (21.82%) (10.91%) (10.91%) (26.23%) (22.95%). (28.0%) (26.0%). - (1 4 ) (5 8 ) 2 (9 12 )... 4) 상 - 상집단의교사중재량 < -12>.

(1-4 ) (5-8 ) (9-12 ) n(%) n(%) n(%) 6(13.04) 4(9.52) 3(10.34) 3(6.52) 3(7.14) 1(3.45) 9(19.57) 9(21.43) 8(27.59) 8(17.39) 9(21.43) 7(24.14) 9(19.57) 10(23.81) 8(27.59) 10(21.74) 7(16.67) 2(6.90) 1(2.17) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 46(100) 42(100) 29(100) < -12> (21.74%) (19.57%) (19.57%). (23.81%) (21.49%) (21.49%). (27.59%) (27.59%) (24.14%).,. -...,.

, ( 1), ( 2)., -,.,..,. (2010).. (,, 2011),.., -. -.,,

,,,.,..., (2009), (1998),..,,.. Hughes(1986).,,, (,, 2005, )..,,, (, 2003)., -

.,..... (2003) (2006),,..... 5.

, -,.,...,.. 20.,. (, 2004).., (, 2004).

.,,,,.,...,,., (2009).. (2), 163-192, (2004).. (1), 165-186., (2005).. (4), 93-108., (2014). < >. (4), 1057-1076., (2010).. (3), 789-806. (2005)... (1998)..., (2002).. (1), 111-132. (1995). 3, 4, 5

. (1), 101-121. (2003).. (3), 149-163. (2010)...,,,,, (2007). :. (2003).. (2), 167-189. (2008)..., (2006). :. (2), 5-31., (2007).. (4), 377-400. (2000). :. (2013)..,,, ( ).. (2010).. (4), 29-51.,, (2006).. (5), 377-401. (2011)... (2006).. (2), 251-278. (2008).. (1), 201-226., (2006).. (4), 265-285., (2008).. (2), 217-236.,, (2008).., (2012).. (2), 203-222., (2000). Vygotsky :. (2), 205-229. Baroody, A. J. (2000). Does mathematics instruction for 3-to 5-years-old really make sense? Young Children, 55(4), 61-67. Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995).

[Scaffolding Children's Learning : Vygotsky and Early]. ( ). :. ( 1995 ) Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2010). [Tools of the Mind : The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education]. (, ). :. ( 2007 ) Ferrara, R. A. (1987). Learning mathematics in the zone of proximal development: The importance of flexible use of knowledge. University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. Feuerstein, R., Ranf, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The Dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device: theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press. Ginsburg, H. P., & Golbeck, S. L. (2004). Thoughts on the future of research on math and science education and learning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 190-200. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding Scientific Competencies within Classroom Communities of Inquiry. In K. Hogan, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches and Issues. (pp. 74-107). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Brookline Books. Hughes, M. (1986). Children and number: Difficulties in learning mathematics. NY: Basil Blackwell Inc.. Lidz, C. S., & Elliott, J. G. (2000). Introduction to dynamic assessment. In Lidz, C. S. & Elliott, J. G.(Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and application (pp. 3-13). NY: Elsevier Science Inc.. Mislevy, R. J. (1989). Foundations of a New Test Theory. NJ: Educational Testing Service. NCTM. (2007). [Principles and standards for school mathematics discussion draft Standards 2000]. ( ). :. ( 2000 ) Siegler, R. S. (1998). Children's thinking(3rd ed). NJ: Prentice Hall. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society : The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (2011). Мышление и речь]. (, ). :. ( 1934 ) Wilson, P. S., & Rowland, R. E. (1993) Teaching measurement. In R. J. Enson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Early childhood mathematics. NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. : 2016.10.31 / : 2016.12.13 / : 2016.12.20

: :,. : 4 12 4 1. 12,,,.,. 7. :.,.,,. :.