Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Peer Review to the Improvement of Gifted Elementary Science Students' Open Inquiry

동료평가가 초등과학영재의 개방적 탐구 개선에 끼치는 영향

  • Received : 2016.10.24
  • Accepted : 2016.12.27
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to figure out gifted elementary science students' improvement in performing open inquiry after peer review. In this study, gifted fifth-grade students performed open inquiry and review of each other as peers after the inquiry. Students' inquiries were evaluated and the influences of the feedback from the peer reviews were analyzed in relation to the inquiry performances. As a result of this study, three key points were discovered: First, the evaluation score increased with frequent feedback or long discussions. On the other hand, with less feedback, the evaluation score didn't rise. Second, there were three types of improvement in inquiry related to peer review: No. 1 was improvement after feedback given by themselves. No. 2 was reflection of feedback given to other groups. As a last type, No. 3 was that the students learned from other groups' presentation without any feedback and improved their inquiry. Third, there were five kinds of giving feedback; (1) feedback understanding the inquiry correctly, (2) insufficiency of peer's inquiry without deep thought. (3) on the usefulness of the inquiry, (4) on the scientific and logic validity through critical thinking, and (5) how to develop the inquiry. In these kinds of feedback, the fourth kind of feedback (4) occurred most frequently but the fifth (5) occurred rarely. It means peer review helps students develop their critical thinking ability and teachers should encourage students to give peers feedback of the fifth kind.

이 연구의 목적은 초등과학영재가 동료평가 후에 개방적 탐구를 수행할 때 어떠한 양상으로 개선이 이루어지는가를 알아보는 것이다. 서울시 강서교육지원청 영재원 과학분야 소속 학생들은 총 3회에 걸쳐 개방적 탐구와 동료평가를 실시하고 탐구 보고서를 제출하였다. 학생들의 개방적 탐구는 초등학생의 개방적 탐구 활동 평가 준거에 의해 평가되었다. 이후 동료평가 활동 모습과 비교하여 세 번에 걸친 개방적 탐구가 개선되는 양상을 분석하였다. 연구 결과에 의하면 첫째, 동료평가 활동 시 피드백이 빈번하거나 하나의 피드백에 대하여 오랜 시간 여러 의견이 오고갔던 평가 준거의 경우 평가 점수가 향상하였지만 피드백이 활발히 오고가지 않았던 평가 영역의 점수는 대부분 비슷하거나 소폭 향상하였다. 둘째, 초등과학영재가 동료평가를 통해 개방적 탐구 수행을 개선하는 유형을 세 가지로 분류할 수 있었다. 첫 번째 유형은 자신의 모둠이 받은 피드백을 수용하고 적용하는 유형이었고, 두 번째 유형은 다른 모둠이 받은 피드백을 바탕으로 본인의 탐구를 반성하여 개선이 이루어지는 유형이었으며, 마지막 유형은 별다른 피드백 없이도 다른 모둠의 개방적 탐구 발표를 듣는 것만으로도 스스로 반성이 이루어지는 유형이었다. 셋째, 초등과학영재가 동료평가를 할 때 피드백을 제공하는 방식에는 5가지 유형이 있었다. 즉, 탐구 내용을 이해하기 위한 피드백, 깊이 생각하지 않고도 동료의 탐구에서 부족한 점을 지적하는 피드백, 탐구의 유용성을 평가하는 피드백, 탐구의 과학적 논리적 타당성을 평가하는 피드백, 구체적인 개선방안을 제시하는 피드백 등이었다. 이 중 두 번째, 세 번째, 네 번째 피드백 유형이 빈도가 가장 높게 나타나 동료평가가 학생들의 비판적 사고력을 기르기 위한 수단이 될 수 있음을 시사한다. 반면 확산적 사고를 촉진하는 다섯번째 피드백 유형은 드물게 나타나 교사의 지도가 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning: An Introduction to School Learning. New York: New York Grune & Stratton.
  2. Bang, J., Choi, C., Choi, W., & Jeong, D. (2006). The Effects of Inquiry Learning Applying Open-Ended Hypothesis-Testing Learning Model: On the 'Metals and Their Applications' Unit in Chemistry I. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 50(5), 385-393. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2006.50.5.385
  3. Bell, L. R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. Science Teacher, 72(2), 30-33.
  4. Cavagnetto, A., Hand B. M., & Lori Norton-Meier (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277
  5. Center of Science, Mathmatics and Engineering Education(CSMEE) (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.
  6. Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students' composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15, 1-14.
  7. Hedgecock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B
  8. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212. https://doi.org/10.1086/442968
  9. Kastra, J. (1987). Effects of peer evaluation on attitudes toward writing fluency of 9th graders. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 168-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1987.10885745
  10. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The Exploration of Open Scientific Inquiry Model Emphasizing Students' Argumentation. The Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1216-1234.
  11. Kim, S., Jeoung, J., & Chun, J. (2010). Development and Application of Evaluation Criteria for Free Inquiry Activity Reports of Elementary School Students. The Korean Society of Elementary Science Education, 29(1), 69-85.
  12. Lee, E., & Kang, S. (2008). The Effect of SWH Application on Problem-Solving Type Inquiry Modules Through Student-Student Verbal Interactions. The Korean Association for Science Education, 28(2), 130-138.
  13. Lee, H., & Lee, J. (2010). The Effect of the Specific Open-Inquiry Lesson on the Elementary Students' Science-related Attitude, Science Process Skill and the Instructing Teachers' Cognition about Open-Inquiry. The Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 405-420.
  14. Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2012). Effects of the Peer Review Activities on the Inquiry Experiments Regarding Plant Transpiration. Biology Education, 40(4), 494-510. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.4.494
  15. Lee, Y., & Kim, D. (2010). The Effects of Free Inquiry Method Based on PBL on Science Process Skill and Self-Directed Learning Characteristics. The Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 3(3), 239-247.
  16. Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In Kroll, B.(Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Lunetta, V. N. (1997). The role of laboratory in school science. In Tobin, D. & Fraser, B. J.(Eds.), International handbook of science education, Dordrecht, the Nethelands: Kluwer.
  18. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.3.274
  19. Nancy, M. T. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review. Education Tech Research, 57, 685-704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y
  20. National Research Council(NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
  21. Park, J., Kim, J., & Bae, J. (2001). The Effect of Free Inquiry Activities on the Science Process Skills and Scientific Attitudes of Elementary School Students. The Korean Society of Elementary Science Education, 20(2), 271-280.
  22. Park, S., Kang, S., & Jang, E. (2010). The Effect of Peer Review Activities on Qualitative Changes in Lab Reports. The Korean Association for Science Education, 30(8), 988-1001.
  23. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  24. Schwab, J. J. (1960). Inquiry - the science teacher and the educator. The Science Teacher, 27(10), 6.

Cited by

  1. 자유학기제 과학과 평가에 대한 교사의 인식과 실제 vol.39, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.143