Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Developing and Assessing a Learning Progression for the Ecosystem

생태계에 대한 학습발달과정의 개발과 평가

  • Received : 2015.11.25
  • Accepted : 2016.02.11
  • Published : 2016.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

There have been much efforts to reconstruct the science curriculum focusing on Disciplinary Core Ideas(DCI) in many countries such as America and Europe, the most practical effort has been to design a curriculum with learning progressions(LPs). LPs describe stepwise how students can systematically move toward the understanding of more sophisticated ideas or scientific activities and explain in succession the process of understanding the ideas while the students learn. In this study, a LP for ecosystems has been developed, and the developed LP is then evaluated accordingly. The Ecosystem is one of the DCI of the life science in Next Generation Science Standards(NGSS). The development process of the LP was set at step 4(Development, Assessment, Analysis, and Amendment), and developed through an iterative process of sequences. As a result of analyzing the developed LP, an assessment based on the LP provides reliable information to identifying student ability. This study proposes the development process of the LP and its methodological aspects to use Core Achievement Standards, Ordered Multiple-Choice items and the Rasch model. In addition, using the empirically proven LP suggests a way of strengthening curriculum linked to educational content, teaching methods and assessment. Utilizing the proposed development process in this study will be to present the standard into the direction of becoming part of the curriculum. Currently, the state of domestic research for the LP is still lacking. This study determined the development process of the LP and the need to conduct future research on the LPs.

미국과 유럽의 여러 국가에서 과학의 학문 내 핵심 개념을 중심으로 과학 교육과정을 재구성하려는 노력이 시도되고 있으며 그 중 대표적인 변화가 학습발달과정을 이용한 교육과정을 설계하는 것이다. 학습발달과정은 과학의 핵심 개념과 과학적 활동과정을 논리적이며 단계적으로 정교하게 기술한 틀로서 학생이 학습하는 동안 연속적이며 체계적으로 확립되어 가는 이해의 과정을 설명한다. 미국의 차세대과학기준(NGSS)에서 제시한 생명과학 핵심 개념 중 하나인 생태계에 관하여 학습발달과정을 개발하고 개발된 학습발달과정을 평가하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 학습발달과정에 대한 문헌 연구를 통해 개발 절차를 Development, Assessment, Analysis, Amendment의 네 단계로 설정하고 순차적이며 반복적인 과정을 통해 생태계에 관한 학습발달과정을 개발하였다. 그리고 개발된 학습발달과정의 분석 결과 학습 발달과정에 기반을 둔 평가는 학생의 능력을 파악하는데 신뢰할 수 있는 정보를 제공한다는 결론을 도출하였다. 이를 통해 학습발달과정의 개발 과정에 효과적인 방법으로 핵심 성취기준을 이용한 Framework의 개발, OMC 문항 형식과 Rasch 모델을 이용한 평가와 분석 과정을 제안한다. 또한 경험적으로 검증된 학습발달과정을 이용하여 교육 내용, 교육 방법, 교육 평가가 연계된 교육과정 강화 방안을 제안한다. 국내 학습발달과정에 대한 연구가 부족한 시점에 이 연구를 통해 제안된 학습발달과정 개발 절차를 활용하여 학습발달과정의 개발에 수월성을 제공하고, 개발된 학습발달과정의 적용으로 교육과정의 표준과 방향을 제시할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, C. W., Alonzo, A. C., Smith, C., & Wilson, M. (2007). NAEP pilot learning progression framework. Report to the National Assessment Governing Board.
  2. Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle J. T. (2008). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20303
  3. Bang, D., Park, E., Yoon H., Kim J., Lee Y., Park J., Song J., Dong, H., Shim, B., Lim, H., & Lee, H. (2013). The Design of Integrated Science Curriculum Framework Based on Big Ideas. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(5), 1041-1054. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.1041
  4. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518-560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061
  5. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orpaz, T. (2010). The 'Life at the poles' study unit: Developing junior high school students' ability to recognize the relations between earth systems. Research in Science Education, 40(4), 525-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9132-2
  6. Berland L.K., & McNeill, K.L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
  7. Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. NY: George Braziller. Biological Education, 35(1), 22-28.
  8. Boersma, K., Waarlo, A. J., & Klaassen, K. (2011). The feasibility of systems thinking in biology education. Journal of Biology Education, 45(4), 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.627139
  9. Briggs, D. C., & Alonzo, A. C. (2012). The psychometric modeling of ordered multiple choice item responses for diagnostic assessment with a learning progression. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 293-316). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, The Netherlands.
  10. Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33-63. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_2
  11. Callingham, R. & Bond, T. (2006). Research in Mathematics Education and Rasch Measurement. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(2), 1-10 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217432
  12. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence based approach to reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report #RR-63. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
  13. Draney, K. (2009). Designing learning progressions with the BEAR assessment system. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Lowa City, IA, USA.
  14. Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students'understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655-674. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20312
  15. Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers' enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1181-1210. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21054
  16. Gilworth, G., Chamberlain, M. A., Bhakta, B., Haskard, D., Silman, A., & Tennant A. (2004). The development of the BD-QoL: a quality of life measure specific to Behcet's disease. J Rheumatol 31:931-937.
  17. Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2013). Validity evidence for learning progression-based assessment items that fuse core disciplinary ideas and science practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 597-626. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21083
  18. Gunckel, K. L., Covitt, B. A., Salinas, I., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for water in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 843-868. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21024
  19. Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1149-1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21051
  20. Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Developing a Fine-Grained Learning Progression Framework for Carbon Transforming Processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663-1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.782453
  21. Johnson, P., & Tymms, P. (2011). The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 849-877. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20433
  22. Kwon, Y., Kim, W., Lee, H., Byun, J., & Lee, I. (2011). Analysis of Biology Teachers' Systems Thinking about Ecosystem. The korean society of biology education. 39(4), 529-543.
  23. Lee, H., & Liu O. L. (2009). Assessing Learning Progression of Energy Concepts Across Middle School Grades: The Knowledge Integration Perspective. Science & Education, 94(4), 665-688. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20382
  24. Lee, J., Kim, Y., Paik, S., & Lee, K. (2010). An Analysis of Content-related Issues of Curriculum for the Improvement of Contents in Science Education. Journal of the Science Education, 34(1), 140-154. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2010.34.1.140
  25. Lee, S. (2013). A critical study on the structuralizing process of school-subject knowledge: The case of the 2009 revised science curriculum in Korea. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 173-199. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.31.3.201309.008
  26. Lee, H., Kwon, H., Park, K., & Lee, H. (2013). An Instrument Development and Validation for Measuring High School Students' Systems Thinking. Journal of the korean earth science society. 32(5), 784−797.
  27. Lee, Y., Yoon, H., Song, J., & Bang, D. (2014). Analysis of science educational contents of Singapore, Canada and US focused on the integrated concepts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.1.1.00021
  28. Maani, K. E., & Maharaj, J. (2004). Links between systems thinking and complex decision making. System Dynamics Review, 20(1), 21-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.281
  29. Maeng, S., & Lee, K. (2015). Cross-Sectional Item Response Analysis of Geocognition Assessment for the Development of Plate Tectonics Learning Progressions: Rasch Model. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0037
  30. Maeng, S., Lee, K., Park, Y., Lee, J., & Oh, H. (2014). Development and Validation of a Learning Progression for Astronomical Systems Using Ordered Multiple-Choice Items. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(8), 703-718. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.8.0703
  31. Maeng, S., Seong, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Present states, methodological features, and an exemplar study of the research on learning progressions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33, 161-180. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.161
  32. Mayr, E. (1997). This Is Biology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
  33. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2014). The curriculum of 2009 Revision. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  34. Ministry of Education and Science Technology[MEST]. (2009). Curriculum and operational practices from around the world(IV) Canada. Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education.
  35. Ministry of Education and Science Technology[MEST]. (2011). 2009 revised national science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  36. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20314
  37. National Assessment Governing Board. (2007). Science assessment and item specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: NAGB
  38. National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Science framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: NAGB
  39. National Research Council[NRC]. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  40. National Research Council[NRC]. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  41. National Research Council[NRC]. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  42. National Research Council[NRC]. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  43. National Research Council[NRC]. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
  44. Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 162-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21061
  45. NGSS Lead States(2013). Next generation science standards for states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
  46. Odum, E. P. (1992) Great ideas in ecology for the 1990s. BioScience, 42(7), 542-545. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311885
  47. Paik, N. (2006) Specification of presentation form of educational contents in subject curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 207-233.
  48. Paik. N. (2014). Review of statements of achievement standards in subject curriculum: Focusing on the national science curriculum of Republic of Korea and the U. S. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.32.2.201406.005
  49. Plummer, J. D. (2014). Spatial thinking as the dimension of progress in an astronomy learning progression. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.869039
  50. Plummer, J. D., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: Elementary levels from an earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 768-787. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20355
  51. Rittle-Johnson, B., Matthews, P. G.,, Taylor, R. S., & McEldoon, K. L. (2011). Assessing Knowledge of Mathematical Equivalence: A Construct-Modeling Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021334
  52. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic model for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  53. Roseman, J. E., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kurth, L. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
  54. Rutstein, D. W. (2012). Measuring learning progressions using Bayesian modeling in complex assessments. University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
  55. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., AchEr, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  56. Shin, N., Koh, E., Choi, C., & Jeong, D. (2014). Using a Learning Progression to Characterize Korean Secondary Students' Knowledge and Submicroscopic Representations of the Particle Nature of Matter. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(5), 437-447. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.5.0437
  57. Seong, Y., Maeng, S., & Jang, S. (2013). A Learning Progression for Water Cycle from Fourth to Sixth Graders with Ordered Multiple-Choice Items. Journal of the Korean Society of Elementary Science Education, 32(2), 139-158.
  58. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcki, J. (2011). Implication of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Focus Article. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 14, 1-98.
  59. Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A.W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progressions focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20313
  60. Steedle, J.T., & Shavelson, R.J. (2009). Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46, 699-715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20308
  61. Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a Hypothetical Multi-Dimensional Learning Progression for the Nature of Matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 47(6), 687-715.
  62. Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions:The case of 'structure of matter'. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2123-2136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802578025
  63. Tennant, A., & Conaghan P. G. (2007). The Rasch Measurement Model in Rheumatology: What Is It and Why Use It? When Should It Be Applied, and What Should One Look for in a Rasch Paper. Journal of American College of Rheumatology, 57(8), 1358-1362.
  64. Westra, R. H. V. (2008). Learning and Teaching Ecosystem Behavior in Secondary Education. Unpublished Doctoral Paper. University of van Utrecht.
  65. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  66. Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring Progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20318
  67. Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit value. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.

Cited by

  1. 국가수준 학업성취도 평가의 서답형 문항을 이용한 중학교 과학 8개 핵심 개념에 대한 학습발달과정 탐색 vol.41, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.382