Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Impact of Student Assessment Activities on Reflective Thinking in High School Argument-Based Inquiry

고등학교 논의기반 탐구 과학수업에서 학생 평가활동이 반성적 사고에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2016.03.24
  • Accepted : 2016.04.26
  • Published : 2016.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study focused on the use of student assessment activities to investigate the impact on reflective thinking in Argument-based Inquiry. The participants of the study were 166 10th grade students (six classes). Over one semester, students participated in five ABI programs that we developed. The experimental group (84 students) was taught Argument-Based Inquiry with students' self and peer assessment activities. The comparative group (82 students) was taught without the activities. We analyzed students' reflective writing to investigate how the student assessment activities influenced the students' reflective thinking. We also used the interviews and surveys to examine the validity of student assessment activities. According to analysis of the reflective writing, the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score than the comparative group in the 3rd and 5th writing. The ratio of students who showed a metacognitive level of reflection with regard to analysis of inquiry process, understanding of learning, and change of thinking increased in both groups, but the experimental group's ratio was higher than the comparative group's. The result of analysis of the reflective practice showed that the ratio of the experimental group's students who reached the metacognitive level of reflection in their writing increased, while the comparative group's decreased. Therefore, we conclude that student assessment activities can create a learning environment that facilitates student participation, increases the students' engagement in the learning process, and can be used as a tool to scaffold learning.

이 연구는 학생 평가활동을 적용한 논의기반 탐구 과학수업이 고등학생들의 반성적 사고에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 광역시의 인문계 고등학교 1학년 6개 학급의 학생 166명을 대상으로 한 학기에 걸쳐 5개의 논의기반 탐구 과학수업을 실시하였다. 실험집단(84명)은 논의기반 탐구 과학수업의 주장과 증거 단계에 동료평가활동과 자기평가활동을 적용하여 논의의 질을 평가하는 경험을 제공하였으며 비교집단(82명)은 이 단계를 생략하였다. 학생 평가활동이 학생들의 반성적 사고에 미치는 효과를 알아보기 위해 학생들이 작성한 반성 글쓰기를 분석하였으며, 인터뷰와 설문조사를 통해 평가활동에 대한 학생들의 인식을 탐색하여 학생 평가활동의 타당성과 활용 정도를 알아보았다. 반성 글쓰기 분석 결과, 1차 반성 글쓰기에서 두 집단 간의 유의미한 차이가 없었으나 3차와 5차 반성 글쓰기에서 실험집단의 점수가 비교집단보다 유의미하게 높았다. 반성 글쓰기의 하위 요소에서 탐구과정 분석, 학습의 이해, 생각의 변화 요소는 실험집단과 비교집단 모두 메타인지 수준의 반성을 나타내는 학생 비율이 증가하였으나, 실험집단이 비교집단보다 메타인지 수준의 반성을 보이는 학생 비율이 더 높았다. 반성적 실천 요소의 분석 결과, 실험집단은 메타인지 수준의 반성적 실천 학생 비율이 증가하였으나 비교집단은 오히려 감소하였다. 학생 설문조사와 인터뷰를 분석한 결과, 학생들은 평가활동이 자신의 학습에 도움이 된다고 인식하고 있었다. 또한 평가활동을 통해 자신이 무엇을 얼마나 알고 있는지를 깨닫게 되고 문제점을 파악하여 개선할 수 있는 방법을 탐색하는 메타인지 능력이 향상되었다고 응답하였다. 이러한 메타인지적 반성을 통해 부족한 부분을 개선하려 노력하였으므로 평가활동이 반성적 실천을 이끌었다고 인식하였다. 따라서 학생 평가활동은 학습의 과정으로 통합되어 학생들을 능동적으로 학습에 참여시킬 뿐만 아니라 학습에 대한 책임감을 향상시켜 학습을 스캐폴딩하는 도구로써 활용이 가능하다고 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria- referenced self-Assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801928
  2. Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effect of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
  3. Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. J., (1993). The Process of Learning (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
  4. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
  5. Brindley, C. & Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356215980030106
  6. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(3), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240304
  7. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
  8. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A Restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the Educative Process. Boston; D.C. Heath.
  9. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  10. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. Argumentation in Science Education, 35, 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
  11. Fairbrother, B., Black, P., & Gill, P. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers Assessing Pupils. London: The Association of Science Education.
  12. Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  13. Gama, C. (2004). Metacognition in interactive learning environments: The reflection assistant model. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp.668-677). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  14. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2013). Structuring the peer assessment process: Impact on feedback quality. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, N. Mitchell, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To see the world and a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time, and scale: CSCL 2013 conference proceedings, 2, 255-256.
  15. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation, Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U
  16. Heo, E. The Impact of General Chemistry Laboratory Using Reading Frame-Based Science Writing Heuristic Approach on College Students' Reflective Thinking. Ph.D. Dissertation, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea, 2011.
  17. Hwang, S., Kim, H., Yoo, J., & Pak, S. (2001). Ninth Graders' Self-Assessment of Scientific Process Skills in Open Investigation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 21(3), 506-515.
  18. Jang, K., Nam, J., & Choi, A. (2012). The Effects of Argument-Based Inquiry Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach on Argument Structure in Students' Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1099-1108. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1099
  19. Keys, C., Hand, B., Prian, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  20. Kollar, I. & Fischer F. (2012). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005
  21. Larson, A., Britt, M., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339-366. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366
  22. Lee, S., Bak, D., & Nam, J. (2015). Impact of Peer Assessment Activities on High School Student's Argumentation in Argument-Based Inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0353
  23. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x
  24. Li, L., Steckelberg, A. L., & Srinivasan, S. (2008). Utilizing peer interactions to promote learning through a computer-assisted peer assessment system. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2), 133-148.
  25. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
  26. Ministry Of Education. (2015). 2015 Revised national curriculum. MOE, Notice No. 2015-74.
  27. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.117
  28. Nam, J., Koh, M., Bak, D., Lim, J., Lee, D. & Choi, A. (2011). The Effects of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory on Preservice Science Teachers' Understanding of Chemistry Concepts and Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1077-1091.
  29. Nam, J., Kwak, K., Jang, K., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
  30. Narciss, S. (2004). The impact of informative tutoring feedback and self-efficacy on motivation and achievement in concept learning. Experimental Psychology, 51(3), 214-228. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.51.3.214
  31. O'Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simmon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  33. Phillips, L., & Norris, S. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the readers' world meets the world on paper?. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290723
  34. Pierce, A. E. (2003). Irruptions of voice: A critique of "Rhizovocality: by a white feminist researcher. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(5), 721-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000143011
  35. Pope, N. (2001). An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory of consumption values. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120052396
  36. Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-005-3250-z
  37. Purchase, H. (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 341-352.
  38. Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301671
  39. Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to Learn by Learning to Write During the School Science Laboratory: Helping Middle and High School Students Develop Argumentative Writing Skills as They Learn Core Ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643-670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069
  40. Smyth, K. (2004). The benefits of students learning about critical evaluation rather than being summatively judged. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 369-378.
  41. Spiller, D. (2009). Assessment matters: Self assessment and peer assessment. New Zealand: University of Waikato.
  42. Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 121-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.006
  43. Strijbos, J. W., Van Goozen, B., & Prins, F. (2012). Developing a coding scheme for analysing peer feedback messages.
  44. Sung, H., Hwang, S., & Nam, J. (2012). Examining the Relation Between Students' Reflective Thinking and the Reading Framework in the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(1), 146-159. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.1.146
  45. Sung, H. & Nam, J. (2013). The Impact of Reading Framework as a Reading Strategy on Writing for Reflection of Middle School Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(2), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.2.249
  46. Tavares, M., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., & Mortimer, E. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science & Education, 19(6-8),573-598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9206-6
  47. Yore, L., Bisanz, G., & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018
  48. Zoller, U. (1999). Teaching tomorrow's college science courses are we getting it right?. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(6), 409-414.
  49. Zoller, U., Fastow, M. & Lubezky, A. (1997). Student self- assessment in chemistry examinations requiring higher and lower order cognitive skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 112-113. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p112

Cited by

  1. 고등학교 논의기반 탐구 과학수업에서 학생 평가활동이 주장과 증거 형성에 미치는 영향 vol.62, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2018.62.3.203