Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Trends of Assessment Research in Science Education

과학 교육에서의 평가 연구 동향

  • Received : 2016.07.13
  • Accepted : 2016.08.07
  • Published : 2016.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study seeks educational implication by analyzing research papers dealing with science assessment in the most recent 30 years in Korea. The main purpose of the study is to analyze the trends in published papers on science assessment, their purpose, methodology, and key words, especially concentrating on the cognitive and affective domains. We selected 273 research articles and categorized them by research object, subject, methodology, and contents. To examine the factors that affect the research trend, we also tried to contextualize papers' theme in terms of changes in national curriculum and assessment system during the contemporary period. As a result, an overall research trend reflects changes in science curriculum and assessment events such as implementation of college scholastic ability test or performance assessment. There is an unequal distribution in various aspects of the researches, showing a superiority in cognitive domains than the affective ones. By using standardized data obtained through the national and international assessment of educational achievement in science, quantitative researches were superior to qualitative ones. Studies on cognitive domain use variously written- and performance-based tests, whereas most studies of the affective ones prefer written tests. Applied research and evaluation research are predominant comparing to basic ones, which most of the research methodology is based on statistics. Lastly, we found out that key words and subjects tend to be subdivided and detailed rather than general and comprehensive, as time goes on. Such trend will be helpful to elaborate and refine assessment tools that have been regarded as a problem.

이 연구는 최근 30년 동안 과학 교육에서 평가를 다룬 국내 논문을 분석하여 동향을 파악함으로써, 과학 교육 과정의 개선 방향을 제시하고 향후 연구에 대한 시사점을 얻고자 했다. 연구의 주요 목표는 과거 30년간 국내 학술지에 게재된 과학 교육 관련 평가 연구의 동향을 인지적 영역과 정의적 영역을 중심으로 분석하고, 연구 목적과 연구 방법론, 연구의 주제어별 특징을 분석하는 것이다. 이를 위해 한국교육학술정보원이 제공하는 데이터베이스를 통해 273편의 연구 논문을 선정했고, 대상, 교과, 연구 방법론, 연구 내용 등의 범주로 분류하여 각각의 논문을 분석했다. 연구의 동향에 영향을 미치는 요인을 알아보기 위해 같은 시기에 진행된 국가 교육 과정의 변화와 평가와 관련한 대내외적 사건을 연계하여 설명을 시도했다. 분석 결과, 과학 교육에서 평가 연구의 전체적 동향은 국가 교육 과정과 평가 관련 제도의 변화를 반영한 경우가 많았다. 연구의 대상이나 주제가 정의적 영역보다 인지적 영역에 편중해서 나타나는 경향이 있으나, 국가 수준 학업 성취도나 국제 학업 성취도 평가에서 얻은 표준화된 자료를 통해 정의적 영역과 다양한 배경 변인의 관계에 주목할 필요가 있음을 인식하게 되었다. 인지적 혹은 정의적 영역에 상관없이 두 영역 모두 양적 연구가 질적 연구보다 우세하게 나타났으며, 인지적 영역은 평가 도구로써 지필 평가와 수행형 평가 등을 다양하게 사용한 반면, 정의적 영역에서는 대부분 지필 평가만을 실시하고 있었다. 평가 연구의 목적은 주로 실제 상황에서 실용적이고 응용적인 내용을 다루는 응용 연구와 평가 연구가 많았고, 연구 방법론도 양적 자료를 다루는 통계를 기반으로 한 방법을 사용했다. 분석 논문의 주제를 유사한 범주로 묶어 연구 동향을 분석한 결과, 주제가 점점 일반적인 내용에서 구체화, 세분화되는 경향이 있었다. 이러한 경향은 그 동안 과학 교육 관련 평가의 문제점으로 지적되었던 개념의 명료화와 관련하여 평가 도구를 정교화할 수 있는 기초가 될 수 있을 것이다. 연구 결과를 바탕으로 정의적 영역의 평가에서 실증적 자료를 얻기 위한 방안 마련, 다양한 맥락으로 세분화된 평가를 수렴할 수 있는 이론적 기초 정립, 양적 자료에 편중된 연구의 균형을 추구하는 연구 풍토의 개진, 평가의 다양한 측면을 반영하여 완성된 교육과정으로 개선하는 기관과 체계의 정비 등을 시사점으로 제안했다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Summers, R., Said, Z., Wang, S., & Culbertson, M. (2015). Development and large-scale validation of an instrument to assess Arabic-speaking students' attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(16), 2637-2663. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1098789
  2. Bailey, R. C., & Bailey, K. G. (1974). Self-perceptions of scholastic ability at four grade levels. The Journal of Generic Psychology, 124, 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1974.10532281
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  4. Choe, S., Ku, J., Kim, J., Park, S., Oh, E., Kim, J., & Baek, H. (2013). Strategies for improving the affective characteristics of Korean students based on the results of PISA and TIMSS. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  5. Chae, S. (1996). Towards a reconstruction of the social scientific methods: a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative methods. The Journal of Educational Research, 34(5), 281-297.
  6. Cho, J., Min, K., & Park, I. (2015). Consequential validity of National Achievement in elementary schools. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 18(1), 135-154.
  7. Choi, J., & Paik, S. (2015). A comparative analysis of achievement standards of the 2007 & 2009 Revised Elementary Science Curriculum with Next Generation Science Standards in US based on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 277-288. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0277
  8. Choi, W., & Jeong, E. (2008). Relationship between science achievement and student-related variable in National Assessment of Educational Achievement in 2006. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 848-859.
  9. Chung, B. (2009). A comparative study on the school differences in PISA 2006 science performance: Finland, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, and Korea. Korean Journal of Comparative Education, 19(2), 1-26.
  10. Chung, Y., & Choi, J. (2007). An assessment of the scientific literacy of secondary school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(1), 9-17.
  11. Chung, W., Yoh, S., Park, J., & Kim, E. (1992). Evaluation of scientific inquiry skills for students of the special classroom(school) managed by firm. Journal of Science Education Kyungpook National University, 16, 1-17.
  12. Cowie, B. (2012). Focusing on the classroom: Assessment for learning. In Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (Eds). Second International Handbook of Science Education, Dadrecht; New York: Springer.
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches(3rd ed.). CA: Sage Publications.
  14. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented(6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  15. Dong, H., Lee, I., & Shin, J. (2013). Characteristics of science achievement of Korean students in TIMSS 2011 and NAEA 2011. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 26(5), 1091-1114.
  16. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  17. Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4-10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026006004
  18. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  19. Fraser, Tobin, & McRobbie. (2012). Second international handbook of science education, Dadrecht; New York: Springer.
  20. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg. W. R. (2007). Educational research(8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  21. Ha, M., & Lee, J. (2013). The item response, generalizability, and structural validity for the translation of Science Motivation Questionnaire II (SMQII). Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 13(5), 1-18.
  22. Holling, H., & Preckel, F. (2005). Self-estimates of intelligence methodological approaches and gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 503-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.003
  23. Huizinga, H. M., Crone, E. A., & Jansen, B. J. (2007). Decision-making in healthy children adolescents and adults explained by the use of increasingly complex proportional reasoning rules. Developmental Science, 10(6), 814-825. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00621.x
  24. Hwang, S., Kim, H., Yoo, J., & Park, S. (2001). Ninth grader's self assessment of scientific process skills in open investigation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 21(3), 506-515.
  25. Jo, S., & Ku, J. (2013). An exploration in the measurement and application of attitude towards science based on social constructivism. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(2), 466-477. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.2.466
  26. Johnson, A. P. (2005). A short guide to action research (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  27. Joo, H. (2000). A little idea of concept mapping evaluation method in construction option. The Journal of Elementary Education, 13(2), 221-237.
  28. Kang, S., Park, E., Park, I., Yang, J., Lee, Y., Hong, H., & An, J. (2008). The analysis of the relationships between tests of the creative thinking and tests of the hypotheses generating ability. Journal of Research Institute of Curriculum Instruction, 12(1), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2008.12.1.253
  29. Kim, D., & Hong, H. (2010). Measuring the effects of school science curriculum on students science outcomes based on PISA 2006 and comparing them with those of Finland. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(1), 87-112. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.28.1.201003.005
  30. Kim, K., Kim, S., Kim, M., Kim, S. H., Kang, M., Park, H., & Jung, S. (2009). Comparative analysis of curriculum and achievement characteristics between Korea and high performing countries in PISA & TIMSS. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  31. Kim, H. (2012). A research analysis for an alternative paradigm in christian education with a focus on research methodology. A Journal of Christian Education in Korea, 29, 347-377.
  32. Kim, J., Kim, S., & Dong, H. (2015). International comparison of cognitive attributes using analysis on science results at TIMSS 2011 based on the cognitive diagnostic theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 267-275. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0267
  33. Kim, M. (2002). The effect of portfolio assessment on the scientific investigation ability and science-related attitude of students in elementary school. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 15(1), 87-113.
  34. Kim, R., Kim, G., & Kwon, N. (2012). Trends in research design and methods: Research on elementary and secondary mathematics curriculum. School Mathematics, 14(3), 395-408.
  35. Kim, S., & Choi, T. (2008). Research methodology in education. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  36. Kim, Y., Park, Y., Park, H., Shin, D., Jung, J., & Song, S. (2014). World of science education. Seoul: Book's hill.
  37. Kim, Y., Yoon, K., & Kwon, D. (2010). Analysis of summative evaluation objectives in middle school biology based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 164-174. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2010.34.1.164
  38. Koballa, T. R. (1988). Attitude and related concepts in science education. Science Education, 72(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720202
  39. Krynowsky, B. (1988). Problems in assessing student attitude in science education: A partial solution. Science Education, 72(4), 575-584. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720504
  40. Ku, J., Han, J., & Kim, S. (2015). Effects of educational context variables on gender difference in science achievement among top performing countries of PISA 2012. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 28(5), 1381-1400.
  41. Lawrenz, F., & Thao, M. (2014). Review of science education program evaluation. In Lederman, N. G., & Abell, S. K. (Eds). Handbook of Research on Science Education, volume II. New York: Routledge.
  42. Lederman, N. G., Abell, S. K. (2014). Handbook of research on science education, volume II, New York: Routledge.
  43. Lee, D., & Jeong, E. (2014). An analysis of paper and pencil test items of Life Science I in high school. Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 670-690. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2014.38.3.670
  44. Lee, H., Choi, K., & Nam, J. (2000). The effects of formative assessment with detailed feedback on students' science achievement, attitude, and interaction between teacher and students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(3), 479-490.
  45. Lee, Y., & Kim, E. (2013). Human characteristics and education. Hakjisa: Seoul.
  46. Lee, J., Lee, I., & Kwon, Y. (2010). The development of the brain-based analysis framework for the evaluation of teaching-learning program in science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(5), 647-667.
  47. Lee, S., Kim, J., & Jung, K. (2006). Potential of a self-report measure for intelligence. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 20(4), 931-953.
  48. Leem, Y., Kim, Y. (2013). A historical study on the Korean Science Curriculum for the elementary and secondary schools. Biology Education, 41(3), 483-503. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2013.41.3.483
  49. Lim, J., Kang, S., Kong, Y., Choi, B., Nam, J. (2004). The development of instrument to assess high school students' views on Science-Technology-Society. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1143-1157.
  50. Liu, X. (2012). Developing measurement instruments for science education research. In Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (Eds). Second International Handbook of Science Education, Dadrecht; New York: Springer.
  51. Lyon, E. (2011). Beliefs, practices, and reflection: Exploring a science teacher's classroom assessment through the assessment triangle model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9241-4
  52. Miller, D. C. (1991). Handbook of research design and social measurement. Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications.
  53. Ministry of Culture and Education. (1981). Elementary education curriculum. Notification No. 1981-442 of MOCE. Seoul: MOCE.
  54. Ministry of Culture and Education. (1987). Elementary education curriculum. Notification No. 87-9 of MOCE. Seoul: MOCE.
  55. Ministry of Education. (1992). Elementary education curriculum. Notification No. 1992-16 of MOE. Seoul: MOE.
  56. Ministry of Education. (1997a). Elementary education curriculum. Notification No. 1997-15 of MOE. Seoul: MOE.
  57. Ministry of Education. (1997b). High school science curriculum reference book. Notification No. 1997-15 of MOE. Seoul: MOE.
  58. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007). Elementary education curriculum. Notification No. 2007-79 of MOEHRD. Seoul: MOEHRD.
  59. Ministry of Education Science, and Technology. (2011). Science curriculum. Notification No. 2011-361 of MOEST. Seoul: MOEST.
  60. Nam, J., Choi, J., Kong, Y., Moon, S., & Lee, S. (2004). The effects of feedback types in self assessment on the students's science concept understanding and science-related attitedes in the middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(3), 646-658.
  61. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, D. C.: Nationl Academy Press.
  62. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  63. Noh, T., Yoon, J., & Kang, S. (2009). The investigation of elementary school teachers' perceptions toward constructivist science assessment and their relationship with related variables. Journal of the Korean Society of Elementary Science Education, 28(3), 352-360.
  64. Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 135-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940125120
  65. Paik, S., Lee, E., Kim, J., Song, Y., Kim, Y., Chung, J., & Han, J. (2008). Analysis of the content validity of the achievement evaluation items on the "Water" chapter in the high school Chemistry I course. Journal of the Research Institute of Curriculum Instruction. 12(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2008.12.1.55
  66. Park, D., Park, C., & Kim, S. (2001). The effect of school and school and student level background variables on math and science achievements in middle schools. Journal of Educational Evaluation. 14(1), 127-149.
  67. Park, H., Bea, J., & Jo, K. (2012). Analysis of instructional and evaluational objectives in Chemistry I textbooks. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 56(4), 491-499. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2012.56.4.491
  68. Park, K. (2012). Analysis of research trends on gifted education in Korea. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(4), 823-840. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.4.823
  69. Park, S., & Yoo, J. (1999). Science performance assessment. The Korea Association of Yeolin Education, 7(1), 247-262.
  70. Pellegrino, J. W. (2012). Assessment of science learning: Living in interesting times. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 831-841. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21032
  71. Seo, Y., Kim, H., & Chae, H. (2010). Analysis of the end-of-chapter questions in Chemistry II according to revised Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 54(3), 329-337. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2010.54.3.329
  72. Shin, J., & Choi, A. (2014). Trends in research studies on scientific argument and writing in Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0107
  73. Sohn, W. (2008). Multi-level factors influencing the affective domain of Korean students: Results from PISA 2006. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 21(4). 81-105.
  74. Song, H. (2010). Development of a self-reported executive function rating scale for the Korean high school students: a preliminary study. The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(1), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.15842/kjcp.2010.29.1.007
  75. Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman, H. O., & Provus, M. M. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision-making in education. Itasca, IL:Peacock Publishers Incorporated.
  76. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
  77. Sung, T., & Si, K. (2015). Research methodology (2nd ed). Hakjisa: Seoul.
  78. Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D. S., & Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (S-STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622-639 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915571160
  79. Wang, L., Huettel, S., & De Bellis, M. D. (2008). Neural substrates for processing task-irrelevant sad images in adolescents. Developmental Science, 11(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00661.x
  80. Yang, I., Na, J., Lim, S., & Choi, H. (2008). An analysis of elementary schools's science test items by Kopfer's taxonomy of educational objectives: Focusing on the first term of the 5th grade. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(3), 221-232.
  81. Yum, S., & Kang, D. (2011). Influence of curricular context factors within student- and school-levels on the 2006 PISA science achievements of Korean students. Journal of the Research Institute of Curriculum Instruction, 15(2), 281-304. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2011.15.2.281

Cited by

  1. 과학교육에서 모델과 모델링 관련 국내 과학 교육 연구 동향 분석 vol.37, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.4.539
  2. 과학 교육 평가에서 나타나는 고등학생들의 성취 불일치 사례 - 정의적 영역 검사 도구를 중심으로 - vol.37, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.5.891
  3. 네트워크 분석을 통한 국내 과학교육 질적 연구동향 분석 vol.10, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2017.10.3.290
  4. 소외계층학생을 대상으로 한 과학교육 연구의 동향 분석 vol.37, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.6.921
  5. The History of the Korean Society of Biology Education and Research Trends of Biology Education in Korea vol.46, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2018.46.4.543
  6. 과학 관련 정의적 영역 검사 도구 활용 및 개선 내용 분석 vol.39, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.2.263
  7. 언어 네트워크를 이용한 야외지질답사 관련 연구 동향 분석: 최근 21년(2000~2020년)을 중심으로 vol.14, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2021.14.2.173