과학교육연구지 (Journal of Science Education)

  • 제42권2호
  • /
  • Pages.198-213
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1225-3944(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-4074(eISSN)
경북대학교 과학교육연구소 (Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

중학교 과학에서 서술형 평가의 실태 분석: 문항유형, 단원, 평가목표를 중심으로

Analysis of the Descriptive Evaluation's Status in Middle School Science: Focused on the Item's Type, Subject Unit, and Evaluation Object

  • 투고 : 2018.06.21
  • 심사 : 2018.08.27
  • 발행 : 2018.08.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

최근 들어 학생 평가 방법에서 서술형 평가의 중요성이 매우 강조되고 왔다. 본 연구는 학교현장에서 출제해 온 서술형 평가문항의 실태와 원인을 분석하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 경남 지역의 중학교 7개 학교에서 1학년부터 3학년까지의 정기고사에 출제된 서술형 문항 300개를 수집하여 문항 유형과 단원별 문항 분포를 분석하고, 문항에 관련된 성취기준의 교육목표와 평가목표를 Bloom의 신 교육목표분류에 따라 분석하여 비교였다. 연구 결과, 대부분의 교사들이 공통된 단원에서 서술형 문항을 출제하는 경향을 보이며, 단원 및 성취기준별로 출제 빈도에 큰 차이를 보였다. 문항 유형으로는 서술형이 65%에 불과하였으며 나머지는 단답형이나 완성형 문항으로 구성되었다. 또한 성취기준에서의 교육목표와 문항에서의 평가목표 사이에 일치하는 비율이 40.3%에 불과하였다. 서술형 문항의 출제교사 27명을 면담한 결과, 서술형 문항의 개발 능력 부족과 채점에서의 어려움이 올바른 서술형 평가의 주요 장애 요인인 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 평가에 대한 체계적 연수를 통해 서술형 평가의 문제점들을 해결할 필요가 있다.

In recent years, descriptive evaluation has been gaining importance at school. The purpose of this study is to analyse descriptive evaluation items which have been made by school teachers. 300 items for regular examinations are collected from 7 middle schools (grades 1 through 3) in Gyeongnam Province. Distribution and types of items are examined to compare educational objectives of standard achievements and those of evaluation according to Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. The result shows that there exist a majority of shared subject units for descriptive evaluation. Huge difference of frequency is also found among subject units and standard achievements. Less than 65% of evaluation items are descriptive and the rest is simple completion or short answers. In addition, it reveals only 40.3% of agreement between educational objectives of standard achievements and those of evaluation items. The interviews with 27 teachers indicate that lack of ability to develop proper items and grading are the major obstacles. In conclusion, systematic training courses are to be provided in order to resolve issues over descriptive evaluation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
  2. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
  3. Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education [BMCOE]. (2010). Tutorial for A descriptive evaluation in Middle school and High school (Busan Education, 2010-122). Busan: Author.
  4. Choi, J.-I., & Paik, S.-H. (2016). An analysis of content validity of behavioral domain of descriptive tests and factors that affect content validity : Focus on the fifth and sixth grade science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0087
  5. Dong, H. K., Kim, K. J., Kang, M., Jang, E.-S., Sung, K. H., Rim, H., Kim, S.-K., Lee, J., Pae, J.-K., Kim, S., Choi, B. T., Choi, W., Kim, Y.-J., & Lee, K. (2017). A study on the development of the 2017 national assessment of educational achievement (RRE 2017-2). Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  6. Dong, H.-K., Ha, S.-H., & Kim, Y.-J. (2015). A comparative analysis of achievement standards of Korean science curriculum and performance expectation of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the United States: Content elements and objectives for middle school life science. Educational Research, 64, 95-125. https://doi.org/10.17253/swueri.2015.64..004
  7. Hwang, K.-H., Kim, K.-J., So, K.-H., Hong, J.-P., & On, J. (2013). A study about operating model for free semester system in middle school. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  8. Ji, E. L. (2011). Directions and tasks about introduction of absolute evaluation in middle school and high school. Seoul: Korea Educational Development Institute.
  9. Kang, S. C. (2014). A study on the improvement for building the taxonomy table of two dimensional objectives based on it's actual condition survey in the standards based assessment of achievement. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 17(2), 21-48. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2014.17.2.21
  10. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation [KICE]. (2016). An interactive guide to understand the achievement assessment system-middle school (PIM 2013-12). Seoul: Author.
  11. Kim, M. K., Cho, M. K., & Joo, Y. R. (2012). A survey of perception and status about descriptive assessment: Focused on elementary school teachers in Seoul area. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Educatuion in Korea, 16(1), 63-95.
  12. Kim, S. (2013). Analysis on current status of descriptive test items in the Korean language curriculum : On the base of descriptive items in academic high shools. Korean Language Education, 140, 479-508.
  13. Kim, S. K., Choi, E.-J., & Paek, S.-H. (2015). An analysis of characteristic and factor about middle school science descriptive assessment items. Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society, 59(5), 445-453. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2015.59.5.445
  14. Kim, S. (2015). A study on implementation and improvement of classroom assessment. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 18(3), 257-282. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2015.18.3.257
  15. Lee, K., Dong, H., Choi, W., Kwon, G., Lee, I., & Kim, Y.-J. (2017). Exploring a learning progression for eight core concepts of middle school science using constructed response items in the national assessment of educational achievement (NAEA). Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 382-401. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.382
  16. Lee, I., Dong, H. K., Kwon, K. P., Choi, W., Lee, K., & Park, H. (2016). Analysis on constructed response items in the 2015 national assessment of educational achievement (NAEA): science (RRE 2016-9-4). Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  17. Lee, Y.-J. (2012). A study on the development of test tools and sciring methods for Korean language essay test. Korean Language Education Research, 45, 413-449.
  18. 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
  19. Lee, S., Kim, G., Noh, S., Kim, M. K., & Kim, R. Y. (2014). Mathematics teachers' perceptions about and implementation of constructed-response assessment. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 17(2), 275-290.
  20. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2009). 2009 revised curriculum (Elementary, Middle and High School): Summary (Notice 2009-41, 2009. 12. 23). Seoul: Author.
  21. Noh, E. S., Mun, K. C., Choi, J. A., Park, S. H., Min, S. U., Go, J. Y., Sim, W. H., Lee, J. H., Park, M. K., Park, T. J., Hong, S. J. Jeong, S. G. Park, J. M., Jeong, J. A., Yun, J. P., Lee, S. J., Song, Y. M., Kim, K. H., & Yun, H. D. (2010). Theory and practice in questioning for assessing academic achievement (Kyungnam Education 2010-056). Changwon: Gyeongsangnam-do Office of Education.
  22. Gyeongsangnam-do Office of Education. Paik, S. H., & Ryu, H. J. (2014). High school students' perceptions on descriptive assessment activity experiences by teacher or by peer. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 593-599. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0593
  23. Shin, J-G., & Cho, C-K. (2008). The statement of geography instruction objectives and the creation of evaluation questions based on revision of Bloom's Taxnomy of educational objective. The Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic and Environmental Education, 16(2), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.17279/jkagee.2008.16.2.129
  24. Sin, H. J., An, S. Y., & Kim, Y. W. (2017). A policy analysis on the process-based evaluation-focusing on middle school teachers in Seoul. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 20(2), 135-162. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2017.20.2.135