Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Development and Application of Process-focused Assessment for Improving Scientific Communication Skills

과학적 의사소통 능력 향상을 위한 과정중심평가 개발 및 적용

  • Received : 2018.10.01
  • Accepted : 2019.02.01
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to develop and apply the process-focused assessment, and verify the assessment's effectiveness for improving scientific communication skills in elementary science learning. To achieve the aims of this study, the unit "Action of Electricity" in elementary science text book for 5-6th students was selected, and then 13 process-focused assessments were developed to improve scientific communication skills. 119 elementary school students in 6th grade participated in this research. it was performed to compare between 60 students on the general assessment and 59 students on the process-focused assessment in the results of achievement levels on scientific concept and scientific communication skills. The results were as follows: First, this study showed that process-focused assessment had higher educational effectiveness in specific area of scientific communication skills than the general assessment. Second, the process-focused assessment can help to form students' scientific concepts as the general assessment. Furthermore, the process-focused assessment group was more effective at reducing the non-scientific concept than the general assessment.

Keywords

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Development process of process-focused assessment of unit ‘(10) Action of Electricity’ in 2009 revised curriculum.

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. Progression of pre-test and post-test on the scientific communication skill and concept acquisition of the process-focused assessment.

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 3. A schematic diagram of science lessons and process-focused assessments on ‘What happens to compass needles around current-carrying wires?’.

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 4. An example of process-focused assessment to develop ‘Explanation’ skills in scientific communication skills.

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_f0005.png 이미지

Fig. 5. An example of process-focused assessment to develop ‘Ground’ skills in scientific communication skills.

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_f0006.png 이미지

Fig. 7. An example of process-focused assessment to develop ‘Figure’ skills in scientific communication skills.

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_f0007.png 이미지

Fig. 6. An example of process-focused assessment to develop ‘Letter’ skills in scientific communication skills.

Table 1. Science concepts of unit ‘(10) Action of Electricity’ in 2009 revised curriculum

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0002.png 이미지

Table 2. Test of scientific communication skills (Jeon, 2013)

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0003.png 이미지

Table 3. Types and forms of scientific communication skills

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0004.png 이미지

Table 4. Subjects of science textbook in unit ‘(10) Action of Electricity’ based on 2009 revised curriculum achievement standards

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0005.png 이미지

Table 5. Teaching-learning models and process-focused assessment lists based on main learning concepts and activities of unit ‘(10) Action of Electricity’

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0006.png 이미지

Table 6. Types and forms of scientific communication skills related to contents of process-focused assessment

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0007.png 이미지

Table 6. Continued

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0008.png 이미지

Table 7. The result of comparison between test types and types of scientific communication skills in t-test

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0009.png 이미지

Table 8. The result of comparison between test types and forms of scientific communication skills in t-test

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0010.png 이미지

Table 9. The result of comparison between pre-test and pro-test in science concept acquisition based on test types in t-test

CDRHBB_2019_v38n1_16_t0011.png 이미지

References

  1. 강정민, 심규철, 동효관, 김운화, 손정우, 곽대오, 오경환, 김용진(2014). 고등학교 생명과학 수업의 진단평가 및 형성평가에서 교실응답시스템의 활용 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 34(3), 273-283. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2014.34.3.0273
  2. 김성숙, 김희경, 서민희, 성태제(2015). 교수 학습과 하나되는 형성평가. 서울: 학지사.
  3. 교육부(2015). 2015 개정 교육과정에 따른 과학과 교육과정. 교육부.
  4. 교육부(2016). 과학교육종합계획. 교육부.
  5. 교육부, 부산광역시교육청, 한국교육과정평가원(2017). 학생의 성장을 돕는 과정 중심 평가: 수행평가 문항 자료집. 연구자료 ORM 2017-105-5.
  6. 양일호, 나종철, 임성만, 임재근, 최현동(2008). Klopfer의 교육 목표 분류 체계에 의한 초등학교 과학과 지필평가 문항 분석: 5학년 1학기를 중심으로. 초등과학교육, 27(3), 221-232.
  7. 오영욱, 박종호, 박강은(2009). 초등학생들의 막대자석과 전자석에 대한 자기장 오개념 유형. 새물리, 58(4), 409-418.
  8. 오현석, 이기영(2006). 현행 중등학교 과학 교과 지필평가 문항분석. 교육과정평가연구, 9(1), 405-424.
  9. 이경화, 강현영, 고은성, 이동환, 신보미, 이환철, 김선희(2016). 과정 중심 평가의 실행을 위한 방향 탐색. 수학교육학연구, 26(4), 819-834.
  10. 전경희(2016). 과정중심 수행평가의 방향과 과제. 이슈페이퍼 CP 2016-02-4, 한국교육개발원.
  11. 전성수(2013). 초등학생의 과학적 의사소통능력 검사도구 개발. 한국교원대학교 박사학위눈문.
  12. 조희영, 김희경, 윤희숙, 이기영(2009). 과학교육의 이론과 실제. 교육과학사.
  13. 최경희, 장현숙(2003). 중학생들의 자기 관련 오개념 조사. 새물리, 47(4), 207-217.
  14. 최은주(2011). 중학교 과학과 서술형 평가에 대한 문항의 특성과 교사와 학생 인식 조사. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문.
  15. Black, P. J. (1986). Assessment for learning. In D. L. Nuttall(Ed.), Assessing educational achievement. London: Falmer Press, 7-18.
  16. Black, P. J. & Wiliam, D. (1988). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  17. Braaten, M. & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Studies and Science Education, Wiley Periodical, Inc.
  18. Daugherty, R., Black, P., Ecclestone, K., James, M. & Newton, P. (2012). Alternative perspectives on learning outcomes: Challenges for assessment. In J. Gardner(ed.), Assessment and learning, 72-86.
  19. Diaz, M. R., Trujillo, L. A. G. & Rodriguez, M. (2013). Misconceptions of Mexican teachers in the solution of simple pendulum. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(3), 17-27.
  20. Duit, R. (1993). Research on students' conceptionsdevelopments and trends. Proceedings of the third international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  21. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and its influence on physics teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 2(2), 215-225.
  22. LeMahieu, P. G. & Reilly, E. C. (2004). Systems of coherence and resonance: Assessment for education and assessment of education. In M. Wilson (Eds.), Toward coherence between classroom assessment and accountability: 104th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
  23. McMillan, H. J. (2011). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction. Boston: Pearson.
  24. Moskal, B. M. & Magone, M. E. (2000). Making sense of what students know: Examining the referents, relationships and modes students displayed in response to a decimal task. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(4), 313-335. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011983602860
  25. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in the school science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 994-1020.
  26. Padilla, M. J., Coronin, L. L. & Twiest, M. (1985). The development and validation of a test of basic process skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick, Indiana.
  27. Peressini, D. & Webb, N. (1999). Analyzing mathematical reasoning in student' response across multiple performance tasks. In Lee V. Steff *ed.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grade K-12, NCTM yearbook, 156-174.
  28. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, 39-83. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
  29. Smith, K. A. & Welliver, P. W. (1990). The development process assessment for fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 727-738. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270803
  30. Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838
  31. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1994). Improvement of (didactical) assessment by improvement of problem: An attempt with respect to percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(4), 341-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273377

Cited by

  1. 2015개정 과학과 선택과목 수업 및 평가에 대한 교사들의 인식 탐색 vol.41, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.3.183