DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Teacher Perception and Practice on Free Semester Science Assessment

자유학기제 과학과 평가에 대한 교사의 인식과 실제

  • Received : 2019.01.15
  • Accepted : 2019.02.26
  • Published : 2019.02.28

Abstract

This study investigated 15 science teachers' perception and practice on free semester and science assessment. We analyzed frequencies of teacher choice for closed questions and used constant comparative method for teacher description and individual interview. Most teachers determined a low ranking for changes in assessment methods and mentioned a lack of objectivity on free semester assessment, unsystematic free semester assessment, and more importance on student activity and interest in science instruction. Most teachers understood process-based assessment as a direction of free semester assessment and teachers mentioned positive aspects for students or teacher difficulties dependent on their perception on process-based assessment. Half of the teachers failed to implement student self-assessment and student peer-assessment due to subjectivity and complexity. Some teachers did not provide feedbacks to students due to a lack of time and did not use certain assessment methods due to a lack of knowledge of the assessment. Teachers who did not have an experience of discussions in a teacher learning community mentioned reasons regarding a small number of the same grade teachers and inactive attitude of colleagues. Teachers who did not participate in professional development programs mentioned a lack of teacher understanding of free semester, participation of the teacher in charge, and teacher choice of participation as reasons.

본 연구의 목적은 자유학기제가 전면 시행된 이후 자유학기제 과학과 평가 경험이 있는 중등 과학교사 15명을 대상으로 자유학기제와 자유학기제 평가에 대한 교사의 인식, 자유학기제 과학과 평가의 실제를 알아보는 것이다. 본 연구의 서술형 문항 설문과 개인 면담 전사본은 반복적 비교 분석법을 통해 분석하였고, 선택형 문항 설문은 응답 빈도를 분석하였다. 자유학기제 기본 방향 중 평가 방법 변화는 낮은 순위로 선정한 교사가 많았고, 자유학기제 평가의 객관성 부족, 자유학기제 평가의 입시 미반영, 자유학기제 평가에 대한 체계 미확립, 활동 중심 수업 및 교과에 대한 학생의 흥미 유발이 평가보다 더 중요함 등을 이유로 언급하였다. 본 연구의 대부분 교사들은 자유학기제 평가의 기본 방향을 교육부에서 제시한 과정 중심 평가로 이해하고 있었다. 과정 중심 평가를 매우 긍정적 또는 긍정적으로 인식한 교사들은 학생에게 미칠 수 있는 긍정적인 영향에 초점을 맞추어 설명한 반면, 과정 중심 평가를 보통 또는 부정적으로 인식한 교사들은 교사들이 겪는 어려움에 초점을 맞추어 설명하였다. 본 연구의 절반 교사들은 주관성과 복잡성 등의 이유로 학생 자기평가 학생 동료평가를 실행하지 않은 것으로 나타났으며, 시간 부족을 이유로 평가 결과에 대한 피드백을 거의 제공하지 않은 교사들도 일부 있었다. 일부 교사들은 평가 방법에 익숙하지 않거나 평가를 실행하기 위한 방법을 모르기 때문에 특정 평가 방법을 사용하지 않았다고 하였다. 본 연구 참여 교사들 중 교과 협의를 하지 않은 교사들은 동 학년을 담당하는 교사의 수나 동료 교사의 태도와 같은 환경적 요인에 의하여 협의를 하지 못한 것으로 나타났다. 평가 관련 연수에 참여하지 않은 교사들은 자유학기제 담당자만 연수에 참여하거나 연수의 필요성에 대한 교사의 인식 부족, 교사 개인 사정 등과 같이 교과 협의회와는 달리 교사의 자율적 선택에 의해 연수에 참여하지 않은 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

Table 1. Teacher Perceptions on Free Semester Guideline

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Teacher Perceptions on Free Semester Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Teacher Perceptions on Free Semester Process-based Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Implementation of Teacher Assessment/Student Self·Peer Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Goals of Implementing Student Self Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Goals of Implementing Student Peer Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. Implementation of Cognitive/Affective Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0007.png 이미지

Table 8. Goals of Implementing Affective Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0008.png 이미지

Table 9. Benefits of Affective Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0009.png 이미지

Table 10. Implementation of Performance Assessment and Paper-Pencil Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0010.png 이미지

Table 11. Assessment Methods Used for Free Semester

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0011.png 이미지

Table 12. Most Frequently Used Assessment Methods

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0012.png 이미지

Table 13. Amount of Providing Feedbacks

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0013.png 이미지

Table 14. Benefits of Providing Feedbacks

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0014.png 이미지

Table 15. Descriptive Reporting

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0015.png 이미지

Table 16. Benefits of Professional Learning Community for Free Semester Assessment

GHGOBX_2019_v39n1_143_t0016.png 이미지

References

  1. Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000333904
  2. Chi, E., Won, H., Min, K., Son, W., Kim, T., Lee, S., & Kang, C. (2014). A study on evaluation methods for middle school free semester system. Korean Educational Development Institute. CR 2014-07.
  3. Choi, K., Choi, K., & Lee, H. (2009). Exploration of relations between middle school science teachers' perception of students' Learning styles and their teaching styles. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(2), 267-275.
  4. Ha, H. (2016). Comparison and analysis of free semesters and regular semesters by the government adoption of the free semester program. (Master's thesis). Ajou University.
  5. Jang, D. (2015). In free learning semester science of curriculum form and class methods analysis. (Master's thesis). Ewha Womans University.
  6. Jeong, H., & Lee, H. (2017). Development and application of scientific inquiry-based STEAM education program for free-learning semester in middle school. Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 334-350. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.334
  7. Kim, H., Kwack, D., & Sung, M. (2000). An investigation on science teachers' evaluation practices in the secondary schools. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(1), 101-111.
  8. Kim, H., & Yun, H. (2015). Promoting teacher-based assessment: Korean english teachers' perceptions of assessment and its applications. Teacher Education Research, 54(2), 171-187. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.54.2.201506.171
  9. Kim, K., & Kim, S. (2002). A study on the weight of assessment domains in science education focused on the teacher's view points. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(3), 540-549.
  10. Kim, S. (2007). A study on analysis and alternatives of performance assessment in high school science subject. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 20(4), 53-73.
  11. Kim, S. (2014). Teacher's Cognitions and Implementation on Student Assessment. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 27(1), 141-161.
  12. Kim, S. (2017a). A study of the middle school students' creative personality characteristics and attitude toward science through the scientific inquiry program in the free-semester system: Using the creative thinking techniques. (Master's thesis). Dankook University.
  13. Kim, S. (2017b). Development of program integrating career education in the life science chapter for free learning semester. (Master's thesis). Korea University.
  14. Kim, S., & Jhun, Y. (2016). The effect of peer review to the improvement f gifted elementary science students' open inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(6), 969-978. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.6.0969
  15. Kim, Y. (2007). Qualitative research. Seoul: Moonumsa.
  16. Kim, Y. (2012). Qualitative research. Paju: Academypress.
  17. Kim, Y., & Jeong, S. (2017). Qualitative research. Paju: Academypress.
  18. Kriek, J., & Stols, G. (2010). Teachers' beliefs and their intention to use interactive simulations in their classrooms. South African Journal of Education, 30(3), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v30n3a284
  19. 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.
  20. Lee, J. (2018). A study of the development and effect analysis of science-based STEM program for free-year in middle school. (Master's thesis). Dankook University.
  21. Lee, J., Kim, J., & Hong, S. (2016). Development of the questionnaire for impeding leisure sports activity of women with disability. Korean Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 24(3), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.17006/kjapa.2016.24.3.97
  22. Lee, J., & Shin, Y. (2014). An analysis of elementary school teachers' difficulties in the STEAM class. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(3), 588-596. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.3.588
  23. Lee, K., Rim, H., Park, I., Seo, M., & Kim, B. (2016). A study on development of the survey items for affective domain in mahtmatics of NAEA. Th Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 19(4), 45-70. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2016.19.4.45
  24. 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
  25. Lee, Y., Kim, Y., Lee, H., Kim, Y., Cho, D., & Cho, J. (2005) Action Research. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  26. Lim, J., Kim, M., Lee, J., & Hong, H. (2015). Analysis of education assessment characteristics on pilot schools of free learning semester. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 18(3), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2015.18.3.233
  27. Ministry of Education (2015). A schematic design for middle school free semester. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  28. Ministry of Education & Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2017). How can we evaluate student performance focusing process? ORM 2017-19-2.
  29. Nam, J., Kim, J., & Hahn, I. (2002). The effects of self-assessment on the students' science concept understanding and science-related attitudes in the middle school. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 46(3), 287-295. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2002.46.3.287
  30. Noh, T., Lee, J., Kang, S., & Kang, H. (2015). Secondary school science teachers' actual and preferred types of assessment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 725-733. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0725
  31. Paik, S., & Ryu, H. (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
  32. Park, H. (2016). A survey on the conditions of middle school science evaluation. Teacher Education Research, 55(3), 389-398. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.55.3.201609.389
  33. Park, H., & Namkung, J. (2016). Factors influencing the key competencies of middle school students in south korea. Journal of Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(8), 149-172.
  34. Sato, M., Coffey, J., & Moorthy, S. (2005). Two teachers making assessment for learning their own. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500135996
  35. Seong, T., & Si, K. (2006). Research methodology. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  36. Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education (2016). A manual for operating Seoul fee semester. 2016-17.
  37. Shin, C., Hwang, E., Kim, E., Song, K., & Park, M. (2014). Settlement measures for middle school free-semester program in korea. Korean Educational Development Institute. RR 2014-17.
  38. Shin, H., Ahn, S., & Kim, Y. (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
  39. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  40. Tierney, R. D. (2006). Changing practices: Influences on classroom assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(3), 239-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940601035387
  41. Won, E., & Jeon, Y. (2016). Development of survey to inquire continuity of english curriculum between elementary and middle school. Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 16(8), 568-579. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.08.568
  42. Won, H. (2016). An exploration on formative evaluation methods for free semester system in middle school. Journal of Fishries and Marine Sciences Education, 28(1), 289-299. https://doi.org/10.13000/JFMSE.2016.28.1.289
  43. Yoo, H., & Shin, J. (2014). A foundation study developing assessment framework for korean teacher culture competency. The Korean Language & Culture Education Society Academic Conference, 2014(1), 51-60.
  44. Yoo, K., Jeong, J., Kim, Y., & Kim, H. (2018). Qualitative research methods. Seoul: Parkyoungsa.

Cited by

  1. 과학적 논의 과정을 시각화한 과정중심평가에서의 과학적 개념 이해 발달 vol.39, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.5.637
  2. 교과 연계 진로 탐색을 위한 인공지능 기반 고교 선택교과 및 대학 학과 추천 시스템 vol.10, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3745/ktsde.2021.10.1.35