Journal of Science Education (과학교육연구지)

Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University (경북대학교 과학교육연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Textbook Objectives and Paper Test Items Based on Physics I 'Space-Time and the Universe'

고등학교 물리 I '시공간과 우주' 단원의 지필평가 문항과 교과서 목표와의 비교

  • Received : 2020.02.21
  • Accepted : 2020.04.29
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the paper test items of high school physics I 'Space-Time and the Universe' unit and how similar the textbook goals are to the cognitive and content areas. This study analyzed paper test items used from nine high schools and KICE about the unit. In order to analyze the distribution of items, they were classified by contents and by cognitive level which is knowledge, comprehension and application levels. As conclusion, application level items were a few, and unbalanced contents distribution appeared in school items. In comparison through the ratio difference index, the objectives of the textbook and the school items were very similar, but the similarities were low when comparing the school items with the KICE items. Based on the above, we suggested some ways to increase the validity of test items.

본 연구의 목적은 고등학교 물리 I '시공간과 우주' 단원의 지필평가 문항과 교과서 목표가 인지영역과 내용영역에서 어느 정도 유사한지를 분석하기 위한 것이었다. 9개의 고등학교에서 출제한 지필고사 문제지와 평가원에서 출제한 문항 중에서 물리 I의 첫번째 단원인 '시공간과 우주'에 해당하는 문항들을 분석하였다. 문항의 분석기준으로 교육과정 성취기준에 제시된 내용영역들과 교과서에 진술된 목표들을 사용하여 살펴보기 위해 성취기준에 따라 내용영역을 11개로 분류하였고, 인지영역 수준은 지식, 이해, 적용의 틀로 각각 분류하였다. 결론적으로 학교에서 출제된 문항에서는 적용능력을 평가하는 문항의 비율이 낮았으며, 내용영역간 분포에도 불균형이 나타났다. 비율차 지수를 통한 비교에서는 교과서에 제시된 학습목표와 학교 출제 문항은 유사성이 매우 높았지만, 교과서 목표와 평가원 출제 문항을 비교하였을 때는 유사성이 낮았다. 이상을 바탕으로 평가문항의 타당성을 높이기 위한 몇 가지 제언을 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook I: The cognitive domain. London, England: Longmans.
  2. Buick, J. M. (2011). Physics assessment and the development of a taxonomy. European Journal of Physics Education, 2(1), 5-10.
  3. Choi, J., & Shin, J. (2013). Case study about high school physics teachers' implementation of the 2009 revised national curriculum. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 63(10), 1085-1093. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.63.1085
  4. Davila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8000232
  5. Jeong, J. (2016). An examination on perception of teachers for two newly introduced chapters of 2009 revised Physics I curriculum. (Master's thesis). Korean National University of Education.
  6. Kim, S., Choi, E., & Paik, S. (2015). An analysis of characteristic and factor about middle school science descriptive assessment items. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 59(5), 445-453. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2015.59.5.445
  7. Kim, S., & Kang, C. (2017). Analysis on the content validity of Korean geography subject college scholastic ability test on the national curriculum achievement standards. Journal of the Korean Association of Regional Geography, 23(1), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.26863/JKARG.2017.02.23.1.195
  8. Kim, Y., Kim, I., Kim, S., Park, B., Chung, B., Park, J., Kim, J., & Kwon, G. (2011). Physics I, II. Seoul: Gyohaksa.
  9. Kim, Y., Yoon, K., & Kwon, D. (2010). Analysis of summative 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
  10. Kwak, S., Ryu, S., Kim, D., Ahn, J., Lee, O., Kim, J., Nam, K., & Kim, I. (2011). Physics I, II. Seoul: Chonjaegyoyuk.
  11. Lee, H. (2017). Examinations in Korea. Paju: Dasan.
  12. Lee, J. (2013). A survey of physics teachers' opinions about the 2009 revised high-school 'Physics I' curriculum and test. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 63(4), 400-410. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.63.400
  13. Lee, K., Cho, H., Kwon, S., Kim, H., & Yoon, H. (2013). Analysis of the characteristics of multiple-choice test items used in integrated science assessment: Focused on the case of four high school. Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 278-293. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2013.37.2.278
  14. Lee, S., & Choi, H. (2013). What makes students select Physics I on the college scholastic ability test?. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 16(1), 231-251. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2013.16.1.231
  15. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2009). 2009 revised science curriculum.
  16. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum.
  17. Oh, H., & Lee, K. (2006). An exemplary analysis of paper and pencil test items of current secondary school science. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 9(1), 405-424. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2006.9.1.405
  18. Paik, S., Lee, E., Kim, C., Han, J., Song, Y., Kim, Y., & Chung, 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 Research in Curriculum Instruction, 12(1), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2008.12.1.55
  19. Park, C. (2014). Formative assessment and teacher education. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 27(4), 987-1007.
  20. 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
  21. Park, S., & Lee, B. (2012). Analysis of curriculum and contents relevance in physical textbooks of the 2009 revised science curriculum. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 62(10), 1060-1074. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.62.1060
  22. Song, J. (2003). An analysis of content validity of teacher-made summative evaluation. (Master's thesis). Korean National University of Education.
  23. Yang, D. (2018). Classifying exam questions of the first chapter of high school Physics I for thinking and research skill level. (Master's thesis). Kyungpook National University.
  24. Yang, J. (2016). An analysis of the reluctance to select Physics I among high school students in the science and engineering course after the 2009 revised national curriculum. (Master's thesis). Inha University.