Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Analysis on the Characteristics and Criteria Development in Performing Science Inquiry Tasks for Elementary School Students

초등학생 과학 탐구과제 수행 특성 분석 및 채점기준 개발

  • Received : 2022.03.07
  • Accepted : 2022.04.21
  • Published : 2022.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to develop performance criteria based on characteristics observed in science inquiry tasks for elementary school students. First, the performance characteristics by observing 70 fifth-grade elementary school students' science inquiry activity report are listed. Second, the checklist-type scoring criteria in connection with the theoretical framework of scientific inquiry process and relevant competencies are developed. Third, with the developed scoring criteria, 11 raters participate in scoring 350 students' reports. The main findings are as follow: first, the scoring data are well-fitted for the many-faceted Rasch model, and 22 scoring criteria are reasonably-well differentiated for various levels of proficiency. Second, at low performance level, observable characteristics are to answer questions explicitly required by the task or to observe objects or phenomena using pre-learned scientific concepts, while at high performance level, to explore additional data other than given data or to reflect on one's experimental process. Based on the results, the usefulness of analyzing students' performance characteristics for developing the scoring criteria, and further research directions are discussed.

이 연구는 초등학생 과학 탐구과제에서 관찰되는 수행의 특징을 분석하여 채점기준을 개발하기 위하여 수행되었다. 이를 위하여 초등학교 5학년 학생 75명의 과학 탐구활동보고서의 특징을 분석하고, 그 특징을 과학탐구 과정 요소와 역량 요소에 대한 이론 및 개념과 연계하여 체크리스트형 채점기준을 개발하였다. 개발된 채점기준을 활용하여 채점자 11인이 350여 개 과제를 교차채점하여 데이터를 생성하였으며, 그 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 채점데이터는 피험자, 채점자, 채점항목의 3개 국면을 고려한 다국면 Rasch모형에 적합하였으며, 22개 채점항목들의 적합도가 양호하였다. 둘째, 낮은 수행수준에서 관찰가능한 특성은 과제에서 명시적으로 요구하는 질문에 답하거나, 사전에 학습한 과학적 개념을 활용하여 대상 혹은 현상을 관찰하는 것인 반면, 높은 수행수준에서는 주어진 자료 이외의 추가자료를 탐색하거나 자신의 실험과정을 성찰하는 것이었다. 학생 수행 특성 분석에 근거한 채점기준표의 유용성과 활용을 위한 향후 과제가 논의되었다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2020S1A3A2A02095447).

References

  1. Andrich, D. & Marais, I. (2019). A course in Rasch measurement theory: measuring in the educational, social, and health sciences. Springer: Singapore.
  2. Arnold, J. C., Boone, W. J., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2018). Assessment of competencies in scientific inquiry through the application of Rasch measurement Techniques. Education Sciences, 8, 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040184
  3. Baek J., Byun T., Lee D., & Shim H. (2020). An investigation on the assessment tool and status of assessment in the 'Scientific Inquiry Experiment' of the 2015 revised curriculum. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 40(5), 515-529. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.5.515
  4. Cho M., Mun K., & Kim S. (2010). The development and application of evaluating standards for creative problem solving items. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 13(2), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2010.13.2.309
  5. Choi K., Lee S., & Chae Y. (2017). Development of evaluation criteria for online problem-based science learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(5), 879-889. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.5.879
  6. Eckes, T. (2015). Introduction to many-facet Rasch measurement: analyzing and evaluating rater-mediated assessments. Peter Lang Edition.
  7. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.34.10.906
  8. Ha, M., Park, H., Kim, Y., Kang, N., Oh, P. S., Kim, M., Min, J., ... & Son, M. (2018). Developing and applying the questionnaire to measure science core competencies based on the 2015 Revised National Science Curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4), 495-504. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2018.38.4.495
  9. Hwang J., Lee h., & Kwak D. (2010). An assessment of high school students' performance on science process skills in biology. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 14(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.24231/RICI.2010.14.1.67
  10. Kim H. (1993). Analysis on logical thinking levels and science process skills of high school student. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education, 14(4), 424-431.
  11. Kim, S. & Chung, Y. (2015). Structural relationships among the epistemological beliefs, metacognition, science inquiry skills, and science achievement of high school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 931-938. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2015.35.6.0931
  12. Kim Y., & Kim S. (2009). A meta-analysis on logical thinking ability of Korean middle-school students: meta-analysis of the researches between 1980 and 2000. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education, 29(4), 437-449.
  13. Kim Y., & Kim Y. (2012). The development of a free-response test for the assessment of science process skill. Biology Education, 40(1), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.1.167
  14. Ko, E., & Choi A. (2019). Analysis of achievement standards, activities, and assessment items in Integrated science, chemistry I, chemistry II textbooks on science core competency: focusing on acid.base.neutralization and oxidation.reduction. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 63(6), 486-504. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2019.63.6.486
  15. Koh E., & Jeong D. (2014). Study on Korean science teachers' perception in accordance with the trends of core competencies in science education worldwide. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 535-547. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2014.34.6.0535
  16. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Psychological Science, 9(5), 178-181.
  17. Laforgia, J. (1988). The affective domain related to science education and its evaluation. Science Education, 72(4), 407-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720402
  18. Lee, B. (2005). Analysis of inquiry standards in Foreign national science curricula. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(7), 873-884.
  19. Lee H., Lee Y., & Lee H. (2017). Development and application of a rubric for assessing scientific inquiry process. Secondary Education Research, 65(1), 145-171. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2017.65.1.145
  20. Lee J., & Jeong E. (2013). Development of an evaluation tool for assessing scientific thinking ability using science writing. Teacher Education Research, 52(3), 575-588. https://doi.org/10.15812/TER.52.3.201312.575
  21. Lee K. (2010). Development of test of biology inquiry skills for middle and high school students (Unpublished master's thesis). Graduate School of Korea National University of Education, Chungbuk.
  22. Linacre, J. M. (2019). Facets computer program for many-facet Rasch measurement, version 3.81.2. Oregon: Winsteps.com.
  23. Lou, Y., Blanchard, P. & Kennedy, E. (2015). Development and validation of a science inquiry skills assessment. Journal of Geoscience Education, 63(1), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.5408/14-028.1
  24. Ministry of Education (2015). National Science Curriculum. No. 2015-74. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  25. Park I., & Kang S. (2012). The development of assessment tools to measure scientific creative problem solving ability for middle school students. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 210-235. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2012.32.2.210
  26. Park, S., Shin, Y., Lee, Y., Min, J., & Kim, J. H. (2021). A research trend analysis on students' core competencies. Asian Journal of Education, 22(4), 769-799. https://doi.org/10.15753/aje.2021.12.22.4.769
  27. Popham, W. J. (1995). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  28. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Rhetoric and reality in science assessment: An update. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1045-1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1045::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-S
  29. Schafer, W. D. (1997) Classroom assessment. In G. D. Phye (ed.), Handbook of Academic Learning: Construction of Knowledge. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 513-547.
  30. Shim, J. (1994). The exploration and effectiveness analysis of metacognitive instruction model. Doctoral dissertation, Korea University.
  31. Shim B., & Yoo M. (2020). An analysis of science core competencies reflected in the performance assessment of 2015 revised curriculum integrated science and scientific inquiry experiments. School Science Journal, 14(4), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.14.4.202011.481
  32. Son J. (2006). A science writing teaching method based on scientific thinking for improving scientific essay writing ability. The Journal of Curriculum & Evaluation, 9(2), 333-355. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2006.9.2.333
  33. Song K., Lee H., & Lim C. (2004). Development of a test of science inquiry skills for elementary school fifth and sixth graders. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6). 1245-1255.
  34. Song S., & Shim K. (2018). Analysis of science key competencies in inquiry activity of integrated science textbooks for high school students. Biology Education, 46(2), 222-236. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2018.46.2.222
  35. Song S., Kil J., & Shim K. (2015). A case study on the evaluation of scientific inquiry ability of elementary scientifically gifted students : observing and inferring, designing an experiment, and concluding. Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 376-388. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2015.39.3.376
  36. Timmerman B. E. C., Strickland, D. C., Johnson, R. L. & Payne, J. R. (2011). Development of a 'universal' rubric for assessing undergraduates' scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 509-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903540991
  37. White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (2009) The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition: More than a marriage of convenience. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 175-205). Routledge.
  38. Yang, I. (2006). Guidance materials for each element of the school science inquiry process. Science Education Research Center, Korea National University of Education.
  39. Yang, T., Bae, M., Han, K., & Park, I. (2003). Scientifically gifted students' science related attitudes and its relationships with intelligence and science process skills. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 23(5), 531-543.
  40. Yun D., & Choi A. (2019). Analysis of achievement standards, activities, and assessment items in the 2015 revised science curriculum and grade 7 science textbooks: focusing on science core competencies. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 63(6), 196-208. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2019.63.3.196
  41. Zimmerman, B, & Schunk, D. (Eds.) (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.