Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Science Teachers' Awareness of the Criteria for Minimum Achievement Standards in Science to Support Basic Skills

기초학력 보장을 위한 과학과 최소한의 성취기준에 대한 과학 교사들의 인식

  • Received : 2023.05.08
  • Accepted : 2023.06.08
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a plan to ensure that students lacking basic science skills acquire the minimum needed science learning ability while completing the common curriculum. We surveyed 27 elementary and secondary science teachers with experience in research and teaching related to basic skills support to investigate their perceptions of the criteria for minimum achievement standards using Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The results indicated that the science teachers tended to describe low achievers as lacking science learning competency, accumulating a science learning deficit, and lacking prerequisite knowledge. However, there were some differences in the characteristics that the elementary and secondary teachers paid attention to in students with insufficient science and basic academic skills. Specifically, the secondary teachers demonstrated greater sensitivity towards low learning motivation and difficulties in using scientific symbols, whereas the elementary teachers were more sensitive towards students' attitudes towards science or lack of experience. Furthermore, it has been observed that the prioritization of items, categorized by school level, differs in terms of setting minimum achievement standards to ensure basic skill support. This implies the need to develop minimum achievement standards considering various variables based on the school level. As there are diverse opinions among science teachers, depending on their expertise, regarding the factors to be considered when developing these standards to guarantee science and basic skill support. Based on the findings of the study, policy support is required to enhance teachers' professionalism in developing students' basic skills while considering the individual context and diversity of low achievers. Additionally, it is crucial to establish a shared vision for students lacking basic skills to reduce the gap between national policy and the practices of science teachers in ensuring support for basic skills.

본 연구의 목적은 과학과 기초학력이 부족한 학생들이 공통 교육과정을 이수하는 동안 최소한의 과학 학습 능력을 갖출 수 있도록 기초학력 보장 방안을 마련하는데 있다. 이를 위해, 기초학력 관련 연구 및 지도 경험이 있는 초·중등 과학 교사 27명을 대상으로 설문 조사를 실시하고 합의적 질적 연구방법(Consensual Qualitative Research: CQR)과 계층화 분석법(Analytic Hierarchy Process: AHP)을 활용하여 '최소한의 성취기준'에 대한 현장 과학 교사들의 인식을 살펴보았다. 연구 결과, 초·중등 과학교사들은 과학 학습지원대상 학생들에 대해 과학 학습 역량이 부족하고, 과학 학습 결손이 누적되어 있으며, 기본적인 학습을 위한 준비도가 부족하다고 응답하였다. 그러나 과학과 기초학력 부족학생의 학습 특징에 대해 초·중등 교사들이 주목하는 특징이 다소 상이하게 나타났는데, 중등 교사들은 낮은 학습 동기와 과학적 기호 사용의 어려움에, 초등 교사들은 과학 태도나 경험부족을 더욱 민감하게 인식하고 있는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 또한 기초학력 보장을 위한 최소한의 성취기준 준거 설정에 대한 우선순위에서도 범주별 항목의 우선순위가 학교급별로 상이함을 발견할 수 있었다. 이는 과학과 기초학력 보장을 위한 최소한의 성취기준 개발 시 고려요소에 대해 과학 교사들의 기초학력 관련 전문성에 따라 다양한 입장 차가 존재하므로, 학교급에 따른 다양한 변인을 고려한 최소한의 성취기준 개발이 필요함을 의미한다. 이상의 연구 결과를 통해 기초학력이 부족한 학생들의 개인별 맥락과 처한 상황의 다양성을 고려한 기초학력 지도 전문성 강화를 위한 정책적 지원이 전교과 영역에서 모색되어야 할 것이다. 나아가 기초학력이 부족한 학생 지원을 위해 공유된 비전을 명확히 하여 기초학력 보장을 위한 국가정책과 과학 교사들의 실행 간의 괴리를 줄이는 노력이 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, Y., Lee., J., & Kim, D. (2020). Analysis of the results of the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Achievement: Middle School Science. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Research Materials, ORM 2020-23-4. 
  2. Azevedo, J. P., Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Iqbal, S. A., & Geven, K. (2020). Simulating the potential impacts of covid-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: A set of global estimates(Policy Research working paper;no. WPS 9284). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. 
  3. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C.(2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-6. 
  4. Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of Learning (3rd ed). New York: Holt, Rienhart and Winston. 
  5. Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The counseling psychologist, 25(4), 517-572.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000097254001
  6. Kim, A., & Park, H. (2010). Science interventions for Students with Learning Difficulties: A Research Synthesis. Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 147-175. 
  7. Kim, G., & Chung, N. (2004). Novice Therapists' Difficulty Experienced in Counseling Session and Coping Process: A Qualitative Analysis. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 16(1), 1-20. 
  8. Kim, J., & Namgung, J. (2008). Investigation of middle-school students' self-directed learning. Korean Journal of Psychological and Social Issues, 14, 153-166. 
  9. Kim, Y., Baek, J., Lee, J., & Kim, D. (2021). Analysis of the results of the 2020 National Assessment of Educational Achievement: Middle School Science. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Research Materials, ORM 2021-52. 
  10. Krejci, J., & Stoklasa, J. (2018). Aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process: Why weighted geometric mean should be used instead of weighted arithmetic mean. Expert Systems with Applications, 114, 97-106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.06.060
  11. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<71::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C
  12. Lea, E., Shin, A., Kim, S., & Lee, E. (2017). The Longitudinal Relationship of Ego-Identity and Career-Identity in Adolescents using Latent Class Growth Modeling Analysis. Forum For Youth Culture, 91-112. 
  13. Lee, G., & Hong, H. (2022). A Comparative Study of Scientific Literacy and Core Competence Discourses as Rationales for the 21st Century Science Curriculum Reform. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 42(1), 1-18. 
  14. Lee, H. (2018). What is SSI Education? Seoul: ParkYoungStory. 
  15. Lee, J., & Shin, D. (2013). Characteristics of Low Achievers' Earth Science Problem Solving Process. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 13(3), 425-454. 
  16. Lee, S. (2022). A Comparative Analysis on the Changes in the Results of Top Performing Asian Countries in the PISA Science Achievement. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 26(5), 472-484.  https://doi.org/10.24231/RICI.2022.26.5.472
  17. McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge. 
  18. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2021a). Announcement of 2020 National Assessment of Educational Achievement results and response strategies to strengthen learning support. Ministry of Education press release. (2021.06.01.). 
  19. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2021b). 「Comprehensive Plan for Education Recovery」 announced the basic plan. Ministry of Education(MOE) press release. (2021. 7. 29.). 
  20. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2022a). The 1st Comprehensive Plan for Basic Skills Support(2023-2027). Ministry of Education(MOE) press release. (2022. 10.) 
  21. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2022b). 2022 revised Science Curriculum. Ministry of Education Notice, No. 2020-33 [Appendix 9]. 
  22. Nam, I., Rhee, S., & Im, S. (2017). Analysis of Trends of Researches in Science Education on Underrepresented Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(6), 921-935. 
  23. Noh, W., Kim, K., Kim, T., & Kim, K. (2021). Teachers' and parents' perceptions, demands, and policy support for Starting-line-equality of education. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. Issue Paper, ORM 2021-40-18. 
  24. Oh, E., Lee, H., & Park, J. (2009). A Study of Support Strategies for Instruction⋅Learning in Multicultural Education(III)-Centered on Support Strategies for Korean Language Education. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Research Materials, RRI 2009-10. 
  25. Park, H., & Choi, H. (2014). A guidebook for raising children with borderline intellectual functioning. Seoul: Korea Human Resources Development Institute for Health & Welfare, Child Self-Reliance Support Project Group. 
  26. Park, S., Kim, G, Oh, S., Yu, E., Lee, k., & Cho, B. (2022). Development of minimum achievement standards for each subject to ensure basic academic ability. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Research Materials, CRI 2022-14. 
  27. Park, S., Rim, H., Choi, J., & Kim, S. (2015). An Analytic Study on Self-directed Learning for Mathematics in Elementary and Middle School Level. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 15(9), 109-135. 
  28. Pokropek, A., Costa, P., Flisi, S., and Biagi, F. (2018). Low achievers, teaching practices and learning environment, EUR 29387 EN, Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union, ISBN 978-92-79-96396-4, doi:10.2760/973882, JRC113499 
  29. Raharjo, H., & Endah, D. (2006). Evaluating relationship of consistency ratio and number of alternatives on rank reversal in the AHP. Quality Engineering, 18(1), 39-46. 
  30. Rosenthal, R. (2012). Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. eds by V.S. Ramachandran. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (2nd ed). San diego: Elsevier. 
  31. Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Mathematical modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
  32. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234-281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
  33. Sahin, M., & Yurdugul, H. (2018). A content analysis study on the use of analytic hierarchy process in educational studies. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 376-392. 
  34. Song, J., Kang, S., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., Do, J., Min, B., Park, S., Bae, S., Son, Y., Son, J., Oh, P., Lee, J., Lee, H., Ihm, H., Jeong, D., Joung, Y., Chung, J., & Kim, J. (2019). Scientific Literacy for All Koreans, Korean Science Education Standards for the Next Generation. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity. 
  35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Technique (2nd ed.). London: Sage. 
  36. The Hankook Ilbo (2023). Restoration of basic academic ability, what public education should do. Corona Kids, Mind Disaster Report②-3, (2023.03.08.). 
  37. Yeo, S. (2015). Technical Adequacy of Science CBM: An Application of Progress Monitoring and Identification of Students At-Risk for Science Learning. The Korea Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(3), 19-42. 
  38. Yu, E., Park, K., & Jung, C. (2021). Exploring the Characteristics of the Content and Organization of Elementary School Science Textbooks from the Perspective of the Astronomical Spatial Concept. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 40(4), 480-497. 
  39. Yun, E., & Park, Y. (2013). Research on Science Teacher's Perception of Teaching Science Terminology. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1343-1353.  https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1343