한국지구과학회지 (Journal of the Korean earth science society)

  • 제44권5호
  • /
  • Pages.501-519
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1225-6692(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-4518(eISSN)
한국지구과학회 (The Korean Earth Science Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

예비 지구과학 교사의 선다형 문항 제작 과정에 나타난 논의의 특징: 구성주의 근거 이론 접근

Characteristics of Discussion in the Process of Creating Multiple Choice Items by Preservice Earth Science Teachers: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Inquiry

  • 안유민 (공주대학교 지구과학교육과) ;
  • 이종진 (공주대학교 지구과학교육과)
  • Yumin Ahn (Department of Earth Science Education, Kongju National University) ;
  • Jong-Jin Lee (Department of Earth Science Education, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2023.06.15
  • 심사 : 2023.09.07
  • 발행 : 2023.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구의 목적은 예비 지구과학 교사들이 선다형 문항 제작 실습 프로그램에 참여하는 과정에서 드러나는 문항 제작 역량의 발달 양상을 이해하는 것이다. 이를 위해 예비 지구과학 교사 15명이 선다형 문항 제작 과정 중 공동 검토 과정에서 나타나는 논의에 초점을 맞춰 그 특징을 분석하였다. 구성주의 근거 이론을 토대로 3단계의 코딩을 수행한 결과, 36개의 초기 코드, 12개의 초점 코드, 5개의 이론적 코드가 도출되었다. 코딩 범주에 근거하여 논의의 특징을 규정하는 검토 문화와 문항에 대한 관점을 두 축으로 설정하였으며, 이로부터 수험생의 문제풀이, 조심스레 한 걸음 떼기, 짙어지는 담화를 주제로 하는 세 가지 이야기를 구성하였다. 또한 프로그램 동안 일관되게 드러나는 문항 제작 역량의 한계를 다다르지 못한 노정에 대한 네 번째 이야기로 서술하였다. 문항 제작 과정에서 드러나는 평가 전문성은 예비교사의 정체성 발달과 관련되어 있으며, 본 연구에서 적용한 개발한 프로그램의 효과와 의의 및 프로그램의 개발과 개선을 위한 시사점을 논의하였다.

The purpose of this study was to understand the developmental aspects of assessment literacy revealed through the process of participating in an interactive practice program that creates multiple choice items for preservice Earth science teachers. To this end, we analyzed the characteristics of discussions with 15 preservice teacher'. Based on constructivist grounded theory, we derived 36 categories from the initial coding, 12 categories from the focused coding, and 5 categories from the theoretical coding. We set the discursive culture and perspective on items on the two axes and then constructed four analytical stories based on the above results. Therefore, three stories were organized under the theme of solving the examinee's items, taking careful steps, and deepening discourse. In addition, it was described as a fourth story about an unreached journey that failed to reach the limitations of the ability to make items consistently reveal items during the program. A assessment literacy in the practice program was related to the development of preservice teachers' identities, and the effects and significance of the program applied in this study and implications for its improvement were discussed.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2021년 공주대학교 학술연구지원사업의 연구지원에 의하여 연구되었습니다.

참고문헌

  1. Ahn, Y. M. and Shin, Y. J., 2020, Analysis of the program for training pre-service Earth science teachers: Focusing on college curriculum. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 41(4), 391-404. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2020.41.4.391
  2. An, J. E. and Kim, H. B., 2021, Pre-service teachers' development of science teacher identity via planning, enacting and reflecting inquiry-based biology instruction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 41(6), 519-531. (in Korean)
  3. Bryant, A., 2002, Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 25-42.
  4. Charmaz, K., 1990, Discovering' chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine, 30(11), 1161-1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-R
  5. Charmaz. K., 1995, The body, identity, and self: Adapting to impairment, The Sociological Quarterly, 36(4), 657-680, DOI:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00459.x.
  6. Charmaz, K., 2000, Grounded theory: Objectivist and contructivist methods, In The Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Edited by Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, T.). SAGE Publications, New York, USA, 509-535.
  7. Charmaz, K., 2002, Grounded theory analysis, In Handbook of interview research (Edited by Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A.). SAGE Publications, New York, USA, 675-694.
  8. Charmaz, K., 2006, Constructing grounded theory a practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications, New York, USA, ISBN: 9780761973522, 202 p.
  9. Charmaz, K., 2014, Constructing grounded theory. Sage Publications, London, UK, 416 p.
  10. Charmaz, K., and Mitchell, R. G., 2001, Grounded theory in ethnography. In Handbook of ethnography, 160-174, DOI:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608337.
  11. Choi, H. S. and Kim, J. B., 2010, A investigation of conditional terms noted in multiple choice problems about physics I - College scholastic ability test about force and energy -. School Science Journal, 4(1), 33-45. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.4.1.201002.33
  12. Choi, J. S., 2013, A study of the effectiveness of a mathematics teacher's training program focused on the construction of test items. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 23(2), 193-212. (in Korean)
  13. Choi, M. J., Kim, K. Y. and Lee, C. H., 2018, An analysis of pre-service mathematics teachers' knowledge of creating math test items. Research Institute of Curriculum & Instruction, 22(3), 183-197. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2018.22.3.183
  14. Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D., 2017, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, New York, USA, 273 p.
  15. Dassa, L. and Derose, D. S., 2017, Get in the teacher zone: a perception study of preservice teachers and their teacher identity. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(1), 101-113.
  16. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., 1998, The landscape of qualitative research. SAGE Publications, New York, USA, 656 p.
  17. Glaser, B., 1978, Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. University of California, San Francisco, USA, 164 p.
  18. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A., 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick and London, USA and London, 271 p.
  19. Greenberg, J. and Walsh, K., 2012, What teacher preparation programs teach about K-12 assessment: A review. National Council on Teacher Quality, New York, USA, 50 p. (online available at www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/assessment_report.pdf)
  20. Jo, Y. H., 2015, Field research and action research. The Korean Society for the Study of Anthropology of Education, 18(4), 1-49. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.17318/jae.2015.18.4.001
  21. Kim, S. W., 2007, A Study on analysis and alternatives of performance assessment in high school science subject. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 20(4), 53-73. (in Korean)
  22. Kim, Y., Park, J., Park, J., Lee, H. and Kim, Y., 2010, Science teachers' perceptions and needs for courses in science education subjects for science teacher preparation program in Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 30(6), 785-798. (in Korean)
  23. Ko, J. H., 2010, A study on improving the quality of the assessment items by analyzing the types of their modification. School Mathematics, 12(2), 113-136. (in Korean)
  24. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 2018, A study on the improvement of school-level student evaluation system by application of process-centered evaluation. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Issue paper, Study material ORM 2018-39-7, 26 p. (in Korean)
  25. Laverty, J. T., Cooper, M. M. and Caballero, M. D., 2015, Developing the next generation of physics assessments. The American Association of Physics Teachers under a Creative Commons Attribution, 187-190, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1507.00663
  26. Lee, K. Y. and An, H. S., 2005, Analysis of assessment types, scoring methods and reliability of science performance assessment in middle and high school. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(2), 173-183. (in Korean)
  27. Lewin, K., 1946, Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
  28. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. and Borko, H., 1999, Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge, Dordrecht: Kluwer, Netherlands, 95-132.
  29. McMillan, J. H., 2018, Classroom assessment: Principles and practice that enhance student learning and motivation. Pearson Education, Massachusetts, USA, 560 p.
  30. Mertler, C. A., 2009, Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. SAGE Publications, New York, USA, 288 p.
  31. Mills, G. E., 2000, Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA, 272 p.
  32. Ministry of Education and Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 2017, Performance assessment focusing on the process, What should I do? (Secondary). Sejong: Ministry of Education. Research report, Study material ORM 2017-19-2, 29 p. (in Korean)
  33. Ministry of Education, 2015, General Introduction of primary and secondary school curriculum. Notice No. 2015-74 of the Ministry of Education [Appendix 1]. (in Korean)
  34. Ministry of Education, 2023, 2023 School anecdotal records and guidelines. Sejong: Ministry of Education, 272 p. (in Korean)
  35. Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B. J., Charmaz, K. and Clarke, A. E., 2009, Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Left Coast Press, California, USA, 279 p.
  36. Noh, T. H., Kim, H. R., Han, J. Y. and Kang, H. S., 2017, An analysis of the characteristics of the processes of pre-service chemistry teachers in making written test items using think-aloud method. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education, 37(2), 225-237. (in Korean)
  37. Noh, T. H., Park, J. S. and Kang, H. S., 2016, Interactions among PCK components of pre-service secondary chemistry teachers considered in processes of making written test items. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 36(5), 769-781. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.5.0769
  38. Park, C. and Hong, M. Y., 2002, A relative effectiveness of item types for estimating science ability in TIMSS-R. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 22(1), 122-131. (in Korean)
  39. Park, H. J. and Park, H. E., 2011, Korean linguistic errors on written tests of science in middle school 7th grade. Journal of Education and Culture, 17(2), 339-366. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.24159/JOEC.2011.17.2.339
  40. Park, H. J. and Shin, J. R., 2010, Errors on written tests of science in middle school 7th grade: Matters. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 54(6), 781-786. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2010.54.6.781
  41. Park, J. D., 2009, An analysis of item components in College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) and some suggestions for multiple-choice type item development. The Korean History Education Review, 111, 227-262. (in Korean)
  42. Park, J. S., Kang, H. S. and Han, J. Y., 2017, The influence of paired think-aloud problem solving on interactions among PCK components considered in the processes of making written test items by pre-service chemistry teachers. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 37(3), 429-440. (in Korean)
  43. Piggot-Irvine, E., 2006, Sustaining excellence in experienced principals? Critique of a professional learning community approach. International Electronic Journal for Leadership Learning, 10(16), 13 p. (online available at https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/iejll/index.php/iejll/article/view/616/278)
  44. Popham, W. J., 2011, Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator's confession. The Teacher Educator, 46(4), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2011.605048
  45. Song, S. C., Lee, C. H. and Shim, K. C., 2014, A study on science teachers' perception about science teacher training curriculum. Teacher Education Research, 53(1), 15-27. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.15812/TER.53.1.201403.15
  46. Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M., 1998, Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, New York, USA, ISBN: 9780803959392, 312 p.
  47. Stringer, E. T., 2007, Action research(3rd edition). SAGE Publications, New York, USA, 279 p.
  48. Warford, M. K., 2011, The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 252-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.008
  49. Xu, Y., and Brown, G. T., 2016, Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010