DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

성취평가제로 인한 교수 실행 변화에 대한 고등학교 과학교사의 인식 탐색 -내신 석차등급 미반영 전후를 중심으로-

Exploring High School Science Teachers' Perceptions of Instructional Changes Due to Achievement Standards-Based Assessment: Focusing on the Impact of No Longer Indicating Course Ranking

  • 투고 : 2024.02.22
  • 심사 : 2024.04.12
  • 발행 : 2024.04.30

초록

우리나라는 학습결과를 상대평가 방식으로 평가함에 따라 발생하는 여러 문제를 해소하고자 교과목별 학업성취 도달 수준을 평가하는 절대평가 형태의 성취평가제를 도입하여 운영하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 현재 운영되고 있는 성취평가제에 대한 과학교사들의 인식 및 구현 방식 등을 탐색하고자 하였다. 본 연 구에는 고등학교 과학교사 20명이 면담에 참여하였으며, 성취평가제에 관한 인식, 성취평가제가 교사의 평가 인식에 미치는 영향, 성취평가제 운영으로 인해 변화되거나 개선된 점 등에 대한 본인의 의견과 생각을 자유롭게 표현하였다. 연구 결과, 대부분의 참여 교사들은 내신 석차 등급 미표기 이후 성취평가제가 기대하는 교육적 의미가 현장에 반영되고 있다고 인식하고 있었다. 교사들은 성취평가제로 인해 변별에서 벗어난 과학수업을 실현할 수 있었으며, 학생의 성취에 주목함에 따라 과학학습에 어려움을 겪고 있는 학생에 대한 관심이 증대하였다고 인식하였다. 또한, 결과 위주의 평가에서 벗어남으로써 과학과 교과역량을 중심으로 교육과정을 재구성하고 과학 교과의 본질적 목표에 집중할 수 있게 된 점을 긍정적으로 인식하고 있었다. 그뿐만 아니라 학생 활동에 대한 피드백 제공의 질적인 향상이 이루어진 점을 확인할 수 있었다. 하지만 일부 교사들은 적정 성취수준을 교사 스스로 설정하는 데 어려움을 경험하거나, 학생 활동에 대한 질적인 차이를 평정하는 과정의 난해함으로 인하여 성취평가제의 실효성에 대해 의문을 나타내기도 하였다. 또한, 내신 석차 등급이 산출되지 않은 이후, 학생들이 수업에서 보이는 의욕과 열의가 현저히 떨어지는 현 상황에서 수업의 방향성을 결정하는 데 혼란스러움을 경험하기도 하였다.

The purpose of this study was to explore high school science teachers' perceptions and practices regarding the implementation of achievement standards-based assessment (ASA) in their science teaching. To achieve this, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 20 science teachers who had implemented ASA. The participating teachers were asked to share their opinions on ASA implementation, the effects of ASA on changes in their teaching, and students' reactions to ASA. The results were as follows. Most of the teachers recognized that the initial intention behind ASA implementation began to be realized in schools only after course rankings were no longer required to be indicated. Some teachers felt that ASA allowed them to focus on students' progress, rather than evaluating them by achievement scores. It also helped some teachers identify students who were experiencing learning difficulties and offer appropriate support. In addition, some teachers acknowledged being able to reorganize their science lessons according to the essential goals of science subjects in the curriculum and provide more detailed feedback on students' achievements. However, some teachers expressed difficulties in setting an appropriate level of achievement for their lessons or in evaluating students' progress using qualitative methods. Lastly, the teachers expressed concerns about the remarkably lower motivation of some students for learning science after the indication of course ranking was no longer required.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bae, W., & Shin, S. (2016). An exploratory study of status quo of standards-based testing system and its impacts on English language instruction in secondary schools. Secondary Education Research, 64(3), 611-634. https://doi.org/10.25152/SER.2016.64.3.611
  2. 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.
  3. Black, P. (2017). Assessment in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. B. Akpan (Eds.). Science education: An international course companion (pp. 295-309). Dordrecht, NL: Sense.
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., & Lee, C. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
  6. Broadfoot, P., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles.
  7. Brown, S. (2005). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81-89.
  8. Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903267784
  9. Chang, J., Kim, S., & Lee, S. (2015). Analysis on stages of concern and levels of use for achievement standards-based assessment in specialized high schools. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 18(2), 105-129. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2015.18.2.105
  10. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800950320212
  11. Jeong, E., & Choi, W. (2014). A survey on evaluation in science education at primary and secondary school in Korea. Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 168-181.
  12. Kim, H., & Koo, N. (2019). Analysis of science instruction in Korea based on the results of PISA questionnaire. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 22(4), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2019.22.4.85
  13. Kim, S. (2014). Analysis on the middle school teachers' level of interest of achievement standards-based assessment. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education, 26(1), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.13000/JFMSE.2014.26.1.81
  14. Kim, S., Min, H., & Paik, S. (2020). A study on beliefs in the evaluation of science teachers through the learning community. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 1-21.
  15. Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation[KICE]. (2012a). A study on the operation of achievement assessment system for high school ordinary and demonstration schools (KICE Research Report ORM 2012-20). Chungbuk: KICE.
  16. Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation[KICE]. (2012b). Achievement assessment system operation manual for middle school research data (KICE Research Report ORM 2012-18). Chungbuk: KICE.
  17. Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation[KICE]. (2012c). An achievement evaluation system that recognizes by question-and-answer (PIM 2012-8). Chungbuk: KICE.
  18. Kwak, Y., & Shin, Y. (2019). Analysis of enacted curriculum through classroom observation of integrated science teaching in 2015 revised curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 379-388. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.3.379
  19. Lee, K., & An, H. (2004). An analysis of sources of error and an estimation of reliability in science performance assessment using generalizability theory. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 7(1), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2004.7.1.255
  20. Lee, M. (2021). Research on teacher's perceptions regarding student evaluation and college admission system for the high school credit system. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 34(1), 207-230.
  21. Lee, M., Lee, J., Lee, S., Lee, Y., Kak, Y., Shin, Y., Kim, J., Park, S., Kim, K., Hwang, I., & Kim, K. (2016). Research and development of the assessment standards of the 2015 revised national science curriculum at the primary and middle school levels(KICE Research ReportCRC 2016-2-1). Chungbuk: KICE.e
  22. Lim, E. (2019). A study on teachers' competency of student assessment. Journal of Curriculum Evaluation, 22(1), 101-124. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2019.22.1.101
  23. Lim, T., & Hong, H. (2021). A qualitative meta-synthesis of the characteristics of the curriculum re-construction by teachers. Journal of Educational Studies, 52(3), 73-94.
  24. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. McMillan, J. H. (Ed.). (2013). SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  26. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  27. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2011, December 13). A plan to advance academic management in secondary schools to strengthen creativity and character education[Press release].
  28. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2013, August 28). Simplification of college admissions process and development plan for college admissions system[Press release].
  29. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015a). The general explanation of 2015 revised national curriculum. Notification No. 2015-74 [issue 1]. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  30. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015b). Science curriculum. Notification No. 2015-74 [issue 9]. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  31. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2018, August 17). Announcement of the direction of the reform of the university admission system and the direction of innovation in high school education in 2022[Press release].
  32. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2023, December 27). 2028 University examination system reform plan to prepare for future society [Press release].
  33. Noh, E., & Kim, Y. (2018). Analysis of the descriptive evaluation's status in middle school science: Focused on the item's type, subject unit, and evaluation object. Journal of Science Education, 42(2), 198-213. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2018.42.2.198
  34. Pak, S. (1998). A theoretical and practical linkage between constructivism and performance assessment. Social Studies Education, 31, 339-356.
  35. 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
  36. Song, J., & Ko, H. (2018). Analysis of high school mathematics teacher's recognitions about achievement standards assessment. Journal of Education & Culture, 24(1), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.24159/joec.2018.24.1.213
  37. Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4401_3
  38. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
  39. Yoo, K., Jeong, J., Kim, Y., & Kim, H. (2013). Understanding qualitative research methods. Seoul: Parkyoungstory.