Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.5.401

Exploring Cognitive Achievement Characteristics by Group of Achievement Levels in the PISA 2018 Science Domain and Education for Cultivating Epistemic Knowledge in the National Curriculum  

Lee, Shinyoung (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.41, no.5, 2021 , pp. 401-414 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the cognitive achievement characteristics by group of achievement levels in the PISA 2018 science domain compared to the results of the PISA 2015, and to compare and analyze the 'epistemic' knowledge in the revised curriculum 2009 and in the revised curriculum 2007. The average correctness rates in PISA 2015 and PISA 2018 were analyzed by sub category of the evaluation frame in the PISA scientific domain. In the competencies domain, especially, the average correct answer rates of 'evaluating and designing scientific inquiry' were the lowest in medium and lower groups, but the rates rose in all achievement groups compared to PISA 2015, which is encouraging. Although the answer rates were low for both 'living system' knowledge and 'epistemic' knowledge in the knowledge domain, the average answer rates of the upper and middle groups increased in 'epistemic' knowledge compared to PISA 2015. The changes in the curriculum experienced by students participating in PISA were analyzed in relation to the 'evaluating and designing scientific inquiry' competency and 'epistemic' knowledge, which increased in average correct answer rates. In terms of understanding science, the "What is science?" unit that explicitly presents epistemic knowledge, and nature of model in inquiry activities, were explicitly presented in the revised curriculum 2009. In terms of understanding the process of justifying scientific knowledge, the number of inquiry activities increased, scientific explanations based on experimental results strengthened, and the "Science and Human Civilization" unit was introduced to help students to understand STS while simultaneously conducting arguments. These findings confirm the educational performance of groups by achievement level in the PISA 2018 scientific domain and suggest that the direction of education relates to epistemic knowledge in Korea's Science curriculum.
Keywords
PISA 2018 science domain; Cognitive Achievement Characteristics in PISA 2018; Group of Achievement Levels in PISA 2018; Epistemic Knowledge; Scientific literacy;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kim, S. & Shin, D. (2019). Exploring the possibilities of character education in various interaction-based mentor program: Focusing on "Becoming a science teacher" activity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(1), 13-33.   DOI
2 Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
3 Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry
4 Kim, H. (2018). Discussion on the characteristics and framework for PISA science assessment. School Science Journal, 12(4), 389-398.   DOI
5 Kim, M., & Kim, H. B. (2009). Analysis of the types of scientific models in the life domain of science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(4), 407-424.
6 Ku, J., Kim, S., Rim, H., Park, H., & Han, J. A. (2015). Programme for international student assessment(PISA 2015) main survey technical report. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. RRE 2015-6-2.
7 Giere, R. N. (1999) Using models to represent reality. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
8 Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.   DOI
9 American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Bechmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
10 Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.   DOI
11 Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in 3 part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291.   DOI
12 Mun, G., Mun, J., Cho, M., Kim, S. Y., & Joseph Krajcik (2012). Development and application of 21st century scientific literacy evaluation framework on Korean high school science text books. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 789-804.   DOI
13 Lee, S., Cho, S., Koo, N., Lee, I., & Lee, S. (2020). An Analysis of the Achievement Characteristics of Korean Students in the Results of PISA 2018: Focusing on the Characteristics of Each Achievement Level and Students with Academic Resilience. RRE 2020-7.
14 Lee, Y. H. (2013). Nature of science (NOS) presentation in the introductory chapters of Korean high school life science I textbooks using a qualitative content analysis. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(1), 173-197.   DOI
15 Ministry of Education [MOE] (2015). Science curriculum. Notification No. 2015-74 [issue 9]. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
16 OECD (2019b). PISA 2018 Results: What students know and can do (Vol. I). OECD Publishing.
17 Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18 Yang, F. Y., Liu, S. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Chiou, G. L., Wu, H. K., Wu, Y. T., Chen, S., Liang, J. C., Tsai, M. J., Lee, S. W. Y., Lee, M. H., Lin, C. L., Chu, R. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). High-school students' epistemic knowledge of Science and its relation to learner factors in Science learning. Research in Science Education, 48(2), 325-344.   DOI
19 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies.
20 Park, J. (2016). Discussions about the three aspects of scientific literacy: Focus on integrative understanding, settlement in curriculum, and civic education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 413-422.   DOI
21 Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2, pp. 697-726). New York, NY: Routledge.
22 Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.   DOI
23 Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669.   DOI
24 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.   DOI
25 Brown, B., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89(5), 779-802.   DOI
26 Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109-2139.   DOI
27 Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.   DOI
28 Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
29 Cho, S., Ku, N. W., Kim, H., Lee, S., & Lee, I. (2018). OECD programme for international students assessment: Implementation report of PISA 2018. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. ORM 2018-87.
30 Cho, S., Ku, N. W., Kim, H., Lee, S., & Lee, I. (2019). OECD Programme for International Students Assessment: An analysis of PISA 2018 Result. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. RRE 2019-11.
31 Kim, J., Min, B. M., Lee, Y., Son, Y. A., Kim, D. R., & Kim, T. H. (2013). Comparative analysis of the nature of science reflected on the elementary school science textbooks of Korea, Japan, and the U.S. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(2): 619-644.   DOI
32 Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development (2007). Science curriculum. Notification No. 2007-79 [issue 9]. Seoul: Ministry of the Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development.
33 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2011). Science curriculum. Notification No. 2011-361 [issue 9]. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
34 National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35 OECD (2019a). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing.
36 Rim, H. (2013). The Trends and what's new in the OECD PISA and its items. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(4), 971-990.   DOI
37 Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y.., Hug, B.., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.   DOI
38 Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516.   DOI