Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.21796/jse.2020.44.1.38

Comparison of Textbook Objectives and Paper Test Items Based on Physics I 'Space-Time and the Universe'  

Yang, Donghyuk (Kyungpook National University)
Yun, Eunjeong (Kyungpook National University)
Park, Yunebae (Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Science Education / v.44, no.1, 2020 , pp. 38-49 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the paper test items of high school physics I 'Space-Time and the Universe' unit and how similar the textbook goals are to the cognitive and content areas. This study analyzed paper test items used from nine high schools and KICE about the unit. In order to analyze the distribution of items, they were classified by contents and by cognitive level which is knowledge, comprehension and application levels. As conclusion, application level items were a few, and unbalanced contents distribution appeared in school items. In comparison through the ratio difference index, the objectives of the textbook and the school items were very similar, but the similarities were low when comparing the school items with the KICE items. Based on the above, we suggested some ways to increase the validity of test items.
Keywords
physics; test items; cognitive domain; textbooks;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Song, J. (2003). An analysis of content validity of teacher-made summative evaluation. (Master's thesis). Korean National University of Education.
2 Yang, D. (2018). Classifying exam questions of the first chapter of high school Physics I for thinking and research skill level. (Master's thesis). Kyungpook National University.
3 Yang, J. (2016). An analysis of the reluctance to select Physics I among high school students in the science and engineering course after the 2009 revised national curriculum. (Master's thesis). Inha University.
4 Bloom, B., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook I: The cognitive domain. London, England: Longmans.
5 Jeong, J. (2016). An examination on perception of teachers for two newly introduced chapters of 2009 revised Physics I curriculum. (Master's thesis). Korean National University of Education.
6 Buick, J. M. (2011). Physics assessment and the development of a taxonomy. European Journal of Physics Education, 2(1), 5-10.
7 Choi, J., & Shin, J. (2013). Case study about high school physics teachers' implementation of the 2009 revised national curriculum. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 63(10), 1085-1093.   DOI
8 Davila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97-101.   DOI
9 Kim, S., Choi, E., & Paik, S. (2015). An analysis of characteristic and factor about middle school science descriptive assessment items. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 59(5), 445-453.   DOI
10 Kim, S., & Kang, C. (2017). Analysis on the content validity of Korean geography subject college scholastic ability test on the national curriculum achievement standards. Journal of the Korean Association of Regional Geography, 23(1), 195-212.   DOI
11 Kim, Y., Kim, I., Kim, S., Park, B., Chung, B., Park, J., Kim, J., & Kwon, G. (2011). Physics I, II. Seoul: Gyohaksa.
12 Kim, Y., Yoon, K., & Kwon, D. (2010). Analysis of summative objectives in middle school biology based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 164-174.   DOI
13 Kwak, S., Ryu, S., Kim, D., Ahn, J., Lee, O., Kim, J., Nam, K., & Kim, I. (2011). Physics I, II. Seoul: Chonjaegyoyuk.
14 Lee, H. (2017). Examinations in Korea. Paju: Dasan.
15 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2009). 2009 revised science curriculum.
16 Lee, J. (2013). A survey of physics teachers' opinions about the 2009 revised high-school 'Physics I' curriculum and test. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 63(4), 400-410.   DOI
17 Lee, K., Cho, H., Kwon, S., Kim, H., & Yoon, H. (2013). Analysis of the characteristics of multiple-choice test items used in integrated science assessment: Focused on the case of four high school. Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 278-293.   DOI
18 Lee, S., & Choi, H. (2013). What makes students select Physics I on the college scholastic ability test?. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 16(1), 231-251.   DOI
19 Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015). 2015 revised science curriculum.
20 Oh, H., & Lee, K. (2006). An exemplary analysis of paper and pencil test items of current secondary school science. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 9(1), 405-424.   DOI
21 Paik, S., Lee, E., Kim, C., Han, J., Song, Y., Kim, Y., & Chung, J. (2008). Analysis of the content validity of the achievement evaluation items on the 'Water' chapter in the high school Chemistry I course. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 12(1), 55-66.   DOI
22 Park, C. (2014). Formative assessment and teacher education. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 27(4), 987-1007.
23 Park, H. (2016). A survey on the conditions of middle school science evaluation. Teacher Education Research, 55(3), 389-398.   DOI
24 Park, S., & Lee, B. (2012). Analysis of curriculum and contents relevance in physical textbooks of the 2009 revised science curriculum. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 62(10), 1060-1074.   DOI