Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Secondary School Science Teachers' Actual and Preferred Types of Assessment

중등 과학교사의 과학 평가 실태와 지향

  • Received : 2015.07.23
  • Accepted : 2015.08.24
  • Published : 2015.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, we investigated secondary school science teachers' actual and preferred types of assessment with focus on the purpose and the method of assessment. Participants were 92 secondary school science teachers. We developed a questionnaire asking science teachers about the types of assessment they have actually used and the preferred types of assessment for hypothetical situations that have been generally reported as the prototypical examples of constructivist assessment. The characteristics of the science teachers such as teaching career, experience on in-service training about assessment, and perspective toward constructivist assessment were also examined. The analysis of the actually implemented assessments in their responses revealed that most science teachers tended to aim at traditional purposes such as summative assessment, and that multiple-choice was the most prevailing assessment method followed by experiment, report, and essay. For hypothetical assessment situations, science teachers exhibited their preferences for various types of constructivist assessment methods, whereas their purposes of the assessment still remained to be traditional. The science teachers who have had a relatively constructivist perspective toward assessment showed a statistically significant preference for using formative assessment than their counterparts in the hypothetical assessment situations.

이 연구에서는 중등 과학교사들이 실시하는 과학 평가와 교사들이 지향하는 평가의 사례를 목적과 방법의 측면에서 조사하였다. 연구대상은 중등 과학교사 92명으로, 학교에서 교사가 실시했던 평가 사례와 구성주의적 평가를 실시할 수 있는 전형적인 가상 상황에 대하여 교사가 지향하는 평가 사례를 조사하기 위한 검사지를 개발하였다. 교사의 경력, 평가 관련 교육 경험의 유무, 구성주의적 과학 평가관 수준 등 교사의 특성 변인도 조사하였다. 교사들이 실시하는 과학 평가사례를 분석한 결과, 대부분의 교사는 총괄평가와 같은 전통적인 목적의 평가를 실시하는 경향이 있었고, 선다형 평가와 실험, 보고서, 논술형 평가가 가장 많이 사용되는 평가 방법이었다. 전형적인 평가 상황에서 과학교사들은 다양한 유형의 구성주의적 평가 방법을 지향한 반면, 여전히 전통적 평가 목적에서는 벗어나지 못하였다. 이때, 구성주의적 과학 평가관 수준이 높은 교사가 형성평가를 지향하는 비율은 구성주의적 과학 평가관 수준이 낮은 교사들에 비해 유의미하게 높았다.

Keywords

References

  1. Atjonen, P. (2014). Teachers' views of their assessment practice. The Curriculum Journal, 25(2), 238-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2013.874952
  2. Baek, S.-G. (2000). Principles of performance assessment. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
  3. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  4. Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 11(3), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000304609
  5. Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000333904
  6. Chinn, C. A., & Melhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  7. Cho, H.-H., & Choi, K. (2002). Science education: Constructivist perspectives. Journal of the Korean Association for in Science Education, 22(4), 820-836.
  8. Cho, H.-M. (2001). An assessment tool from the view point of constructivism. The Journal of Education, 18, 183-197.
  9. Choi, M. (2001). Teacher's understanding on constructivism and applying into their teaching: Case studies. Korean Association for Educational Information and Broadcasting, 7(1), 5-28.
  10. Davis, D. S., & Neitzel, C. (2011). A self-regulated learning perspective on middle grades classroom assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(3), 202-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003690148
  11. Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504266138
  12. Hanna, G. S., & Dettmer, P. A. (2004). Assessment for effective teaching: Using context-adaptive planning. Boston, MA: Pearson A&B.
  13. James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: assessment and learning practices and values. The Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170600792712
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2014.38.1.168
  15. Jo, S.-S. (2003). The effect of corrective feedback types on academic achievement and learning attitude in formative assessment. (Master's thesis). Sogang University.
  16. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
  17. Kang, D., & Yum, S. (2014). Elementary school teachers' perception and implementation of formative assessment. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 14(2), 27-43.
  18. Kim, C.-J. (2012). Portfolio instruction and portfolio assessment. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
  19. Kim, D.-J. (2005). Analysis of teachers perception on performance assessment and their implementing practices. (Doctoral dissertation). Kyungnam University.
  20. Kim, S. (2002). A study on the teacher's competence for classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 15(1), 67-85.
  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.
  22. Kim, S.-W., & Hyun, M.-S. (2005). The study on the recognition of science teachers about the general matters of performance assessment and the appropriate performance assessment methods in middle school science curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 9(2), 213-232.
  23. Kim, Y.-.H., Yoon, K.-S., & Kwon, D.-K. (2010). Analysis of summative evaluation objectives in middle school biology based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 164-174. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2010.34.1.164
  24. Kwak, Y., Kim, C.-J., Lee, Y.-R., & Jeong, D.-S. (2006). Investigation on elementary and secondary students' interest in science. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(3), 260-268.
  25. Lee, J. (2003). Study of middle school teachers' perception and competence in the educational assessment of students. (Master's thesis). Ewha Womans University.
  26. Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development [MEHRD] (1997). 7th national curriculum for elementary and middle schools. Notification No. 1997-15.
  27. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST] (2011). 2009 revised national curriculum of science. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
  28. Nam, J., Choi, J., Ko, M., Kim, J., Kang, S., Lim, J., & Kong, Y. (2005). The effects of formative assessment-based teaching and learning strategy on the students' science concept understanding, motivation and metacognitive ability in middle school. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 49(3), 311-320. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2005.49.3.311
  29. Nam, J.-H., Seung, E.-S., Um, J.-H., Kim, K.-H., & Choi, B.-S. (1999). The science teachers' perceptions and the status of formative assessment in science teaching. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 43(6), 720-727.
  30. Noh, T., Yoon, J., & Kang, S. (2009). The investigation of elementary school teachers' perceptions toward constructivist science assessment and their relationship with related variables. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(3), 352-360.
  31. Oh, H.-S., & Lee, K.-Y. (2006). An exemplary analysis of paper and pencil test items of current secondary school science. The Journal of Curriculum & Evaluation, 9(1), 405-424.
  32. Park, J. (2013a). Resurgence of formative assessment and the educational implication. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 26(4), 719-738.
  33. Park, J. (2013b). Self-rating of elementary teachers' student assessment literacy. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 30(3), 357-376. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2013.30.3.357
  34. Park, S.-M. (1998). A theoretical and practical linkage between constructivism and performance assessment. Social Studies Education, 31, 339-356.
  35. Park, Y. (2009). A study on teacher's practicing of formative assessment in social studies classroom of elementary school. Theory and Research in Citizenship Education, 41(4), 51-79.
  36. Popham, W. J. (2010). Unlearned lessons: Six stumbling blocks to our school's success. In C. T. Chauncey (Ed.), Strategic priorities for school improvement (pp. 9-16). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
  37. Sato, M., Coffey, J., & Moorthy, S. (2005). Two teachers making assessment for learning their own. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500135996
  38. Seo, J.-G. (2008). Research on the actual condition of the performance assessment in the high school science subject: Focused on experimental practice. (Master's thesis). Gyeongsang National University.
  39. Seung, E., Nam, J., & Choi, B. (2000). The characteristics of formative assessments practiced in middle school science teaching form a constructivist perspective. Journal of the Korean Association for in Science Education, 20(3), 455-467.
  40. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2011). Teachers' critical incidents: Ethical dilemmas in teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 648-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.003
  41. Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Tomita, M. K., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning; a collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347647
  42. Son, J.-S. (2011). A study on science teachers' perception of experiment and practice performance assessment in secondary school. (Master's thesis). Korea National University of Education.
  43. Thomas, L., Deaudelin, C., Desjardins, J., & Dezutter, O. (2011). Elementary teachers' formative evaluation practices in an era of curricular reform in Quebec, Canada. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.590793
  44. Thorndike, R. M. (1997). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  45. Tierney, R. D. (2006). Changing practices: Influences on classroom assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(3), 239-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940601035387
  46. von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In Tobin, K. (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
  47. Wang, J.-R., Kao, H.-L., & Lin, S.-W. (2010). Preservice teachers' initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 522-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.014
  48. Wilson, L. (1992). Children as evaluators. Teaching Pre K-8, 23(1), 64-67.
  49. Winterbottom, M., Brindley, S., Taber, K., Fisher, L., Finney, J., & Riga, R. (2008). Conceptions of assessment: Trainee teachers' practice and values. The Curriculum Journal, 19(3), 193-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170802357504
  50. Yang, I.-H., Na, J.-C., Lim, S.-M., Lim, J.-K., & Choi, H.-D. (2008). An analysis of elementary schools' science test items by Klopfer's taxonomy of educational objectives: Focusing on the first term of the 5th grade. Elementary Science Education, 27(3), 221-232.

Cited by

  1. 중등 예비화학교사의 수업 계획에서 교사용 지도서의 활용 방식 분석 vol.36, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0681
  2. 중등 예비 화학교사의 지필평가 문항 제작 과정에서 고려된 교과교육학 지식(PCK) 구성 요소 사이의 상호작용 vol.36, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.5.0769
  3. 발성 사고법을 이용한 예비 화학 교사의 지필평가 문항 제작 과정의 특징 분석 vol.37, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0225
  4. 중등 예비 화학교사의 수행평가 개발 과정에서 나타나는 교과교육학 지식(PCK) 요소의 특징 vol.37, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0291
  5. 구성주의적 수행평가 워크숍에 참여한 예비 화학교사의 수행평가 과제 개발 과정에서 고려된 교과교육학 지식(PCK) 구성 요소 및 연계의 특징 vol.38, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.4.505
  6. Comparative Analysis of Life Science Items of Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test and Regular High School Examinations vol.46, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2018.46.3.346
  7. 2009 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 교사용 지도서에 나타난 교과교육학 지식(PCK) 요소 분석 vol.62, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2018.62.5.386
  8. 중등 예비 화학교사의 해결자·청취자 활동을 통한 지필평가 문항 제작 과정에서 언어적 행동 및 상호작용 vol.38, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.5.611
  9. 자유학기제 과학과 평가에 대한 교사의 인식과 실제 vol.39, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.143
  10. 2015 개정 과학과 교육과정에 제시된 중학교 1학년 성취기준과 과학 1 교과서에 포함된 활동과 평가 문항 분석: 과학과 핵심역량 중심으로 vol.63, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2019.63.3.196
  11. 초등교사와 예비초등교사의 과학평가 실태와 지향 vol.39, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.1.15