Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Teacher Feedback on Process-Centered Assessment for Scientific Argumentation

과학적 논의를 활용한 과정중심평가에서의 교사 피드백 유형 사례 연구

  • Kim, Misook (Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Ryu, Suna (Korea National University of Education)
  • Received : 2020.03.16
  • Accepted : 2020.05.21
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigates the types of teacher feedback in the process-centered assessment for scientific argumentation. The process-centered assessment visualizes the process of developing scientific argumentation at a group level. Four teachers and 353 high school students participated in this study. We analyzed video recordings, the collaborative modeling-argumentation papers, and teachers' interviews. The findings indicate that the teachers provided feedback on scientific concepts and the development of small group argumentation. We presented a representative case for each category in detail. The study suggests that teachers' efficient use of feedback leads to improvement in students' self-regulation. This study contributes to providing specific and useful guidelines on the use of process-centered assessment for enhancing students' scientific argumentation.

이 연구는 과정중심평가에서 나타나는 교사 피드백 유형의 사례를 제시하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 과정중심평가의 실행을 위하여 과정을 시각화한 협력적 모델링-논의 활동을 실시하였고, B고등학교 교사 4명과 학생 353명이 연구에 참여하였다. 자료의 분석은 논의 수업을 촬영한 영상, 협력적 모델링-논의 활동지 및 교사의 인터뷰 내용을 대상으로 실시하였다. 피드백의 유형화는 과학적 개념에 대한 피드백과 논의 과정에 대한 피드백의 범주를 바탕으로 하였으며, 각 피드백의 유형에 해당하는 사례는 교사 4명을 중심으로 추출하여 수업의 맥락과 함께 구체적으로 제시하였다. 연구 결과, 과학적 개념에 대한 피드백 중 개념 준거 제시형, 사고 촉진형 피드백이 학생의 자기 점검을 유도하였으며, 논의 과정에 대한 피드백 중 맥락 강조형 피드백, 과정 준거 제시형 피드백, 롤모델형 피드백, 그리고 인식 탐색형 피드백이 학생의 자기 점검을 유도하였다. 연구 결과를 토대로 과정중심 평가를 성공적으로 실시하기 위한 피드백의 특성과 과정중심평가에서의 교사의 역할을 도출하였다. 이 연구의 결과는 과정중심평가에서의 교사 피드백에 대한 이해를 기반으로 과정중심평가를 실천하기 위한 구체적인 지침을 제공해 줄 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bell, B., Bell, N., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education (Vol. 12). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
  2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 9-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment. Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
  5. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  6. Brookhart, S. M., & Moss, C. M. (2015). How to give professional feedback. Educational Leadership, 72(7), 24-30.
  7. Chen, J., Wang, M., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. (2018). Using a threedimensional thinking graph to support inquiry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1239-1263. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21450
  8. Choi, S. K. (2018). A study on the practice of process-focused assessment: Focusing on perceptions of Korean language teachers and application methods of Korean language education. Journal of CheongRam Korean Language Education, 68, 129-176. https://doi.org/10.26589/jockle..68.201812.129
  9. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  10. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  11. Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., & Kurz, A. (2010). Research and strategies for adapting formative assessments for students with special needs. In H. Andrade, & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 15-29). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  12. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  13. Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2011). Exploring students' perceptions of feedback in relation to cognitive styles and culture. Research Papers in Education, 26, 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.561976
  14. Gonzalez-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Teachers' framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821-844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530
  15. Ha, H., & Kim, H.-B. (2017). Exploring responsive teaching's effect on students' epistemological framing in small group argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0063
  16. Ha, H., Lee, Y., & Kim, H.-B. (2018). Exploring the teachers' responsive teaching practice and epistemological framing in whole class discussion after small group argumentation activity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(1), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.11
  17. Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 263-285). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  18. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  19. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900210
  20. Hong, S. H., Chang, I., & Kim, T. S. (2017). Elementary school teachers' recognition of process-centered evaluation using consensual qualitative research (CQR). The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 47-69.
  21. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research (pp. 91-116). Dordrecht: Springer.
  22. Kim, J. (2018). The concept and educational implication of process-focused assessment. Journal of Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(20), 839-859.
  23. Kim, M., & Ryu, S. (2019). Development of scientific conceptual understanding through process-centered assessment that visualizes the process of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(5), 637-654.
  24. Kim, S. S., Kim, H. K., Seo, M. H., & Seong, T. J. (2015). Formative assessment for classroom practice. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  25. Kim, Y.-J., Lee, G.-G., & Hong, H.-G. (2019). A Case Study on Teacher's Process-centered Evaluation Competency(T-PEC): Focused on the Case of a Meddle-School/a High School Science Teacher. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(6), 695-706. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.6.695
  26. Kwak, H. S., Kang, O. R., & Kim, K. S. (2016). Research trends on dynamic assessment studies in Republic of Korea. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 27(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.20972/kjee.27.2.201606.1
  27. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analysis from the bottom up: the item level of analysis. In M. D. LeCompte, & J. J. Schensul (Eds.), Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data (pp. 67-83). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
  28. Lee, B., & Sohn, W. (2017). The effects of formative feedback on basic psychological needs and classroom engagement: Teacher-student relationship as a moderator. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 30(1), 123-143.
  29. Lee, H. (2015). Dynamization measure of feedback structure for improving learner's participation. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 15(3), 377-400.
  30. Lee, K.-H., Kang, H. Y., Ko, E.-S., Lee, D.-H., Shin, B., Lee, H. C., & Kim, S. H. (2016). Exploration of the direction for the practice of process-focused assessment. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 26(4), 819-834.
  31. McMillan, J. H. (2017). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice that enhance student learning and motivation. London: Pearson.
  32. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
  33. MOE (Ministry of Education) (2015a). Overview of elementary and secondary school curriculum (MOE Notification No. 2015-74 [supplement 1]). Sejong: Author.
  34. MOE (Ministry of Education) (2015b). Science curriculum (MOE Notification No. 2015-74 [supplement 9]). Sejong: Author.
  35. MOE & DMCOE (Ministry of Education & Daejeon Metropolitan City Office of Education) (2016). Development of teaching and learning materials for the 2015 revised curriculum-integrated science & science inquiry and experiment. Sejong: Author.
  36. MOE & KICE (Ministry of Education & Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) (2017). How do you assess the process? (KICE ORM 2017-19-1). Sejong: Author.
  37. 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
  38. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
  39. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Li, M. (2013). Analyzing teachers' feedback practices in response to students' work in science classrooms. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2013.793188
  40. Ryu, S., Kwak, Y., & Yang, S. H. (2018). Theoretical exploration of a process-centered assessment model for STEAM competency based on learning progressions. Journal of Science Education, 42(2), 132-147. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2018.42.2.132
  41. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2015). The influence of group dynamics on collaborative scientific argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(2), 335-351.
  42. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
  43. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
  44. Shepard, L. A. (2009). Commentary: Evaluating the validity of formative and interim assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00152.x
  45. Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213

Cited by

  1. 기계 학습을 활용한 논증 수준 자동 채점 및 논증 패턴 분석 vol.41, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.3.203