영재교육연구 (Journal of Gifted/Talented Education)

한국영재학회 (The Korean Society for the Gifted)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

상급 학년 수준 시험을 활용한 과학고 신입생들의 학업성취도 특성 연구

Analysis of academic achievements on above-level testing of newly entering students in science specialized high schools

  • 투고 : 2015.01.16
  • 심사 : 2015.02.26
  • 발행 : 2015.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 과학고 신입생들을 대상으로 수학, 물리, 화학, 영어 교과에서의 상급 학년 성취 수준을 평가하였다. 상급 학년 수준 시험은 천장효과를 배제한 성취수준을 평가할 수 있는 도구로 대학수학능력시험의 동형검사지를 개발 활용하였다. 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 과학고 신입생들의 수학, 과학 교과 학업성취도는 응시생의 50%이상이 수능 5등급이내에 위치하고 영어교과는 19.3%미만의 학생들이 5등급이내의 성적을 나타내어 수학이나 과학보다는 상대적으로 낮았다. 둘째, 과목 내 단원별 학업성취도가 높고 낮은 단원을 보면, 수학은 '행렬' 단원이 높고 '수열' 단원이 낮았다. 미적분과 통계 과목은 '함수의 극한과 연속성' 단원이 높고, '통계' 단원이 가장 낮았다. 물리 과목에서는 '전기와 자기' 단원이 중간 수준, '파동과 입자' 단원이 하위수준이었다. 화학 과목에서는 '생활 속의 화합물' 단원이 높고, '공기' 단원이 낮았다. 영어 교과에서는 읽기 영역의 '실용문'이 매우 높았으며, 쓰기 영역의 '문장'이 낮았다. 결론적으로 상급 학년 수준 시험은 학생들의 수준에 맞는 개별화된 프로그램을 적용하는데 좋은 방안이라 할 수 있다.

This study analyzed the academic achievements on above-level testing of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English in newly entering students of science specialized high schools. It can be expected that newly students of science high specialized schools have reached ceiling level in the middle school mathematics and science academic scores. Above-level testing(or off-level testing) is a test tool used to evaluate student's ability which are above-grade level. In this study, above-level testing tools were used to develop the same type examination paper of the 2013 Korean College Scholastic Ability Test(CSAT) in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English. The conclusions of this study were as follow: First, the academic achievement level of science specialized high school freshmen were higher the average level of general high school senior because that over 50% of them are within the 5 grade of CSAT in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. In English, 19.3% science specialized high school freshmen have reached within the 5 grade of CSAT. Second, as a result of examining characteristics of academic achievement with respect to units of subjects, in mathematics, it was showed that the academic achievement of 'continuity and limit of a function' unit was higher, 'statistics' unit was lower. In physics, the academic achievement of 'Electricity and Magnetism' unit was higher, 'Waves and particles' unit was lower. In chemistry, the academic achievement of 'compounds in life' unit was higher, 'Air' unit was lower. In English, the academic achievement of 'practical sentence' of reading area was higher, 'Sentence' of writing area was lower. In conclusion, above-level testing provided a good strategy for identifying and determining appropriate programming interventions for gifted students who are two or more grade levels above their age-mates in achievements, aptitude, or ability.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 안도희․홍아정․조석희(2011). 과학고 졸업생들의 과거와 현재: 과학고 학업성취수준에 따른 전문 과학분야의 성취 비교. 영재교육연구, 21(3), 631-658. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2011.21.3.631
  2. 조석희․오영주(1997). 영재교육정책. 서울: 한국교육개발원.
  3. 한종하(1986). 과학영재교육의 이론적 기저. 영재교육에 관한 학술세미나. 서울: 한국교육개발원.
  4. Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Multi potentiality among the intellectually gifted: "It was never there and already it's vanishing." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.65
  5. Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911433946
  6. Barnett, L. B., & Durden, W. G. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 161-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700405
  7. Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 430-441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.430
  8. Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451-484.
  9. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 20,000: A 10 year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 718-729.
  10. Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Benbow, C. P., Assoulin, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed.) (pp. 204-218). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  11. Minnema, J., Thurlow, M., Bielinski, J., & Scott, J. (2000). Past and present understandings of out-of-level testing: A research synthesis. Out-of-level testing report 1. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446409)
  12. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Kulieke, M. J. (2008). Using off-level testing and assessment for gifted and talented students. In VanTassel-Baska, L. J.(Ed.). Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 89-106). Waco, TX: Pruforck Press.
  13. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mounsfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press Inc.
  14. Stanley, J. C. (1976). The case for extreme educational acceleration of intellectually brilliant youths. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 66-75.
  15. Stanley, J. C. (1996). In the beginning: The study fo mathematically precocious youth. In Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (Eds.) Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 225-235). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  16. Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. P. (1981-1982). Using the SAT to find intellectually talented seventh graders. College Board Review, 122, 2-7, 26-27.
  17. Swiatek, M. A. (2007). The talent search model: Past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 320-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306318
  18. Thomson, D., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2014). The increasingly important role of off-level testing in the context of the talent development perspective. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513509619
  19. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Nassab, C. A., & Wittig, C. V. (2004). Enhancing & expanding gifted programs - The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Pruforck Press.
  20. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). The use of aptitude tests for identifying the gifted: The talent search concept. Roeper Review, 8, 185-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198609552970
  21. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Key issues and problems in secondary programming. In VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd Ed.)(pp241-259). Denver: Love.
  22. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484
  23. Warne, R. T. (2012). History and development of above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 34, 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.686425
  24. Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vacational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785-794. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.785