Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Impact of Peer Assessment Activities on High School Student's Argumentation in Argument-Based Inquiry

논의 기반 탐구 과학수업에서 동료평가 활동이 고등학생의 논의에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2015.03.24
  • Accepted : 2015.06.22
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study focused on the use of peer assessment activities to investigate its the impact on students' argumentation skills in argument-based inquiry. The participants of the study were 106 10th grade students (four classes). Two classes were assigned to the experimental group, and the other two classes were assigned to the comparative group. The experimental group was taught argument-based inquiry through the application of peer assessment activities. The comparative group was taught argument-based inquiry without peer assessments. At the claim and evidence stage, students were asked to evaluate whether peers' claims fit with the evidence and whether peers' explanation of the evidences validity was sufficient. The quality of argumentation used in the students' writing was different in each group. According to the analysis of the summary writing test, the results showed that the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score than the comparative group in argumentation components, including evidence and warrant/backing. In addition, the experimental group used better multimodal representation including explanation of evidence than the comparative group. The findings showed that argument-based inquiry applying peer assessment activities had an effect on the argumentation skills in students' writing.

이 연구에서는, 과학적 논의에서 학생들의 참여를 향상시킬 수 있는 방법으로 논의 기반 탐구 과학수업에 동료평가 활동을 적용하였으며, 글쓰기에서 나타나는 학생들의 논의를 분석하여 프로그램의 효과를 알아보았다. 이 연구는 광역시의 과학중점고등학교 학생들을 대상으로 1학년 두 학급(58명)을 실험집단으로, 다른 두 학급(58명)을 비교집단으로 선정하여 총 5개의 주제를 적용하였다. 논의 기반 탐구 과학수업의 전략을 바탕으로 동료평가를 적용한 수업 프로그램을 개발하고, 학생들에게 프로그램을 적용한 후, 학생들의 글쓰기에서 나타나는 'Big idea', '과학 개념', '논의', '수사적 구조' 항목을 비교하였다. 실험집단 학생들은 동료평가 활동을 적용한 논의 기반 탐구 과학수업을 처치하였으며, 비교집단 학생들은 동료평가 활동을 적용하지 않은 논의 기반 탐구 과학수업을 처치하였다. 사전과 사후 요약 글쓰기 검사(Summary Writing Test)에서 나타난 'Big idea', '과학 개념', '논의', '수사적 구조'의 평균을 공변량 분석으로 비교한 결과, 논의 항목의 평균이 비교집단에 비해 실험집단이 통계적으로 유의미하게 높은 것으로 나타났다. '논의' 항목의 세부 요소에 대한 평균에서 증거와 보장/보강요소가 비교집단에 비해 실험집단에서 통계적으로 유의미하게 높았다. 이러한 결과로부터 동료평가 활동을 적용한 논의 기반 탐구 과학수업은 논의 능력의 발달에 있어서 기존의 논의 기반 탐구 과학수업 비해 더 효과적임을 알 수 있었다. 동료평가 활동을 통해 지속적인 피드백을 받는 것이 논의와 글쓰기를 수행하는 학생들의 논의능력향상에 도움이 될 것으로 보이며, 동료평가 활동이 학생 논의의 스캐폴딩 도구로써 활용 가능성이 있다고 볼 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-Group Discussion in Physics : Peer Interaction Modes in Pairs and Fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1099::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Berland, L., & Lee, V. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.645086
  4. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
  5. Cho, H., & Nam, J. (2014). The Impact of the Argument-based Modeling Strategy using Scientific Writing implemented in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 583-592. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.6.0583
  6. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  7. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  8. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
  9. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  10. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. Argumentation in Science Education, 35, 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
  11. Fulwiler, B. (2008). Writing in science: How to scaffold instruction to support learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  12. Hand, B., Choi, A., Greenbowe, T., Schroeder, J., & Bennett, W. (2008). Examining the impact of student use of multiple-mode representations in constructing science arguments. annual international conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
  13. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students' understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343 -373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9012-3
  14. Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. (1997). Productive Discussion in Science: Gender Equity Through Electronic Discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022564817713
  15. Jang, K., Nam, J., & Choi, A. (2012). The Effects of Argument-Based Inquiry Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach on Argument Structure in Students' Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1099-1108. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1099
  16. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  17. Kelly, G., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<883::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I
  18. Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  19. Kelly, G., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2007). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. Argumentation in science education, 35, 137-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_7
  20. Keys, C., Hand, B., Prian, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  21. Kiuhara, S., Graham, S., & Hweken, L. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136-160. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013097
  22. Kollar, I. & Fischer F. (2012). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005
  23. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
  24. Kulatunga, U., Moog, R., & Lewis, J. (2013). Argumentation and Participation Patterns in General Chemistry Peer-Led Sessions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1207-1231. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21107
  25. Kwon, J., & Nam, J. (2013). A Study on the Change of the Beginning Science Teachers' Beliefs About a Lesson and Teaching Practice in Argument-Based Inquiry Using Science Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1329-1342. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1329
  26. Larson, A., Britt, M., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339-366. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366
  27. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x
  28. Liu, E., Lin, S., Chiu, C., & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246-251. https://doi.org/10.1109/13.940995
  29. Nam, J., Koh, M., Bak, D., Lim, J., Lee, D. & Choi, A. (2011). The Effects of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory on Preservice Science Teachers' Understanding of Chemistry Concepts and Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1077-1091.
  30. Nam, J., Kwak, K., Jang, K., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
  31. Nam, J., Lee, D., & Cho, H. (2011). The Impact of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory Programs on Multimodal Representation and Embeddedness in University Students' Science Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(6), 931-941.
  32. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  33. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  34. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  35. National Research Council. (2013). The next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  36. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy:Aship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559
  37. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe. London: Nuffield Foundation.
  38. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simmon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  39. Phillips, L., & Norris, S. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the readers' world meets the world on paper?. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290723
  40. Poock, J., Burke, K., Greenbowe, T., & Hand, B. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1371-1378. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p1371
  41. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 179-201.
  42. Purchase, H. (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 341-352.
  43. Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301671
  44. Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to Learn by Learning to Write During the School Science Laboratory: Helping Middle and High School Students Develop Argumentative Writing Skills as They Learn Core Ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643-670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069
  45. Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
  46. Smyth, K. (2004). The benefits of students learning about critical evaluation rather than being summatively judged. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 369-378.
  47. Spiller, D. (2009). Assessment matters: Self assessment and peer assessment. New Zealand: University of Waikato.
  48. Tavares, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Mortimer, E. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science & Education, 19(6-8), 573-598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9206-6
  49. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students' performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 186-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005
  51. Yore, L., Bisanz, G., & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018

Cited by

  1. 실험 설계에서 나타난 소집단 논변활동 탐색: 활동에 대한 인식적 목표와 인식적 이해를 중심으로 vol.36, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0045
  2. 고등학교 논의기반 탐구 과학수업에서 학생 평가활동이 반성적 사고에 미치는 영향 vol.36, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0347
  3. Analysis of Error Sources and Estimation of Reliability in Peer Review of Forced Connection Method-Sportscasting by Applying Generalizability Theory vol.27, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.24985/kjss.2016.27.2.345
  4. 고등학교 논의기반 탐구 과학수업에서 학생 평가활동이 주장과 증거 형성에 미치는 영향 vol.62, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2018.62.3.203
  5. 자유학기제 과학과 평가에 대한 교사의 인식과 실제 vol.39, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.1.143
  6. The Effect of Argument Mapping Supported with Peer Feedback on Pre-Service Teachers' Argumentation Skills vol.37, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1815107