DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of Survey Tool for the Scientific Character of Elementary Student

초등학생을 위한 과학인성 검사 도구 개발

  • Received : 2018.10.30
  • Accepted : 2018.12.18
  • Published : 2018.12.31

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a survey tool of scientific character for elementary student which connects science education and character education effectively by figuring out traits of elementary students' character being presented in teaching and learning context of elementary school science. For this, we adapted the theocratical model from the previous research which defined scientific character as the competencies being able to practice in concrete teaching and learning context of science. Based on this model, we developed the survey tool as 'Scientific Character Inventory for Elementary Student' to assess elementary students' scientific character as the competences to practice the virtues being pursued in the context of elementary school science and verified its reliability and validity. As a result of an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, we confirmed all the items could be summarized into 28 items and eight constructs such as scientific problem-solving, self-management, self-reflection, communication, interpersonal skill, community participation, global citizenship, and environmental ethics awareness. We found that minimum reliability coefficient of constructs was over than 0.5 and reliability coefficient of the total items was 0.878. And also, there was modest relationship between each construct and the total score of scientific character. These results show that the developed survey tool can be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of science character education. This study is meaningful in that it systematically reveals constructs of scientific character which can be raised in concrete context of science teaching and learning so as to suggest the survey tool to assess this.

이 연구는 초등학교 과학 교수학습 맥락에서 발현되는 초등학생의 인성적 특성을 파악하여 과학교육과 인성교육을 효과적으로 접목하는 초등학생용 과학인성 측정 도구를 개발하려는 목적으로 수행되었다. 이를 위해 과학인성을 구체적인 과학 교수학습의 맥락에서 실천할 수 있는 역량으로 정의하는 선행연구의 이론적 모형을 차용하였으며, 이에 기반하여 초등학생의 과학 교수학습 맥락 속에서 추구하는 덕목을 실천 할 수 있는 역량을 측정하는 '초등학생 과학인성 검사 도구'를 개발하고, 개발한 검사 도구의 타당성과 신뢰성을 검증하였다. 탐색적 및 확인적 요인분석 결과 초등학생 과학인성 검사 도구는 과학적 문제해결능력, 자기관리역량, 자기성찰역량, 의사소통역량, 대인관계역량, 공동체참여역량, 세계시민의식, 환경윤리의식 등의 8개 하위 구인으로 구성됨을 확인하였고 문항은 최종 28개문항으로 정리되었다. 최종 정리된 과학인성 검사 도구의 각 하위 구인별 신뢰도 계수는 최소 0.5 이상이고 검사 도구 전체로는 0.878의 신뢰도 지수를 나타내며, 산출된 하위 구인들과 전체 과학인성 점수 사이에 양호한 수준에서 상관이 있음을 확인하였다. 이러한 결과는 이 연구에서 개발한 검사 도구가 과학인성교육의 성과를 평가하는 도구로서 유용할 수 있음을 보여준다. 이 연구는 과학교과를 통해 기를 수 있는 인성의 구인들을 구체적인 과학 교수학습 맥락을 고려하여 체계적으로 밝히고 이를 평가하는 도구를 제안했다는 점에서 의미 있다.

Keywords

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_825_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Research process

Table 1. Structure of Scientific Character(Jung, Nam & Im, 2018)

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_825_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Structure of preliminary survey tool for scientific character

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_825_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Factor loadings, eigenvalues, and percentage of variance for preliminary survey items (n=512)

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_825_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Framework of Scientific Character Inventory for Elementary Student

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_825_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Internal consistency of Scientific Character Inventory for Elementary Student

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_825_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Factor correlation matrix obtained by factor analysis using varimax and oblique rotation on the 28 items

GHGOBX_2018_v38n6_825_t0006.png 이미지

References

  1. Bailey, L. H. (1903). The nature-study idea: Being an interpretation of the new school movement to put the child in sympathy with nature. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company.
  2. Berkowitz, M. (2014). Aligning Assessments in character education : Integrating outcome, implementation strategies, and assessment. Paper presented at the conference of Jubilee Centre, Oriel College, Oxford, January, 9-11, 2014.
  3. Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeilder (Eds.), The role of moral reasoning on semiscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117-138). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction : A social critique of the judgement of taste. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  5. Brickhouse, N., & Potter, J. (2001). Young women's scientific identity formation in an urban context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 965-980. [DOI: 10.1002/tea.1041]
  6. Chalmers, A. (1982). What is this thing called science?: An assessment of the nature and status of science and its method. St. Lucia Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
  7. Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. The American Psychologist, 66(7), 593-603. [DOI: 10.1037/a0022389]
  8. Chi, E., Lee, Y., & Do, S. (2014). Development and validation of the character index instrument. Journal of Moral & Ethics Education, l35, 151-174.
  9. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st Century. Journal of Research in science teaching, 48(6), 670-697. [DOI: 10.1002/tea.20424]
  10. Colby, A., James, J., & Hart, D. (1998). Competence and character through life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  11. Corrigan, D., Dillon, J., & Gunstone, R. (Eds.) (2007). The re-emergence of values in science education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  12. Coulson, R. (1992). Development of an instrument for measuring attitude of early childhood educators towards science. Research in Science Education, 22, 101-105. [DOI: 10.1007/BF02356884]
  13. Cunningham, C. A. (2005). A certain and reasoned art: the rise and fall of character education in America. In D. K. Lapsley, & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education(pp. 166-201). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  14. Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). Development of chemistry attitude and experiences questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 649-668. [DOI: 10.1002/tea.10103]
  15. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  16. Duan, W., Ho, S. M. Y., Yu, B., Tang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, T., & Yuen, T. (2012). Factor structure of the Chinese virtue questionnaire. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(2), 680-688. [DOI: 10.1177/1049731 512450074]
  17. Eick, C. J. (2012). Use of the outdoor classroom and nature-study to support science and literacy learning: A narrative case study of a third-grade classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 789-803. [DOI: 10.1007/s10972-011-9236-1]
  18. Elgin, C. (2011). Science, ethics and education. Theory and Research in Education, 9(3), 251-263. [DOI: 10.1177/1477878511419559]
  19. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Introducing statistical method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  20. Fowers, B. J. (2014). Toward programmatic research on virtue assesment: challenges and prospects. Theory and Research in Education, 12(3), 309-328. [DOI: 10.1177/1477878514546064]
  21. Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62(4), 509-515. [DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730620411]
  22. Goldsmith-Conley, E. (1999). School culture before character education: A model for change. Action in Teacher Education, 20(4), 48-58. [DOI: 10.1080/01626620.1999.10462934]
  23. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Haeffel, G. J., & Howard, G. S. (2010). Self-report: Psychology's four-letter word. The American Journal of Psychology, 123(2), 188-191. [DOI: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.2.0181]
  25. Harrison, T., & Davison, I. (2014). Assessing interventions designed to improve understanding of virtues. Paper presented at the conference of Jubilee Centre. Oriel College, Oxford, January 9-11, 2014.
  26. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of science education, 25(6), 645-670. [DOI: 10.1080/09500690305021]
  27. Hong, H., Yoon, H., & Woo, A. (2012). Science teachers' recognition of creativity-personality education applied to science teaching. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 16(4), 887-908. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2012.16.4.887
  28. Hwang, J. (1998). Learning in school and evaluation [학교학습과 교육평가]. Seoul: Gyoyukgwahacsa.
  29. Hyun, J., Han, M., & Im, S. (2015). Development and validation of primary and secondary school students' character test. The Korean Psychological Association, 29(1), 83-106.
  30. Jeong, C. (2015). Theories and practices of character education. Paju: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
  31. Jeong, S., & Baek, S. (2011). Comparative research between elementary school student's self-reported evaluation and teacher's observation evaluation on the practical giftedness of Mathematics. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 24(3), 549-565.
  32. Johnson, K. (2013). The nature-study movement. Green Teacher, 99, 16-20.
  33. Jung, W., Nam, I., & Im, S. (2018). Science teachers' perception on scientific character instruction. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 68(6), 611-622. [DOI: 10.3938/NPSM.68.611]
  34. Kang, E., Jeon, R., Kim, J., Kim, H., Park, J., Son, J., Cho, H., & Nam, N. (2018). Science education experts' perceptions about necessity and elements of character education in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4), 555-563. [DOI: 10.14697/jkase.2018.38.4.555]
  35. Kim, S., & Choi, T. (2015). Research methodology in education [교육연구방법론]. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  36. Kim, S., & Kim, H. (2016). Development of a science ethicality test for elementary school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(1), 1-13. [DOI: 10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0001]
  37. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: New York: Routledge, 1994.
  38. Krosnick, H. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. de Leeus, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz, & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 141-152). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  39. Kwon, J. (2017). The development and effect of collaborative problem-solving instruction model for improving character competence in science education. Doctoral dissertation, Pusan National University.
  40. Kwon, M., & Lee, Y. (2017). A comparison study of self-report questionnaire, teacher's observation assessment, observation assessment within character education program for character assessment. Journal of Ethics Education Studies, 44, 157-190. [DOI: 10.18850/JEES.2017.44.06]
  41. Korean Educational Development Institute (2014a). Promoting core competency education and building innovative learning ecosystems for fostering talent for the future(II)[미래 인재 양성을 위한 핵심 역량 교육 및 혁신적 학습 생태계 구축(II)]. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.
  42. Korean Educational Development Institute (2014b). KEDI character survey implementation outline [KEDI 인성검사 실시 요강]. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.
  43. Korean Educational Development Institute (2015). A study on the mid-long-term development plan for character education improvement [인성교육 진흥 중장기 발전 방안 연구]. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.
  44. Lee, H. (2012). A investigation of method effects associated with negatively worded items and positively worded items on self-report surveys. Doctoral dissertations, Korea University.
  45. Lee, Y., Kang, H., & Kim, S. (2013). A validation study of the character index instrument for college students. Journal of Moral & Ethics Education, 31, 261-282.
  46. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316. [DOI: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R]
  47. Lickona, T. (1998). A more complex analysis is needed. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(6), 449-455.
  48. Lim, M., & Jang, S. (2016). An analysis on the relationship between key competencies and subjects of the 2015 revised national curriculum: using semantic network analysis. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(10), 749-771. [DOI: 10.22251/jlcci.2016.16.10.749]
  49. Lind, K. K. (1991). Exploring science in early childhood: A developmental approach. Delmar Publishers Inc: New York.
  50. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012). Vision establishment of character education [인성교육 비전수립 및 실천방안 연구]. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
  51. Nam I., & Im, S. (2017). Analysis of trends of character related research in science education, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(3), 493-505. [DOI: 10.14697/jkase.2017.37.3.493]
  52. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  53. OECD (2003). Definition and selection of competencies: Theoretical and conceptual foundation. OECD Press.
  54. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020 [DOI: 10.1002/tea.20035]
  55. Osyeramn, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumption and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 3-72. [DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3]
  56. Park, J. (2014). Humanity education and teaching school subjects: Is it possible and necessary to teach the humanity? The Korean Society for the Study of Moral Education, 26(1), 177-194. [DOI: 10.17715/jme.2014.04.26.1.177 ]
  57. Park, S., & Huh, S. (2012). A study for development of the integrated humanity scale for adolescent. The Journal of Child Education, 21(3), 35-47.
  58. Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Character strengths and happiness among young children: Content analysis of parental descriptions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 323-341. [DOI: 10.1007/s10902-005-3648-6]
  59. Park, S., & Park, J. (2015). A study on educational methods of Nature-Study for science education through nature. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 59(1), 45-53. [DOI: 10.5012/jkcs.2015.59.1.45]
  60. Pennock, R. T., & O'Rourke, M. (2017). Developing a scientific virtue-based approach to science ethics training. Science and Engineering Ethics 23(1) 243-262. [DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9757-2 ]
  61. Pennock, R. T. (2015). Fostering a culture of scientific integrity: legalistic vs. Scientific virtue-based approaches. Professional Ethics Report. 28(2) 1-3. [DOI: 10.1126/srhrl.acr8257]
  62. Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics: A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0018-1
  63. Posey, J., Davidson, M., & Korpi, M. (2003). Character education evaluation toolkit. In K. Beland (Ed.), Eleven Principles sourcebook: How to achieve quality education in P-12 schools. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
  64. QCA (2007). The national curriculum: UK lower secondary (k3) curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107-135.
  65. Ravid, R. (1994). Practical statistics for educators. MD: University Press of America.
  66. Reiss, M. J. (1999) Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34(1), 115-140. [DOI: 10.1080/03057269908560151]
  67. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
  68. Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., & Krueger, R. F. (Eds.). (2009) Handbook of research methods in personality psychology, Guilford Press.
  69. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed., Vol, 2: Cognition, Perception and Language (PP. 679-744). New York: Wiley
  70. Ryu, C., & Jin, H. (2006). Analysis of character virtue factors for character education. The Journal of Education, 26(1), 139-166.4
  71. Sardjijo, W., & Ali, H. (2017). Integrating character building into mathematics and science courses in elementary school. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(6), 1547-1552.
  72. Snow, C. P. (1963). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York : Cambridge University Press.
  73. Son, B. (1995). Character education: Need, style, way. Philosophy and Reality, 27, 60-69.
  74. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  75. Tuttle, F. B., & Becker L. A. (1981). Characteristic and identification of G/T students (2nd ed.). Washington D.C.: NEA.
  76. Van Aaldersen-Smeets, Si. I., & van der Molen, J. W. (2013). Measuring primary teachers' attitudes toward teaching science: Development of the dimensions of attitude toward science(DAS) instrument. International Journal of Science Education 35(4), 577-600. [DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.755576]
  77. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
  78. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
  79. Yates, L., & Collins, C. (2008). Australian curriculum 1975-2005: What has been happening to knowledge? Paper presented at symposium: Australian Curriculum as 'Really Useful' Educational Research. Brisbane, Australia.
  80. Yerrick, R., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Introduction: The role of language in science learning and teaching. In R. Yerrick & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research, (pp 1-18). New Jersey, NJ: Lawremce Erlbaum Associations, Inc.
  81. Yu, B. (2015). A study on virtue education approach and practical principles in character education. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 26(1), 303-322.
  82. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3). 357-377. [DOI: 10.1002/sce.20048]
  83. Zuckerman, M., Kernis, M. H., Guarnera, S. M., Murphy, J. F., & Rapoport, L. (1983) The egocentric bias: Seeing oneself as cause and target of others' behavior. Journal of Personality, 51(4), 621-630. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00869.x ]

Cited by

  1. 초등학교 저학년 학생의 음주예방행위 예측변수 측정도구 개발 - Ajzen의 계획적 행위이론 기반 - vol.50, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2020.50.2.210