Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Development of Scientific Conceptual Understanding through Process-Centered Assessment that Visualizes the Process of Scientific Argumentation

과학적 논의 과정을 시각화한 과정중심평가에서의 과학적 개념 이해 발달

  • Kim, Misook (Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Ryu, Suna (Korea National University of Education)
  • Received : 2019.08.27
  • Accepted : 2019.10.30
  • Published : 2019.12.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the development of scientific conceptual understanding through a process-centered assessment that visualizes the process of scientific argumentation. In this study, 353 high school students and five teachers participated in the scientific argumentation. As a result of analyzing students' utterances on the elements of argumentation, scientific concepts in intragroup were embodied through query and clarification of meaning, and organized through agreement and rebuttal. In intergroup argumentation, scientific concepts were elaborated through query, clarification of meaning, and change of claim. Teachers were able to understand the process of argumentation through small-group activity sheets where the process was visualized, thereby providing feedback and improving the class. Based on the results, the scientific argumentation of visualizing the process was found not only to allow students to perform self-assessment and peer-assessment but also to help teachers understand the argumentation process. The findings of this study guide process-centered assessment in the science curriculum and are expected to contribute to the promotion of scientific argumentation in classrooms.

이 연구의 목적은 논의 과정을 시각화한 과정중심평가를 통해 과학적 개념의 발달 과정을 알아보는 데 있다. 연구 참여자는 경기도 소재 고등학교 학생 353명과 교사 5명이었으며, 자료의 분석은 논의 활동을 촬영한 영상, 소집단 활동지, 그리고 인터뷰 내용을 대상으로 이루어졌다. 학생들의 발화를 논의 요소를 중심으로 분석한 결과, 소집단 내 논의에서 과학적 개념은 질문 및 의미 명확화의 과정을 통해 구체화되었고, 동의 및 반박의 과정을 통해 조직화되었으며, 소집단 간 논의에서의 질문, 의미 명확화 및 주장 변경을 통해 정교화되었다. 교사는 논의 과정이 시각화된 소집단 활동지를 통해 학생들의 논의 과정을 이해할 수 있었으며, 이를 바탕으로 피드백을 제공하고 수업을 개선하였다. 연구 결과를 토대로, 논의 과정의 시각화는 학생의 자기평가, 동료평가를 가능하게 할 뿐 아니라, 교사가 논의 과정을 이해하는 것을 가능하게 한다는 사실을 알 수 있었다. 본 연구 결과는 과학 교과에서의 과정중심평가에 대한 지침을 제공하고, 과학적 논의를 활성화하는 데 기여할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
  2. 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
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119
  4. Calik, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers' conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-005-9016-5
  5. Charmaz, K., Thornberg, R., & Keane, E. (2017). Evolving grounded theory and social justice inquiry. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 720-776). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  6. 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
  7. Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students' development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120
  8. Chiu, M. H., Guo, C. J., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Assessing students’ conceptual understanding in science: An introduction about a national project in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601072774
  9. Cho, S.-Y. (2017). Realization plan of connection between the competencebased curriculum, teaching-learning method, and evaluation in high schools. Secondary Education Research, 65(1), 255-281. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2017.65.1.255
  10. 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
  11. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  15. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001
  16. 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.
  17. Jeon, S. (2019). The development and application of process-focused assessment for improving scientific communication skills. Elementary Science Education, 38(1), 16-30.
  18. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  19. Kim, J. (2018). The concept and educational implication of process-focused assessment. Journal of Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(20), 839-859.
  20. Kim, S. S., Kim, H. K., Seo, M. H., & Seong, T. J. (2015). Formative assessment for classroom practice. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  21. Kim, Y., & Choi, A. (2019). Teacher perception and practice on free semester science assessment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(1), 143-160. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.1.143
  22. Ko, H. (2019). The study on the perception, actual condition, and support strategies of process-centered assessment by each teacher. Journal of Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 19(9), 1137-1164. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2019.19.9.1137
  23. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
  24. 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.
  25. Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 305-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00035-9
  26. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20294
  27. McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081
  28. 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
  29. MOE (Ministry of Education) (2015a). Overview of elementary and secondary school curriculum (MOE Notification No. 2015-74 [supplement 1]). Sejong: Author.
  30. MOE (Ministry of Education) (2015b). Science Curriculum (MOE Notification No. 2015-74 [supplement 9]). Sejong: Author.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. NRC (National Research Council) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  34. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development (Vol. 9). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
  35. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U
  36. 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
  37. Sampson, V., Enderle, P. J., & Walker, J. P. (2012). The development and validation of the assessment of scientific argumentation in the classroom (ASAC) observation protocol: A tool for evaluating how students participate in scientific argumentation. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 235-264). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  38. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  39. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.553257
  40. Son, J. (2018). The effect of backward design reflecting process-focused assessment on science learning achievement and science learning motivation of elementary school students. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 11(2), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2018.11.2.90
  41. Syh-Jong, J. (2007). A study of students' construction of science knowledge: Talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49(1), 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701200781
  42. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Tytler, R. (2009). Longitudinal studies into science learning: Methodological issues. In Quality research in literacy and science education (pp. 83-105). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  44. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
  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
  46. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
  47. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008