Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Implications for Teacher Education through Pre-Service Science Teachers' Perception and Practice Cases on Online Formative Assessment

온라인 형성평가에 대한 예비 과학교사의 인식과 실행 사례를 통해 살펴본 교사 교육의 시사점

  • Received : 2022.08.03
  • Accepted : 2022.10.26
  • Published : 2022.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to reveal what is necessary for pre-service science teachers to make good use of online formative assessment in the context of online classes. For 22 pre-service physics teachers, first, the preliminary perception of online classes, online formative assessment, and formative assessment was investigated; second, the practice process of online formative assessment was examined. Then the differences between perception and practice were compared and analyzed. Data were collected in preliminary surveys, lesson plans, online formative assessment items, and interview data. As a result of the study, an interaction was mentioned as the difficulty of online classes in the preliminary perception, and pre-service teachers mentioned the use of technology, feedback, and adjustment as advantages of online formative assessment. In most cases of practice, the automated feedback was used using the platform's technology, but it did not lead to adjustment and interaction. In addition, the use of items in online formative assessment was not suitable for formative functions. The reason why the interaction using formative feedback did not occur seems to be because the understanding of formative assessment was insufficient. Pre-service teachers need to be prepared for the 'formative' function through the feedback of online formative assessment so that can lead to interaction in online classes. The shift to online classes is creating difficulties, especially in interaction. It is necessary to prepare and educate pre-service teachers on fundamental aspects that can overcome these difficulties.

온라인 교수학습 환경으로의 변화에 따라 온라인 형성평가에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있으며, 이에 대한 예비 교사들의 준비가 필요하다. 본 연구에서는 교사 교육의 기초 토대 마련을 위해 예비 과학교사 22명을 대상으로 온라인 수업과 온라인 형성평가, 형성평가에 대한 인식을 조사하고, 이를 바탕으로 실행 과정에서 나타나는 주요 사항을 분석하였다. 사전 인식은 개방형 설문을 통해 얻은 응답을 오픈 코딩을 통해 범주화하여 범주별 빈도를 파악하였고, 사전 인식의 범주 분류 결과를 바탕으로 실행의 모습을 분석하였다. 이를 통해 현재 상태와 바람직한 활용 목표 간의 격차를 파악하고, 교사 교육에서 중점을 두어야 하는 사항은 무엇인지에 대해 논의하였다. 연구의 결과, 사전 인식에서는 온라인 수업의 어려움으로 상호작용을 언급하고, 온라인 형성평가의 장점으로 테크놀로지의 활용 및 피드백과 수업 조정을 언급하였다. 지도안과 조별 사전 인식 과정에서는 플랫폼의 테크놀로지를 활용하여 자동화된 피드백을 대부분 활용하였지만, 응답 분석 결과를 활용한 수업 조정과 상호작용이 나타나지는 않았다. 또한 온라인 형성평가의 형성적 기능에 적합하지 않은 활용 방식이 다수 나타났다. 이러한 원인은 예비 교사들의 형성평가 활용에 대한 이해가 부족하고, '평가'의 측면에 치중했기 때문으로 분석된다. 형성평가의 피드백을 통한 '형성적' 기능과 활용 방법에 대한 예비 교사들의 충분한 이해가 바탕이 될 때, 온라인 형성평가의 장점을 활용한 상호작용으로 이어질 수 있다. 따라서 형성평가의 핵심적 기능이 잘 발휘될 수 있도록 형성적 활용에 대한 역량 강화와 실질적 적용 방법에 대한 교육이 예비 교사 교육에서 강조되어야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abell, S. K., & Siegel, M. A. (2011). Assessment literacy: What science teachers need to know and be able to do. In The professional knowledge base of science teaching(pp. 205-221). Springer, Dordrecht.
  2. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(6), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765
  3. Alonzo, A. C. (2018). An argument for formative assessment with science learning progressions. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2017.1408630
  4. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
  5. Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Dacey, C. M. (2017). US teachers' conceptions of the purposes of assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.017
  6. Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 146-162.
  7. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science education, 85(5), 536-553. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1022
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). 'In praise of educational research': Formative assessment. British educational research journal, 29(5), 623-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000133721
  9. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King's College.
  10. Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9), 2-5.
  11. Box, C., Skoog, G., & Dabbs, J. M. (2015). A case study of teacher personal practice assessment theories and complexities of implementing formative assessment. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 956-983 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215587754
  12. Bruner, J. (1999). Folk pedagogies. In Leach J. & Moon B. (Ed.), Learners and Pedagogy, (pp.4-21). London: Paul Chapman Publishing with The Open University.
  13. Chi, E. (2009). Exploring the Factors and Key Aspects of Teachers' Feedback Practice. Asian Journal of Education, 10(3), 77-102. https://doi.org/10.15753/AJE.2009.10.3.004004
  14. Choi, H., & Kim, J. (2013). A Study on Performance Level of Pre-service Physics Teachers in Constructing Questions for classroom assessment-Focused on Analysis of Multiple Choice Question about Physics Conceptest for Formative Assessment. Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 458-475. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2013.37.3.458
  15. Choi, K., Park, J., Choi, B., Nam, J., Choi, K., & Lee, K. (2004). Analysis of Verbal Interaction Between Teachers and Students in Middle School Science Classroom. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(6), 1039-1048.
  16. DeLuca, C. (2012). Preparing teachers for the age of accountability: Toward a framework for assessment education. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5-6), 576-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.730347
  17. Drumm, L. (2019). Folk pedagogies and pseudo-theories: how lecturers rationalise their digital teaching. Research in Learning Technology, 27.
  18. Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2008). Teacher learning of technology enhanced formative assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 82-99.
  19. Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers' enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9).
  20. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & education, 57(4), 2333-2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
  21. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
  22. Heitink, M. C., van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P, Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002
  23. 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
  24. Hill, M. F., & Eyers, G. (2016). Moving from student to teacher: changing perspectives about assessment through teacher education. In G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 103-128). New York: Routledge
  25. Hwang, Y., Kim, J., & Lee, M. (2015). The Influence of On-Off Line Blended Learning in Emphasizing the Interaction Between Teacher and Students on the Perception about Learning Environment and Science-Related Attitude. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0027
  26. Irving, S. E., Harris, L. R., & Peterson, E. R. (2011). 'One assessment doesn't serve all the purposes' or does it? New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 413-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9145-1
  27. Kim, H. (2021). TPCK Formation and Technology-mediated Interactions-Focusing on a Case of Pre-service Physics Teachers' Design and Implementation of 'Platform-Based Formative Assessment'-(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  28. Kim, H., Park, J., Joung, Y., Park, S., Kim, C., Lee, C., & Cho, J. (2014). Introduction of formative assessment system to support customized education (I) -Design of online and offline formative assessment system. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, RRE 2014-9.
  29. Kim, N., Park, C., & Sohn, W. (2020). Relationships of Pre-service Teachers' Formative Assessment Experience and Mastery Goal Orientation with their Conceptions of Assessment for Learning(AfL), The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 23(3), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2020.23.3.129
  30. Kim, S. & Jhun, Y. (2005). How to do good assessment in science class. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. ORM-51-5.
  31. Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of emerging trends in educational research and policy studies, 3(1), 83-86.
  32. Lee, H., Choi, K., & Nam, J. (2000). Reserch Article : The Effects of Formative Assessment with Detailed Feedback on Students Science Achievement, Attitude, and Interaction between Teacher and Students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 20(3), 479-490.
  33. Lee, H., Feldman, A., & Beatty, I. D. (2012). Factors that affect science and mathematics teachers' initial implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment using a classroom response system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 523-539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9344-x
  34. Lee, J. (2015). International Comparative Study of the Use of ICT by Middle School Teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(5), 885-893. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.5.0885
  35. McLaughlin, T., & Yan, Z. (2017). Diverse delivery methods and strong psychological benefits: A review of online formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 562-574. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12200
  36. McMillan, J. H. (2003). Understanding and improving teachers' classroom assessment decision making: Implications for theory and practice. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 22(4), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00142.x
  37. Mertler, C. A. (2004). Secondary teachers' assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a difference?. American secondary education, 49-64.
  38. Na, J. & Jang, B. (2016). The Difficulties and Needs of Pre-service Elementary Teachers in the Science Class utilizing Smart Technologies in Teaching Practice. ELEMENTARY CCIENCE EDUCATION, 35(1), 98-110.
  39. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self- regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
  40. Noh, T., Lee, J., Kang, S., & Kang, H. (2015). Secondary School Science Teachers' Actual and Preferred Types of Assessment. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(4), 725-733. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0725
  41. Noh, T., Lee, J., Kang, S., Han, J., & Kang, H. (2017). The Characteristics of the PCK Components of Pre-Service Secondary Chemistry Teachers Considered in Developing Performance Assessment. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 37(2), 291-299.
  42. O'Donoghue, T., & Punch, K. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative educational research in action: Doing and reflecting.Routledge.
  43. Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54(3), 715-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.032
  44. Park, C. (2013). Resurgence of formative assessment and the educational implication. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 26(4), 719-738.
  45. Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental?. Theory into practice, 48(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536
  46. Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An investigation into teachers' perceptions of formative assessment. Educational Studies, 38(3), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.598684
  47. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104
  48. Seong, T., & Im, H. (2014) Suggestions for Teacher's Perception and Applicable Method Through the New Understanding of Formative Assessment. Korean Society for Educational Evaluation, 27(3), 597-615.
  49. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  50. Smith, L. F., Hill, M. F., Cowie, B., & Gilmore, A. (2014). Preparing teachers to use the enabling power of assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 303-323).
  51. Sohn, W. (2017). International Patterns of Formative Assessment in Science Lessons: Further Results from PISA 2015. Korean Society for Educational Evaluation, 30(2), 269-290.
  52. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189.
  53. Sorensen, E. K., & Takle, E. S. (2005). Investigating knowledge building dialogues in networked communities of practice. A collaborative learning endeavor across cultures. Interactive educational multimedia, 10, 50.
  54. Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O'Connor, W. (2003). Analysis: Practices, principles and processes. In Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (Eds). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Sciences Students and Researchers (pp. 199-218). London: Sage Publication.
  55. Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International journal of qualitative methods, 8(1), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800107
  56. Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408600106
  57. Stiggins, R. (2010). Essential formative assessment competencies for teachers and school leaders. In H. Andrade, G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment, (pp.233-250). NewYork, NY: Taylor & Francis.
  58. van der Kleij F. & Adie L. (2018) Formative Assessment and Feedback Using Information Technology. In Voogt J., Knezek G., Christensen R., Lai KW. (Eds). Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham.
  59. van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1804-1817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.001
  60. Vonderwell, S. K., & Boboc, M. (2013). Promoting formative assessment in online teaching and learning. TechTrends, 57(4), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0673-x
  61. Wang, T. H., Wang, K. H., & Huang, S. C. (2008). Designing a web-based assessment environment for improving pre-service teacher assessment literacy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 448-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.010
  62. Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010