[논문]PISA 2015와 비교한 PISA 2018 과학 영역의 성취수준별 인지적 성취 특성과 교육과정 상 인식론적 지식 함양을 위한 교육 탐색

이신영

doi:10.14697/jkase.2021.41.5.401

PISA 2015와 비교한 PISA 2018 과학 영역의 성취수준별 인지적 성취 특성과 교육과정 상 인식론적 지식 함양을 위한 교육 탐색
Exploring Cognitive Achievement Characteristics by Group of Achievement Levels in the PISA 2018 Science Domain and Education for Cultivating Epistemic Knowledge in the National Curriculum 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.41 no.5, 2021년, pp.401 - 414

이신영 (한국교육과정평가원)

초록
AI-Helper

본 연구의 목적은 PISA 2015 결과와 비교하여 PISA 2018 과학 영역에서 성취수준 집단별로 과학적 소양 성취 특성을 알아보고, PISA 2018에서 PISA 2015보다 정답률이 특히 상승한 '인식론적' 지식에 대해 PISA 참여 학생들이 경험한 교육과정을 중심으로 비교 분석하는 것이다. PISA 2015와 PISA 2018 평균 정답률을 PISA 과학 영역 평가틀 차원별 하위영역별로 분석하였다. 특히, '역량' 차원에서 중집단과 하집단에서 '과학 탐구의 평가 및 설계' 정답률이 가장 낮았지만, PISA 2015과 비교하여 모든 성취집단에서 정답률이 상승하였다는 점에서 고무적이다. '지식' 차원에서 '생물계' 지식과 '인식론적' 지식에서 정답률이 낮았지만, PISA 2015와 비교하면 '인식론적' 지식에서 상집단과 중집단의 정답률이 상승하였다. PISA 2015에 비해 PISA 2018에서 정답률이 상승한 '인식론적' 지식과 관련하여 PISA에 참여한 학생들이 경험한 교육과정의 변화를 살펴보았다. 과학에 대한 이해 측면에서 2009 개정 교육과정에서는 '과학이란?' 단원과 과학 탐구 활동에서 모형에 대한 이해를 향상시킬 수 있도록 하였다. 과학 지식을 정당화하는 과정에 대한 이해 측면에서 2009 개정 교육 과정에서는 탐구 활동의 수는 증가하고 실험 결과에 기반한 과학적 설명을 강화하였으며 '과학과 인류 문명' 단원을 도입하여 학생들이 STS를 이해하는 것과 동시에 논변활동을 할 수 있도록 하였다. 본 연구를 통해 PISA 2015와 비교한 PISA 2018의 성취수준별 인지적 성취 결과를 알아보았고 우리나라의 과학과 교육과정 개정이 탐구 수업을 통한 인식론적 지식 함양 교육 측면에서 긍정적인 방향으로 나타났다는 것을 확인하였다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

The purpose of this study is to explore the cognitive achievement characteristics by group of achievement levels in the PISA 2018 science domain compared to the results of the PISA 2015, and to compare and analyze the 'epistemic' knowledge in the revised curriculum 2009 and in the revised curriculum 2007. The average correctness rates in PISA 2015 and PISA 2018 were analyzed by sub category of the evaluation frame in the PISA scientific domain. In the competencies domain, especially, the average correct answer rates of 'evaluating and designing scientific inquiry' were the lowest in medium and lower groups, but the rates rose in all achievement groups compared to PISA 2015, which is encouraging. Although the answer rates were low for both 'living system' knowledge and 'epistemic' knowledge in the knowledge domain, the average answer rates of the upper and middle groups increased in 'epistemic' knowledge compared to PISA 2015. The changes in the curriculum experienced by students participating in PISA were analyzed in relation to the 'evaluating and designing scientific inquiry' competency and 'epistemic' knowledge, which increased in average correct answer rates. In terms of understanding science, the "What is science?" unit that explicitly presents epistemic knowledge, and nature of model in inquiry activities, were explicitly presented in the revised curriculum 2009. In terms of understanding the process of justifying scientific knowledge, the number of inquiry activities increased, scientific explanations based on experimental results strengthened, and the "Science and Human Civilization" unit was introduced to help students to understand STS while simultaneously conducting arguments. These findings confirm the educational performance of groups by achievement level in the PISA 2018 scientific domain and suggest that the direction of education relates to epistemic knowledge in Korea's Science curriculum.

주제어

표/그림 (17)

표 Table 1. Participants in PISA 2018 and PISA 2015
표 Table 2. Numbers of common items by assessment framework of science domain for PISA 2015 and PISA 2018
표 Table 3. Average correct answer rates of 'Context' domain in PISA 2018 and PISA 2015 (단위: %, %, %p)
표 Table 4. Top 5 items based on falling PISA 2018 average correct answer rates compared to PISA 2015 by upper group in 'Global' context
표 Table 5. Average correct answer rates of 'Competencies' domain in PISA 2018 and PISA 2015 (단위: %, %, %p)
표 Table 6. Top 5 items based on increasing PISA 2018 average correct answer rates compared to PISA 2015 in 'Evaluating and designing scientific enquiry' context
표 Table 7. Average correct answer rates of 'Knowledge' domain in PISA 2018 and PISA 2015 (단위: %, %, %p)
표 Table 8. Top 3 items based on falling PISA 2018 average correct answer rates compared to PISA 2015 in 'Living system' knowledge
표 Table 10. Top 5 items based on increasing PISA 2018 average correct answer rates compared to PISA 2015 in 'High' cognitive demand
표 Table 9. Average correct answer rates of 'Cognitive demand' domain in PISA 2018 and PISA 2015 (단위: %, %, %p)
표 Table 11. The difference between the 2007 revised science curriculum and the 2009 revised science curriculum in terms of teaching and learning methods (Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development, 2007; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2011)
그림 Figure 1. Description of science and scientific inquiry
표 Table 12. Changes in terms of ‘Epistemic knowledge’ revealed in the texts of the 2009 revised science curriculum compared to the texts of the 2007 revised science curriculum
그림 Figure 2. Textbook description differences between 2007 revised science curriculum and 2009 revised science curriculum in terms of epistemic understanding of model
그림 Figure 3. Textbook description differences between 2007 revised science curriculum and 2009 revised science curriculum in terms of reinforcement of inquiry activities
그림 Figure 4. Textbook description differences between 2007 revised science curriculum and 2009 revised science curriculum in terms of scientific explanation based on experimental result
그림 Figure 5. Discussion the impact of science on society, culture, art, and the environment (Middle school science the third grade, p.409, A Publisher)

참고문헌 (38)

Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Bechmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.

상세보기
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.
Brown, B., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89(5), 779-802.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cho, S., Ku, N. W., Kim, H., Lee, S., & Lee, I. (2018). OECD programme for international students assessment: Implementation report of PISA 2018. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. ORM 2018-87.
Cho, S., Ku, N. W., Kim, H., Lee, S., & Lee, I. (2019). OECD Programme for International Students Assessment: An analysis of PISA 2018 Result. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. RRE 2019-11.
Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.

상세보기
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in 3 part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109-2139.
Giere, R. N. (1999) Using models to represent reality. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.

상세보기
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies.
Kim, H. (2018). Discussion on the characteristics and framework for PISA science assessment. School Science Journal, 12(4), 389-398.
Kim, J., Min, B. M., Lee, Y., Son, Y. A., Kim, D. R., & Kim, T. H. (2013). Comparative analysis of the nature of science reflected on the elementary school science textbooks of Korea, Japan, and the U.S. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(2): 619-644.
Kim, M., & Kim, H. B. (2009). Analysis of the types of scientific models in the life domain of science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 29(4), 407-424.
Kim, S. & Shin, D. (2019). Exploring the possibilities of character education in various interaction-based mentor program: Focusing on "Becoming a science teacher" activity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(1), 13-33.
Ku, J., Kim, S., Rim, H., Park, H., & Han, J. A. (2015). Programme for international student assessment(PISA 2015) main survey technical report. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. RRE 2015-6-2.
Lee, S., Cho, S., Koo, N., Lee, I., & Lee, S. (2020). An Analysis of the Achievement Characteristics of Korean Students in the Results of PISA 2018: Focusing on the Characteristics of Each Achievement Level and Students with Academic Resilience. RRE 2020-7.
Lee, Y. H. (2013). Nature of science (NOS) presentation in the introductory chapters of Korean high school life science I textbooks using a qualitative content analysis. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(1), 173-197.
Ministry of Education [MOE] (2015). Science curriculum. Notification No. 2015-74 [issue 9]. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development (2007). Science curriculum. Notification No. 2007-79 [issue 9]. Seoul: Ministry of the Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2011). Science curriculum. Notification No. 2011-361 [issue 9]. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
Mun, G., Mun, J., Cho, M., Kim, S. Y., & Joseph Krajcik (2012). Development and application of 21st century scientific literacy evaluation framework on Korean high school science text books. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 789-804.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OECD (2019a). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing.
OECD (2019b). PISA 2018 Results: What students know and can do (Vol. I). OECD Publishing.
Park, J. (2016). Discussions about the three aspects of scientific literacy: Focus on integrative understanding, settlement in curriculum, and civic education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 413-422.
Rim, H. (2013). The Trends and what's new in the OECD PISA and its items. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(4), 971-990.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y.., Hug, B.., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.

상세보기
Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487-516.
Yang, F. Y., Liu, S. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Chiou, G. L., Wu, H. K., Wu, Y. T., Chen, S., Liang, J. C., Tsai, M. J., Lee, S. W. Y., Lee, M. H., Lin, C. L., Chu, R. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). High-school students' epistemic knowledge of Science and its relation to learner factors in Science learning. Research in Science Education, 48(2), 325-344.

상세보기
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2, pp. 697-726). New York, NY: Routledge.

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format