$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$

연합인증

연합인증 가입 기관의 연구자들은 소속기관의 인증정보(ID와 암호)를 이용해 다른 대학, 연구기관, 서비스 공급자의 다양한 온라인 자원과 연구 데이터를 이용할 수 있습니다.

이는 여행자가 자국에서 발행 받은 여권으로 세계 각국을 자유롭게 여행할 수 있는 것과 같습니다.

연합인증으로 이용이 가능한 서비스는 NTIS, DataON, Edison, Kafe, Webinar 등이 있습니다.

한번의 인증절차만으로 연합인증 가입 서비스에 추가 로그인 없이 이용이 가능합니다.

다만, 연합인증을 위해서는 최초 1회만 인증 절차가 필요합니다. (회원이 아닐 경우 회원 가입이 필요합니다.)

연합인증 절차는 다음과 같습니다.

최초이용시에는
ScienceON에 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 로그인 (본인 확인 또는 회원가입) → 서비스 이용

그 이후에는
ScienceON 로그인 → 연합인증 서비스 접속 → 서비스 이용

연합인증을 활용하시면 KISTI가 제공하는 다양한 서비스를 편리하게 이용하실 수 있습니다.

온라인 형성평가에 대한 예비 과학교사의 인식과 실행 사례를 통해 살펴본 교사 교육의 시사점
Implications for Teacher Education through Pre-Service Science Teachers' Perception and Practice Cases on Online Formative Assessment 원문보기

한국과학교육학회지 = Journal of the Korean association for science education, v.42 no.5, 2022년, pp.501 - 514  

김효준 (평촌고등학교) ,  송진웅 (서울대학교)

초록
AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

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.

Abstract AI-Helper 아이콘AI-Helper

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 assessme...

주제어

표/그림 (6)

참고문헌 (62)

  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. 

  3. Alonzo, A. C. (2018). An argument for formative assessment with science?learning progressions. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(2),?104-112. 

  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. 

  5. Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Dacey, C. M. (2017). US teachers' conceptions?of the purposes of assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65,?107-116. 

  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. 

  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). 'In praise of educational research':?Formative assessment. British educational research journal, 29(5),?623-637. 

  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 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  23. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know?and do?. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  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. 

  46. Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An investigation into teachers'?perceptions of formative assessment. Educational Studies, 38(3),?261-276. 

  47. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory.?Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 77-84. 

  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. 

  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. 

  56. Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi?Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22-27. 

  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. 

  60. Vonderwell, S. K., & Boboc, M. (2013). Promoting formative assessment?in online teaching and learning. TechTrends, 57(4), 22-27. 

  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. 

  62. Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice:?A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162. 

저자의 다른 논문 :

섹션별 컨텐츠 바로가기

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

AI-Helper 아이콘
AI-Helper
안녕하세요, AI-Helper입니다. 좌측 "선택된 텍스트"에서 텍스트를 선택하여 요약, 번역, 용어설명을 실행하세요.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.

선택된 텍스트

맨위로