본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

과학적 논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발

The Development of Rubrics to Assess Scientific Argumentation

이효정|이효녕|조현준|양일호
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)|2009.04|한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education)|제29권 제2호|pp. 203-220

0

조회

0

다운로드

45

인용

0

참고문헌

주제분류교육학

초록

이 연구의 목적은 학생들의 과학적 논증과정 평가를 위한 루브릭을 개발하는 것이다. 루브릭의 개발을 위해 과학교육에서의 논증과정과 관련된 문헌의 분석을 통해 루브릭의 개발 절차및 평가의 범주를 도출하였다. 루브릭 개발의 일반적인 절차를 따라서 논증과정 평가의 기준을 형식, 내용, 태도의 세 가지 범주를 문헌을 통해 도출하였다. 형식의 범주에는 전체의 구성, 주장, 근거, 결론의 하위 기능으로 세분화하였고, 내용의 범주에는 이해, 신빙성, 추론으로 하위 기능을 세분하였으며, 태도의 범주에는 참여도와 개방성을 하위 기능으로 정하였다. 이렇게 구성된 각각의 하위기능의 평가에 대한 기준을 구체적인 5단계로 제시하였다. 문헌 연구를 토대로 개발된 평가 루브릭은 과학교육 전문가 1인과 동료 연구자들의 정기적인 세미나 를 통해 점검 받았다. 개발된 초기의 루브릭은 과학교육 전문가 4인에게 의뢰하여 문제점 및 개선점에 대한 검증을 받아 다시 수정되었으며, 최종 완성된 루브릭은 과학교육 전문가 4인에게 타당도를 검증받아 내용타당도지수 0.96으로 높게 나타났다. 개발된 루브릭을 통해 학생들의 논증과정에 대한 이해를 높일 수 있고, 논증과정 프로그램 개발과 논증과정 평가를 위한 기준으로 활용이 가능할 것이다.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a rubric for assessing students' scientific argumentation. Through the analysis of relevant literature related to argument in science education for developing rubric, the procedure in development and the category in assessment for rubric were elicited. According to the general procedure in developing rubric, the standard for evaluating the argumentation derived three categories such as a form, contents, and attitude. The form category was further segmented into sub-functions composition, claim, ground, and conclusion in the whole. The category for contents was segmented into sub-functions understanding, credibility, and inference. And the category for attitude was set to sub-functions participatory level and openness. The standard for evaluating sub-functions in each of the categories formed in this way was minutely suggested with five stages. The rubric, which was developed on the basis of literature, was inspected through a regular seminar in one expert in science education and fellow researchers. The rubric, which was developed in the early days, was again modified by being verified on problem and improvement matter after being entrusted to four experts in scientific education. And, the finally-completed rubric indicated to be high with 0.96 in the content validity index by being verified the validity by the four experts in science education. The developed rubric will lead to being able to increase the understanding about demonstration in students, and to being available for being utilized as the criteria for developing the argumentation process program and for evaluating the argumentation activity.

참고문헌 (64)

  1. 남정희, "논의과정을 강조한 교수？학습 전략이 중학생들의 인지발달, 과학개념 이해, 과학관련 태도 및 논의과정에 미치는 영향", 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), pp.450~461 (2006), 한국과학교육학회
  2. 토의 토론 학습과 중등학교 과학교육. 1997년도 교과교육공동연구 결과보고서, "이범홍", 한국 학술 진흥 재단, ~, pp.RR97-Ⅱ-6 (1998)
  3. Herman, J. I., "수행평가 과제 제작의 원리와 실재" (2000), 이화여자대학교 출판부
  4. Improving the quality of argument 5-16: Final Report, "Andrews, R.", Esmee Fairbairn Charitable Trust, 1993
  5. Arter, J., "Rubrics, scoring guides, and performance criteria: Classroom tools for assessing and improving student learning", Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association (2000), ERIC Document Reproduction Service Mo. ED446100
  6. Arter, J., "Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance" (2001), Corwin Press
  7. Astin, A. W., "Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education" (1993), Macmillan
  8. Aufscjnaiter, C. V., "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), pp.101~131 (2008)
  9. Banta, T. W., "Assessment in practice: Putting principles to work on college campuses" (1996), Jossey-Bass
  10. Bazerman, C., "Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science" (1988), University of Wisconsin Press
  11. Bell, P., "Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning for the Web with KIE", International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), pp.797~817 (2000)
  12. Bricker, L. A., "Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education", Science Education, 92(3), pp.473~498 (2008)
  13. Carr, J.F., "Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum, assessment, and action planning. Alexandria" (2001), Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development
  14. Chan, C. K. K., "Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information", Instructional Science, 29, pp.443~479 (2001)
  15. Chinn, C. A., "The structure of discussions that promote reasoning", Teachers College Record, 100(2), pp.315~368 (2000)
  16. Clark, D., "Personally -seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation", International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), pp.253~277 (2006)
  17. Davis, L., "Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts", Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), pp.194~197 (1992)
  18. Driver, R., "Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms", Science Education, 84(3), pp.287~312 (2000)
  19. Erduran, S., "TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse", Science Education, 88(6), pp.915~933 (2004)
  20. Felton, M. K., "From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents' perspective writing", Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), pp.672~683 (2004)
  21. Felton, M., "The development of argumentative discourse skill", Discourse Processes, 32(2), pp.135~153 (2001)
  22. Goodrich, H., "Understanding rubrics", Educational Leadership, 54(4), pp.14~17 (1996)
  23. Hogan, K., "Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacherguided discussion", Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), pp.379~432 (2000)
  24. Hogan, K., "Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students and scientists' reasoning about conclusions", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), pp.663~687 (2001)
  25. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., "“Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in high school genetics" (2000), John Wiley & Sons
  26. Kelly, G. J., "Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students use of evidence in writing", Science Education, 86, pp.314~342 (2002)
  27. Kelly, G. J., "How students argue scientific claims: a rhetoricalsemantic analysis", Applied Linguistics, 24(1), pp.28~55 (2003)
  28. Kanselaar, G., "Designing argumentation tools fro collaborative learning in Visualising argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making", pp.51~73 (2002), Springer
  29. Kuhn, D., "Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking", Science Education, 77(3), pp.319~337 (1993)
  30. Lawson, A. E., "The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching", International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), pp.1387~1408 (2003)
  31. Maloney, J., "Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation", International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), pp.1817~1841 (2006)
  32. Marttunen, M., "Assessing argumentation skills among finish university students", Learning and Instruction, 4, pp.175~191 (1994)
  33. McCann, T. M., "Student argumentative writing: Knowledge and ability at three grade levels", Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), pp.62~76 (1989)
  34. McNeill, K. L., "Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials", Journal of the Learning Science, 15(2), pp.153~191 (2006)
  35. McNeill, K. L., "Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanation", Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition (2007), Lawrence Erlbaum Associate
  36. Mercer, N., "Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom", British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), pp.95~111 (1999)
  37. Messick, S., "The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments", Educational Researcher, 23(2), pp.13~23 (1994)
  38. Mitchell, S., "What is this thing called argument? in Essays in argument" (2001), Middlesex University Press
  39. Moskal, B. M., "Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment", Research & Evaluation, 7(10) (2000)
  40. Naylor, S., "Argumentation and primary science", Research in Science Education, 37, pp.17~39 (2007)
  41. Newton, P., "The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science", International Journal of Science Education, 21, pp.553~576 (1999)
  42. Nussbaum, E. M., "Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review", Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, pp.345~359 (2008)
  43. O'Donnell, A. M., "Cognitive perspectives on peer learning" (1998), Erlbaum
  44. Osborne, J. F., "Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science", School Science Review, 82(301), pp.63~70 (2001)
  45. Osborne, J., "Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science", Journal of Researcher in Science Teaching, 41(10), pp.994~1020 (2004)
  46. Perella, J., "The debate method of critical thinking: An introduction to argumentation", pp.1987, Kendall
  47. Pollock, J. L., "Defeasible reasoning", Cognitive Science, 11, pp.481~518 (1987)
  48. Reiser, B. J., "BGUILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms in Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress", pp.263~305 (2001), Erlbaum
  49. Sadler, T. D., "A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation", Science Education, 90, pp.986~1004 (2006)
  50. Sampson, V., "Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions", Science Education, 92(3), pp.447~472 (2008)
  51. Sandoval, W. A., "The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations", Cognition And Instruction, 23(1), pp.23~55 (2005)
  52. Schafer, W. D., "Effects of teacher knowledge of rubrics on student achievement in four content area", Applied Measurement in Education, 14, pp.151~170 (2001)
  53. Schwarz, B., "The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues in Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments", pp.227~260 (2003), Kluwer
  54. Simon, S., "Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the Science Classroom", International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), pp.235~260 (2006)
  55. Siegel, M. A., "Chapter 7. Using rubrics to foster meaningful learning in Assessment in Science", pp.89~106 (2006), NSTA press
  56. Takao, A. Y., "Applying argumentation analysis to assess the quality of university oceanography students' scientific writing", Journal of Geoscience Education, 5(1), pp.40~48 (2002)
  57. Toulmin, S., "The uses of argument" (1958), Cambridge University Press
  58. Van Gelder, T., "Argument mapping with reasonable", Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), pp.85~90 (2002)
  59. Veerman. A., "Collaborative argumentation in academic education", Instructional Science, 30, pp.155~186 (2002)
  60. Alternative approaches to scoring: The effect of using different scoring methods on the validity of scores from a performance assessment, "Waltman, K.", National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, ~, pp.CSE Technical Report 488 (1998)
  61. Yore, L. D., "Current realities and future possibilities: language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction", International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), pp.291~314 (2006)
  62. Zembal-Saul, C., "Scaffolding preservice teachers' evidencebased arguments during an investigation of natural selection", Research in Science Education, 32, pp.437~463 (2003)
  63. "Developing grading rubrics"[URL]
  64. Zohar, A., "Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, pp.35~62 (2002)

관련 논문AI추천

과학 탐구 과정 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발 및 적용이유정, 이현동, 이효녕사범대학부속중등교육연구소 · 중등교육연구2017 · 제65권 제1호과학 글쓰기를 활용한 과학적 사고력 평가 도구의 개발이정은, 정은영과학교육연구소 · 교사교육연구2013 · 제52권 제3호과학적 논의 과정을 시각화한 과정중심평가에서의 과학적 개념 이해 발달김미숙, 유선아한국과학교육학회 · 한국과학교육학회지2019 · 제39권 제5호논증적 과학글쓰기의 특성과 목표에 따른 평가준거와 평가틀 제안방담이한국교양교육학회 · 교양교육연구2022 · 제16권 제5호초등학교 영재 학생들의 탐구 활동에서 나타나는 논증 과정 평가 및 분석송미선, 송윤미, 양일호, 임재근한국초등과학교육학회 · 초등과학교육2010 · 제29권 제4호학교 과학교육에서의 과학적 논증활동을 위한 탐구학습 지도방법 탐색이효녕, 조현준대한지구과학교육학회 · 대한지구과학교육학회지2012 · 제5권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

C 영재교육원을 통해 살펴본 대학부설 과학영재교육원 프로그램 효과성 분석양태연, 한기순pp. 137-155다중표상학습에서 학생들의 장독립성ㆍ장의존성에 따른 동화상의 효과: 연계 오류와 개념 이해를 중심으로서현주, 이종현, 강훈식, 노태희, 문세정pp. 156-167중학생들의 과학 그래프 작성 과정에서의 오류 유형 분석김유정, 강훈식, 노태희, 문세정pp. 168-178고등학생의 내ㆍ외향성에 따른 SSC(Small-Scale Chemistry) 실험 수업의 효과김미영, 홍훈기, 유미현pp. 179-192문제해결형 일반화학 실험에서 나타나는 대학생의 반응유형강성주, 임희영pp. 193-202
원문 보기