탐구기반 과학수업 프로파일의 분석: PISA 2015 한국과 싱가포르 비교 = A Latent Profile Analysis of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching and Learning Practices: A Comparative Analysis of PISA 2015 Data of Korea and Singapore

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The main purpose of this study is to identify the patterns of inquiry-based science teaching and learning practices using PISA 2015 data. Also its relationships with students' affective variables such as enjoyment of science, science selfefficacy and science activities were also explored. The participants consisted of a total of 10,808 students (49% females) sampled from two countries (Korea and Singapore). Latent profile analyses were conducted based on five facets of inquiry based science teaching and learning, which resulted in revealing four different patterns. In the fully activated group (16%), students reported that all of inquiry based teaching and learning occurred frequently in their science lessons. The second pattern was labelled as the partially activated group (11%) since only some of the facets of inquiry-based teaching and learning were implemented in science lessons to a very limited degree. In the third pattern (called average group (51%)), students experienced all of the facets on average. The last pattern was labelled as the limited activation group (22%) since it hardly provided students with opportunities to experience inquiry-based teaching and learning in their science lessons. Also it was found that these patterns provided different opportunities for students to develop their affective achievement such as science enjoyment, self-efficacy and activities. The fully activated group had the highest level of affective achievement while the limited activation group had the lowest one. Finally, the results of Korea and Singapore were compared and the implications for both science instruction and assessment in the classroom were discussed.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 탐구기반 과학수업(inquiry-based science teaching and learning) 프로파일을 도출하고, 각 프로파일에 속 한 학생들의 정의적 성취 양상을 비교하고자 한다. 연구대상으로는 PISA 2015에 참여한 한국(5,127명)과 싱가포르(5,681명) 의 만 15세 학생을 포함하였다. 탐구기반 과학 수업 유형 도출을 위하여 탐구기반 수업(Duschl, 2003; Furtak & Seidel, 2008) 은 상호작용, 핸즈온, 학생연구 및 실생활 적용 등 교수학습 활동의 하위 국면에 기반 하여 정의하였다. 분석 결과, 4개의 탐 구기반 과학 수업 프로파일이 도출되었는데, 구체적으로 과학수업에서 탐구기반 수업의 활성화 정도에 따라 ‘고활성화(full activation)(16%)’, ‘평균형(average)(51%)’, ‘저활성화(limited activation)(22%)’ 유형이 분석되었다. 이와 더불어 탐구기반 수업 의 활성화 정도가 일부 유형에서만 높고 나머지 유형에서는 낮은 ‘차별적(partial)(11%)’ 유형도 추가되었다. 프로파일별 분포 는 국가 간 차이를 보였는데, ‘저활성화’ 및 ‘차별적’ 유형은 한국에서, ‘평균형’ 및 ‘고활성화’ 유형은 싱가포르에서 높게 분 포 되었다. 한편 탐구기반 수업 유형은 학생들의 정의적 성취와 차별적인 관련성을 보였는데, 즉 정의적 성취는 고활성화 집 단에서 가장 높고, 저활성화 집단에서 가장 낮은 경향이 나타났다. 또한 이러한 관련성 양상에 있어서 국가 간 차이도 관찰 되었는데 특히 한국의 차별적 집단이 가장 특징적인 양상을 보였다. 마지막으로 본 연구결과를 토대로 국내 과학수업 개선 을 위한 교육적 시사점을 논의하였다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 손원숙, "중등교사의 형성평가 유형에 대한 국제비교분석 : PISA 2015 자료의 활용" 한국교육평가학회 30 (30): 269-290, 2017

2 윤초희, "과학영재의 과학탐구능력 관련 변인에 대한 경로분석: 숙달목표, 자기효능감, 자기조절전략 및탐구수업을 중심으로" 한국교육심리학회 20 (20): 321-339, 2006

3 KICE, "Ways of strengthening Korean school education based on case studies of other countries" 1-24, 2017

4 강명희, "WISE를 활용한 초등학교 과학수업에서 자기주도학습능력, 인지실재감, 과학탐구능력, 과학성취도 간의 인과구조 분석" 교과교육연구소 16 (16): 481-498, 2012

5 Hattie, J. A. C., "Visible Learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement" Routledge 2009

6 Furtak, E. M., "The problem with answers : An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching" 90 (90): 453-467, 2006

7 Klieme, E., "The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom" Waxmann 137-160, 2009

8 Lee, Y., "The effects of science process skin and academic achievement by the freedom inquiry using llM" 2 (2): 33-40, 2009

9 Hong, H., "The effect of inquiry teaching strategy enhancing the logical thinking skill and creative thinking skill through the science teaching about the junior high school student" Ewha Womans University 2015

10 Pekrun, R., "The control-value theory of achievement emotions : Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice" 18 : 315-341, 2006

11 Park, J., "The Effect of Free Inquiry Activities on the Science Process Skills and Scientific Attitudes of Elementary School Students" 20 (20): 271-280, 2001

12 Duschl, R. A., "Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation" 1-37, 2008

13 Prenzel M., "Second International Handbook of Science Education" Springer Science & Business Media 667-678, 2012

14 OECD, "PISA 2015 draft science framework" OECD Publishing 2013

15 OECD, "PISA 2015 draft science framework" OECD Publishing 2013

16 OECD, "PISA 2015 Technical report"

17 OECD, "PISA 2015 Assessment and analytical framework:Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy" OECD Publishing 2016

18 손원숙, "PISA 2006 정의적 성취에 대한 다층 배경변인의 효과 분석" 한국교육평가학회 21 (21): 81-105, 2008

19 National Research Council, "National science education standards" National Academies Press 1996

20 Muthén, B. O., "Mplus Version 6.1[Software]"

21 Blanchard, M. R., "Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction" 94 (94): 577-616, 2010

22 Marsh, H. W., "In search of golden rules : Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's(1999)findings" 11 (11): 320-341, 2004

23 Furtak, E. M., "Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquirybased science teaching : A Meta-analysis" 82 (82): 300-329, 2012

24 Duschl, R. A., "Everyday assessment in the science classroom" NSTA Press 41-59, 2003

25 Eo, S., "Effects of research classes on the achievements in inquiry instruction and science-related affective domain" 9 (9): 13-22, 2004

26 McMillan, J. H., "Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction" Pearson Higher Ed 2013

27 Kobarg, M., "An international comparison of science teaching and learning. Further results from PISA 2006" Waxmann Verlag 2011

28 Brookhart, S. M., "A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement" 10 : 161-180, 1997