DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Item Response Analysis of Energy as a Cross-Cutting Concept for Grades 3 to 9

기초공통개념으로서 에너지에 대한 3~9학년 학생들의 문항 반응 분석

  • Received : 2016.07.21
  • Accepted : 2016.12.06
  • Published : 2016.12.31

Abstract

This study investigated children's (grade 3 to 9) responses to assessment items on energy as a cross-cutting concept in order to get basic information for a learning progression. The assessment consisted of 8 ordered multiple-choice items at the contexts of electric circuit, mechanical energy of falling objects, phase change of matter, dissolution, biological phenomena of a lizard, food chain, radiative equilibrium between Sun and Earth, and the system of water cycling. Children's responses to each item were analyzed with using cross-tabulations in terms of grades and item option levels and Wright map and Differential item functioning based on Rasch modeled item response analysis. The results offered empirical evidence of children's development of understanding energy from relation between energy and its phenomena, types of energy, transfer and conversion of energy, towards conservation and equilibrium of energy for all of eight contexts. Children of each grade did not fully understand energy conservation. As grade goes up, their understandings of energy transfer and conversion were differentiated across the contexts and topics of energy. According to Rasch analysis, children had easier understanding of energy on dissolution and poorer understanding of energy on water cycling than that on other contexts. It was discussed and suggested that the results of this study help us organize science topics with regard to energy when developing new national science curriculum.

Keywords

energy;cross-cutting concept;learning progressions;cross-tabulations;Rasch analysis

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국과학창의재단

References

  1. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
  2. Briggs, D. C., & Alonzo, A. C. (2012). The psychometric modeling of ordered multiple-choice item responses for diagnostic assessment with a learning progression. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 293-316). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  3. Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33-63. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_2
  4. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report #RR-63. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
  5. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  6. Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47, 123-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.604476
  7. Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1149-1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21051
  8. Lee, H-S., & Liu, O. (2009). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94. 665-688. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20382
  9. Maeng, S., & Lee, K. (2015). Cross-sectional item response analysis of geocognition assessment for the development of plate tectonics learning progressions: Rasch model. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 35(1), 37-52.
  10. Maeng, S., Lee, K., Park, Y., Lee, J., & Oh, H. (2014). Development and validation of a learning progression for astronomical system using ordered multiple-choice assessment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(8), 703-718. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.8.0703
  11. Maeng, S., Seong, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Present states, methodological features, and an exemplar study of the research on learning progressions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.161
  12. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2011). 2009 revised science curriculum. Seoul: MEST.
  13. National Research Council (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. J.W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  14. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, & A.W. Shouse (Eds.), Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
  15. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  16. Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 162-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21061
  17. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve, Inc.
  18. Noh, T., Lee, J. Yang, C., Kang, S., & Kang, H. (2016). Investigation of learning progression for dissolution and solution concepts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(2), 295-302. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0295
  19. Seong, Y., Maeng, S., & Jang, S. (2013). A learning progression for water cycle from fourth to sixth graders with ordered multiple-choice items. Elementary Science Education, 32(2), 139-158.
  20. Shin, N., Koh, E. J., Choi, C. I., & Jeong, D. H. (2014). Using a learning progression to characterize Korean secondary students' knowledge and submicroscopic representations of the particle nature of matter. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 34(5), 437-447. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.5.0437
  21. Thompson, W. (1881). On the sources of energy in nature abailable to man for the production of mechanical effect. Science, 2(67), 475-478.
  22. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  23. Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 716-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20318