Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Developing A Framework for Performance Assessment in Science Education

  • Published : 2003.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a Framework for Performance Assessment in Science Education(FPASE). Science educators in the past have paid more attention to science curriculum and teaching strategies than assessment. In recent years, attention has turned toward performance assessment which addresses the concerns of science curriculum and instruction, and which is consistent with goals of science education at various levels of interests. Science educators are trying to do performance assessment, yet they don't have a framework that is highly qualified in terms of science educational objectives for the future, and advantages of performance assessment. We, therefore, have developed a framework for performance assessment in science education, which may be useful for science teachers to understand and assess their students' abilities. We have extracted seven domains covering students' various abilities as the important objectives of science performance assessment and grouped them into three categories: General, Science specific, and Intermediate abilities. And we developed a F-PASE with a three dimensional solid figured structure, and illustrated it as the configuration of a com. F-PASE is useful for science teachers to develop and select a science performance assessment as well as have a more advanced understanding of their students' abilities. It is a creative and novel assessment framework in terms of structure, configuration, functions and meanings. It also suggests a new vision of an assessment framework in science education.

Keywords

References

  1. Baron, B. J. (1991). Performance assement: Blurring the edges of assessment, curriculum, and instruction. In G. Kulm & S. M. Malcom (Eds.), Science Assessment in the Service of Reform, PP. 246-266
  2. Baron, M. A., & Boschee, F. (1995). Authentic assessment: The key to unlocking student success. USA: Technomic Publishing Co. Inc.
  3. Berk, R. A. (1986). Performance assessment: Methods and applications. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
  4. Birenbaum, M.(1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp, 3-29). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  5. Bloom, B., Hastings, J., & Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
  6. BSS(Britanica Science System). (1995). FOSS(Full Option Science System), NH, USA.: Delta Education Inc.
  7. Champagne, A. B., Lovitts, B. E., & Calinger, B. J. (1990). Assessement in the service of instruction. Washington D. C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science
  8. Chittenden, E. (1991). Authentic assessment, evaluation, and documentation of student performance. In V. Perrone (Eds.), Expanding student assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development
  9. CSBE(California State Board of Education). (1990). Science framework: for California public schools: kindergarten through grade twelve
  10. Doll. Jr. W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum, NY: Teacher College Press
  11. Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443-456
  12. Driver, R. (1989). Students' conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11,481-490 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110501
  13. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thnking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93-104 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.93
  14. Glatthorn, A. A., Bragaw, D., Dawkins, K., & Parker, J. (1998). Performance assessment and standards-based currucula: The achievement cycle. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education
  15. Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure-of-intellectual model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1-6 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448804800102
  16. IEA (1997). Performance assessment in IEA's Third International Mathematics & Science Study(TIMSS), Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center
  17. IHES(Inchon Hwajeon Elementary School). (1997). Performance Assessment Instrument for Elementary School
  18. IJES(Inchon Jakjeon Elementary School). (1997). Performance Assessment Instrument for Elementary School
  19. KDE(Kentucky Department of Education). (1991). Learning goals and valued outcomes. Lexington, Ky; Department of Education
  20. KSES(Kangwon Sangcheon Elementary School). (1997). Performance Assessment Instrument for Elementary School. Report of a model school of education assessment
  21. Kim, E. J. (2000). Developmental of Framework for Performance Assessment in Science Education. Unpublished. Doctoral Dissertation at Seoul National University
  22. Kim, J. H. (1999). Performance Assessment in Biology Education: The theory and practice of performance assessment. 1999 Summer Conference of Korean Society of Biology Education
  23. Kim, Y. S. (1998). Qualitative Research of Science Performance Assessment in Korea. Unpublished Master thesis at Korea National University of Education
  24. Kim, C., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (1991). Science Learning Evaluation, Seoul; Kyoyuk Kwahak Sa
  25. KFTA(Korea Federation of Teacher's Associations). (1998). Performance assessment materials for improvement of self- learning ability. Sea Gyo Sil
  26. Lim, Y., Cho, H., Hann, A., Park, H., Song, M., Kim, E., Hong, S., Kang, H., & Non, S. (1999). Survey on authentic performance assessment for elementary science education, Journal of elementary science education, 18(1), 41-51
  27. NSRC (1995). The unit of Weather in Science & Technology for Children, Teacher s Guide: In STC(Science Technology for Children), Carolina Biological Supply Company
  28. Phillips, D.(1987). Socialization of perceived academic competence among highly competent children. Child Development, 58, 1308-1320 https://doi.org/10.2307/1130623
  29. Resnick, L. B. (1989). Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Rober Glaser, Hilsdale, NJ: Eribaum
  30. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  31. Toffler, A. (1986). Future shock. Bantam Books, translated by Jang, E. B. Future shock. Seoul: Beom Woo As
  32. Toffler, A. (1998). The third wave. Bantam Books. translated by Kim, J. W. The third wave. Seoul: Beom Woo As
  33. Wiggins & Grant. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 200-214
  34. Wolf, K. (1994). Teaching portpolios: Capturing the complexity of teaching. In L. Ingvarson & R. Chadbourne (Eds.), Valuing teachers' work: New directions in teacher appraisal, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia, 112-136