광합성 문제 해결에 대한 과잉 효능감과 과잉확신: 선다형과 서답형의 비교 연구 = Over-Efficacy in Problem Solving and Overconfidence of Knowledge on Photosynthesis: A Study of Comparison Between Multiple-Choice and Supply-Type Test Formats

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이 연구는 과잉효능감과 과잉확신이 선다형과 서답형 평가에서 어떻게 나타나는지에 조사하였다. 이 연구를 위하여 204명의 여자중학교 학생들이 참여하였다. 선다형과 서답형으로 된 광합성 개념에 대한 검사도구를 사용하였으며, 각 문항마다 자신의 효능감과 확신을 척도로 나타나게 하였다. 연구결과 선다형과 서답형의 상관관계는0.5가 채 되지 않았으며, 학생들이 생각하는 자신의 문제 해결 능력(효능감)과 실제 능력 간의 상관관계 역시 0.45가 되지 않았다. 학생들은 선다형 문제 해결 과정에서 지식에 대한 확신을 높이는 경향을 보였다. 선다형 문항을 먼저 수행한 집단에서는 그렇지 않은 집단에 비하여 과잉 효능감과 과잉확신의 비율이 더 높게 나타났다. 이 연구결과는 학생들을 평가하는 과정에서 서답형의 사용을 늘릴 것을 제언한다. 또한 두 형태의 검사도구를 동시에 사용하게 될 경우 선다형검사도구를 사후에 사용하여 학생들이 적절한 수준의 효능감과 확신을 유지할 수 있도록 해야 될 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aimed to explore the over-efficacy in problem solving and overconfidence of knowledge of students performing assessments in two different test formats: multiple-choice and supply-type. Two hundred and four female middle school students participated in this study. Multiple-choice and supply-type formats of tests on photosynthesis were used, and each item contained scales indicating one`s self-efficacy on problem-solving and confidence of knowledge. The results showed that the correlation coefficients of performance between the two different assessment formats were less than 0.5 and the correlation coefficients between efficacy/confidence and actual performance were less than 0.45. Moreover, students tended to exhibit more over-efficacy and overconfidence in multiple-choice formats. The percentage of over-efficacy and overconfidence was higher in the group that completed the multiple-choice test first followed by the supply-type assessment than in the group that started with the supply-type followed by the multiple-choice assessment. From this study, it can be suggested that more use of supply-type assessment is required in science education. If test administrators require the combination of both multiple-choice and supply-type in an assessment, the supply-type assessment format should come first so that students can maintain the appropriate level of efficacy and confidence. In addition, science educators need to develop new learning programs to enhance students` self-monitoring skills of their problem-solving ability and knowledge.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이창영, "복수의 답 선택을 허용하고 오답에 감점을 주는 객관식 시험" 한국현장과학교육학회 5 (5): 17-26, 2011

2 박정, "문항 유형에 따른 과학 능력 추정의 효율성 비교" 한국과학교육학회 22 (22): 122-131, 2002

3 김명화, "기초학력 진단평가 서답형 문항의 자동채점 가능성 탐색" 한국교육과정평가원 16 (16): 137-160, 2013

4 이경숙, "객관식시험 지배와 국가개입" 한국교육철학회 (34) : 245-275, 2008

5 Lipko, A. R., "Using standards to improve middle-school students’accuracy at evaluating the quality of their recall" 15 : 307-318, 2009

6 Nehm, R. H., "Transforming biology assessment with machine learning : Automated scoring of written evolutionary explanations" 21 (21): 183-196, 2012

7 Nehm, R. H., "Transforming biology assessment with machine learning : Automated scoring of written evolutionary explanations" 21 (21): 183-196, 2012

8 Bruttomesso, D., "The use of degrees of certainty to evaluate knowledge" 51 (51): 29-37, 2003

9 Johnson, D. D., "The evolution of overconfidence" 477 (477): 317-320, 2011

10 Pajares, F., "Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings" 66 : 543-578, 1996

11 Schunk, D. H., "Self-efficacy and academic motivation" 26 : 207-231, 1991

12 Bandura, A., "Self-efficacy : The exercise of control" Freeman 1997

13 Karpicke, J. D., "Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping" 331 (331): 772-775, 2011

14 Choi, K., "Reconceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century" 48 (48): 670-697, 2011

15 Koriat, A., "Reasons for confidence" 6 (6): 107-118, 1980

16 Marmaroti, P., "Pupils' understanding of photosynthesis : a questionnaire for the simultaneous assessment of all aspects" 28 (28): 383-403, 2006

17 Dunlosky, J., "Overconfidence produces underachievement : Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’learning and retention" 22 (22): 271-280, 2012

18 Oskamp, S., "Overconfidence in case-study judgments" 29 (29): 261-265, 1965

19 Zakay, D., "Overconfidence in a multiple-choice test and its relationship to achievement" 42 (42): 519-524, 1992

20 Langendyk, V., "Not knowing that they do not know : self‐assessment accuracy of third‐year medical students" 40 (40): 173-179, 2006

21 Nehm, R. H., "Measuring knowledge of natural selection : A comparison of the CINS, an open-response instrument, and an oral interview" 45 (45): 1131-1160, 2008

22 Pajares, F., "Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematical problem solving : Implications of using different forms of assessment" 65 (65): 213-228, 1997

23 de Bruin, A. B., "Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation : From cognitive Psychology to the classroom" 22 (22): 245-252, 2012

24 Nowell, C., "I thought I got an A! Overconfidence across the economics curriculum" 38 (38): 131-142, 2007

25 Luszczynska, A., "General selfefficacy in various domains of human functioning : Evidence from five countries" 40 (40): 80-89, 2005

26 Yates, J. F., "General knowledge overconfidence : cross-national variations, response style, and"reality"" 70 (70): 87-94, 1997

27 Pallier, G., "Gender differences in the self-assessment of accuracy on cognitive tasks" 48 (48): 265-276, 2003

28 Ha, M., "Feeling of certainty : Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution" 49 (49): 95-121, 2012

29 Park, J., "Constructive multiple choice testing system" 41 (41): 1054-1064, 2010

30 Opfer, J. E., "Cognitive foundations for science assessment design : Knowing what students know about evolution" 49 (49): 744-777, 2012

31 Beggrow, E. P., "Assessing scientific practices using machine-learning methods: How closely do they match clinical interview performance?"

32 Ha, M., "Applying computerized scoring models of written biological explanations across courses and colleges : Prospects and limitations" 10 : 379-393, 2011

33 Hong, M. Y., "An analysis of science achievement of the third international mathematics and science study-repeated(TIMSS-R)" 21 (21): 328-341, 2001

34 Reach, G., "Adjusting insulin doses : From knowledge to decision" 56 (56): 98-103, 2005