RESEARCH PAPER
Introduction of Taiwanese literacy-oriented science curriculum and development of an aligned scientific literacy assessment
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Business Administration, School of Management, Asia University, Taichun, TAIWAN
2
Science Education Center, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City, TAIWAN
3
Ming-lun Elementary School, Yunlin, TAIWAN
4
College of Engineering, National Formosa University, Huwei, Yunlin, TAIWAN
Online publication date: 2023-11-26
Publication date: 2024-01-01
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2024;20(1):em2380
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This article reports on the introduction of Taiwanese new literacy-oriented science curriculum
reform and the development of a measure of scientific literacy (SL). Curriculum reform has always
been received increasing attention from educators in many countries around the world.
Meanwhile, trends in science education policy have emphasized the importance of SL as a
transferable outcome and the main goal of science education (Fives et al., 2014). It would seem
reasonable, therefore, that the new science curriculum guidelines (NSCG) would be developed for
grade 3-grade 12 in Taiwan for making progress toward the goal of SL. In this article, the authors
(a) discuss the background of science education reform in Taiwan, (b) introduce and describe the
features of NSCG, (c) evaluate the relative strengths and limitations of the present assessments,
(d) describe a framework for aligning assessment with NSCG, and (e) conduct a pilot study for
item analysis. For the 6th grade level, the pilot test reported an acceptable reliability coefficient,
high item difficulty and good discrimination value of scientific literacy assessment (SLA). Further
revision is necessary to make available a series of validated and reliable items being developed
for assessing students’ SL at various science learning stages. Hopefully, SLA will finally fill the gap
of the assessment part of the current science curriculum reform in terms of guiding educators to
precisely evaluate students’ SL.
REFERENCES (29)
1.
ACCT. (2013). 2013 Taiwan white paper. www.amcham.com.tw.
2.
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, I. T. C. (1999). Investigating classroom environment in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48-62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/002206....
3.
Chang, C. Y. (2005). Taiwanese science and life technology curriculum standards and earth systems education. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 625-638.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
4.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2...<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L.
5.
DeVellis, R. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE.
6.
Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549-580.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21....
7.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lutz, M. (2012). Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments. Life Sciences Education, 11, 364-377.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12....
8.
Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H.-K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Development and validation of a multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2326-2357.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
9.
Lai, H. R., Chou, W. L., Miao, N. F., Wu, Y.P., Lee, P. H., & Jwo, J. C. (2015). A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environments as perceived by middle school students. Journal of School Health, 85, 388-97.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.1....
10.
Lambert, J. (2006). High school marine science and scientific literacy: The promise of an integrated science course. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 633–654.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
11.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Hooper, M. (2016). Methods and procedures in TIMSS 2015. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pu....
17.
NAER. (2014). The suggestions for curriculum development for twelve-year compulsory education. National Academy for Educational Research.
18.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2008, September). Science framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
19.
NRC. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.
20.
OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. OECD Publishing.
21.
OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading, and mathematical literacy. OECD Publishing.
22.
Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., & Wilson, V. (2006). Measurement and assessment in education. Pearson.
23.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Erlbaum.
24.
Smith, K. V., Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Dimitrakopoulos, C. (2012). Developing scientific literacy in a primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 1(1), 127-152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
26.
Tsai, C.-C., & Kuo, P.-C. (2008). Cram school students’ conceptions of learning and learning science in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 353-375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
27.
Wang, Z. (2004). An antidote to modern test-oriented education: Toward a constructive post-modern education [Paper presentation]. The Forum for Integrated Education and Educational Reform.
28.
Wenning, C. J. (2006). Assessing nature-of-science literacy as one component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 3(4), 3-10.
29.
Wu, H.-K., Kuo, C. Y., Jen, T.-H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). What makes an item more difficult? Effects of modality and type of visual information in a computer-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. Computers & Education, 85, 35-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....