An
Analysis of Relations between the Evaluation Indicators and Evaluation Results
in the Third Phase National Evaluation for Teacher Education Institutes in Korea
/ Ki
Soo Kim, Eun Jung Hur, Sun Kyung Kim, Su Jin Sung, Hyeon-su Kim, Soon Hee
Lee
한국교육,
제41권 제 1호, pp.31-53 / Journal of Korean Education, 41(1), 31-53
Received
28 February 2014: Revised 3 April 2014: Accepted 10 April 2014
국문초록
이 연구는 3주기 교원양성기관 평가지표와 평가결과
간의 관계를 분석하는 데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 2010년에서 2012년까지 평가를 받은 사범대학, 일반대학 교육과, 일반대학 교직과정,
교육대학원 총 400개의 평가결과 데이터를 통합하여 분석 자료로 활용하였다. 분석 결과는 다음 2가지로 요약된다. 첫째, 모든 양성과정에서
‘교원’, ‘시설 및 행･재정’, ‘교육성과’ 항목이 공통적으로 영향을 미쳤다. 둘째, 평가 결과에 영향을 미치는 평가 지표는 양성과정에 따라
차이가 있지만, 대체로 교육경영 및 여건에서는 ‘수업행동분석실의 활용률’, ‘전임교원 1인당 연구실적’이, 성과 영역에서는 ‘국･공･사립학교
교원임용률’, ‘졸업생 현직교사 만족도’가 주요 지표였다. 한편 교육과정 영역에서는 양성과정별로 각기 다른 지표에서 영향력이 나타나 일관된
경향성을 찾기 어려웠다. 분석 결과를 토대로 연구의 시사점을 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 3주기 평가는 교육과정 영역보다는 투입과 성과 영역이
강조된 평가였다. 둘째, 일부 평가지표의 경우 동일한 평가척도를 모든 양성과정에 공통으로 적용하는 것이 부적절하다. 셋째, 일반대학 교직과정과
교육대학원의 경우 대학 내 사범대학의 설치 유무에 따라 일부 평가지표에서 불가피한 편차가 발생할 수 있다.
키워드
3주기 교원양성기관평가, 평가지표, 평가결과, 관계
분석
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study
is to analyze the relationship between evaluation indicators and evaluation
results in the Third Phase National Evaluation for Teacher Education Institutes
in Korea. For the analysis, total 400 evaluation results of 4 types of teacher
education courses(i.e. College of Education, Education-stream courses in a
general comprehensive university, mandatory teacher training course for teaching
profession, and lastly, Graduate school of Education) in year 2010~2012 were
combined. The results show that at first, in all the teacher education courses,
it was found that there were three components (‘Teacher’, ‘Facilities &
Finance/Administration’, ‘Educational Outcome’) that exerted a common influence
on evaluation results. Second, despite the differences in influential evaluation
indicators between each courses, ‘Use rate of teaching practical room’ and ‘Per
capita research output of university faculty’ were found to be major indicators
in the area of educational administration. As for outcome measurements, ‘Teacher
appointment rate at public and private schools’ and ‘Satisfaction rate of
graduates who currently hold teaching posts' were found to be major indicators.
On the other hand, as for the curriculum section, in the area of curriculum, the
significance of each indicator was found to be inconsistent, hence there were no
coherent major indicators identified. Based on the results, this study suggests
following points. First, the Third phase National Evaluation has put more
emphasis on the area of ‘input and outcome' than that of ‘curriculum'. Second,
for some evaluation indicators, measuring scales need to be applied differently,
taking into consideration the type of teaching education course. Also, in the
case of ‘mandatory training course for teaching profession' and ‘Graduate school
of Education', whether there is College of Education in the same university
inevitably affects some of the evaluation indicators.
KEYWORDS
the Third Phase National
Evaluation for Teacher Education Institutes, Evaluation Indicators, Evaluation
Results, Analysis of Relations
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기