책무성 관점에서 본 유치원 평가에 대한 유아교사의 인식 = Early childhood teachers` perception about kindergarten evaluation in terms of accountability

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study was to analyze how early childhood teachers understand kindergarten evaluation in terms of accountability, and to draw implications for future improvement of kindergarten evaluation. For this direction, a survey study was conducted to 455 kindergarten teachers working for public and private kindergartens in Gyeonggi-do province and near the area. The results of this study were as follows. First, in terms of overall perception about kindergarten evaluation, early childhood teachers perceive the purpose of kindergarten evaluation as ‘enhancement of kindergarten teachers’ expertise and provision of opportunity for working hard.‘ For effects of kindergarten evaluation, they chose ‘provision of evaluation system assessing educational practices of teachers and administrators’. The teachers also perceived ‘educational planning’ as a judgment criterion of kindergarten accountability implementation. In addition, they highly agreed with the role of teachers as primary contributor to kindergarten evaluation. Second, in perception about the person directly involved in kindergarten evaluation index, teacher was perceived as a key evaluation person for ‘educational goals and planning’, ‘educational activities and evaluation implementation’, ‘young children’s health management and guidance’, and ‘young children’s development’. Kindergarten director was perceived as a key person in ‘in/outdoor educational environment construction and management’, and ‘furnishment/provision of educational materials’, ‘kindergarten staffs’ personnel welfare and expertise’, ‘budget organization and management’, and ‘networking between family and community as well as extra-curriculum management’. Parent was chosen as a key person for ‘education satisfaction’. Third, for opening of the results of kindergarten evaluation, they highly disagreed with open to the public. The reason was found that they concerned about the main direction of evaluation could be changed to a show to the public. For the public offering, in terms of target and range of evaluation results, ‘open the results to the kindergarten staffs only who took evaluation’ was perceived high priority. For the opening methods, ‘pass/fail and opening of kindergartens’ strength and weak points including suggestions for improvement were highly agreed. In terms of utilization methods of evaluation results, a strong consensus was on ‘evaluated kindergartens utilize autonomically the results as supplementary information for improvement of kindergarten’s quality’. For opening of the results after categorization of kindergartens by local conditions were marginally agreed. The primary reason was that it is fair to open the evaluation results after categorizing kindergartens in terms of local/starting conditions. Opening path and main contents of kindergarten evaluation opening were chosen as ‘kindergarten homepage’ and ‘curriculum’ respectively. The impact of public offering on parents’ selection of kindergarten was also investigated. The teachers highly agreed with ‘positive impact’ of kindergarten evaluation on parents’ selection. They also agreed with impact of kindergarten evaluation on selection of kindergarten through their job hunting process.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이진희, "헤드스타트 국가보고체제 논쟁으로부터의 교훈: 바람직한 유아평가를 위한 시사점" 한국영유아교원교육학회 16 (16): 115-133, 2012

2 조석희, "학교책무성 강화를 위한 학교평가 체제 개발연구" 한국교육개발원 2006

3 김영철, "학교의 책무성 제고 방안" 한국교육개발원 32 (32): 59-80, 2005

4 황자순, "책무성 관점에서 본 유치원 평가에 대한 학부모의 인식 및 요구도" 아주대학교 교육대학원 2014

5 송주연, "좋은 수업에 대한 유치원 교사들의 이야기" 한국열린유아교육학회 15 (15): 399-423, 2010

6 강수경, "유치원 평가의 과정과 지표에 대한 교사와 평가위원의 인식" 이화여자대학교 대학원 2009

7 김정은, "유치원 평가에 대한 교사의 인식 및 실태" 경성대학교 교육대학원 2009

8 강민정, "유치원 평가 받기 전과 후의 평가에 대한교사들의 인식과 어려움의 차이" 한국유아교육학회 31 (31): 419-440, 2011

9 임정호, "유치원 시범평가에 참여한 원장과 교사의 유치원 평가에 대한 인식" 이화여자대학교 대학원 2009

10 서현미, "유치원 기관평가에 대한 유치원 교사의 인식" 원광대학교 교육대학원 2009

11 박선미, "유치원 교원의 목소리를 통한 유아교육 책무성의 의미 탐색" 한국유아교육학회 32 (32): 321-341, 2012

12 손순복, "유치원 교사의 책무성과 교수효능감 간의 관계" 한국열린유아교육학회 17 (17): 485-504, 2012

13 조석훈, "유아교육의 공교육체제 강화와 유치원의 책무성" 한국유아교육학회 30 (30): 5-25, 2010

14 김규수, "유아교육과정 자율화의 과제와 전망" 한국유아교육학회 32 (32): 396-413, 2012

15 교육과학기술부, "유아교육 선진화 추진계획" 2009

16 최민수, "유아교원평가 시스템 구성방향 모색에 관한 연구" 미래유아교육학회 16 (16): 361-393, 2009

17 김주후, "시？도교육청 주관 학교평가 실태 분석" 한국교육평가학회 17 (17): 237-258, 2004

18 이대균, "시ㆍ도 교육청 주관 유치원 평가 제도 수립을 위한 논의" 한국열린유아교육학회 13 (13): 49-72, 2008

19 신현석, "단위학교 책무성의 동향분석 연구:미국과 영국을 중심으로" 한국교육행정학회 20 (20): 173-204, 2002

20 김안나, "국가수준유치원 평가위원의 책무성과 그 한계" 한국영유아교원교육학회 15 (15): 343-368, 2011

21 심은주, "국가수준 유치원평가의 내용 적합성에 대한 교사의 인식: 소속유치원의 설립주체 및 규모를 중심으로" 한국열린유아교육학회 15 (15): 25-47, 2010

22 황해익, "국가수준 유치원 평가에 대한 공,사립유치원 교사의 인식 비교" 한국열린유아교육학회 14 (14): 1-24, 2009

23 김경철, "국가수준 유치원 평가 향후 개선을 위한 교사들의 논의" 한국열린유아교육학회 14 (14): 79-101, 2009

24 김규태, "교육적 책무성의 개념적 구조." 19 (19): 287-308, 2001

25 배호순, "교육적 책무성 확립방안 모색을 위한 기초 연구" 34 (34): 167-185, 1996

26 김규태, "교육의 책무성" 원미사 2005

27 김주후, "교육성과를 포함한 책무성 중심 학교평가 모형 개발 및 적용" 한국교육평가학회 19 (19): 21-43, 2006

28 정지현, "교육과정 자율화와 책무성 확보를 통한 유아교육 선진화의 의미와 쟁점" 한국유아교육학회 31 (31): 285-308, 2011

29 이지은, "「유치원 평가」 참여에 따른 평가 및 교직 전문성에 대한 교원의 인식과 변화" 부산대학교 교육대학원 2009

30 Nevo, D., "School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school improvement" Pergamon 1995

31 김주후, "School evaluation policies and systems in Korea: A challenge of social validation" 한국교육개발원 8 (8): 3-28, 2011

32 Sanders, J. R., "International handbook of educational evaluation" Kluwer Academic Publishers 807-826, 2003

33 Bullough, R, V., "Head start and the intensification of teaching in early childhood education" 37 : 55-63, 2014

34 Bullough, R, V., "Head Start teacher well-being : Implications for policy and practice" 40 (40): 323-331, 2012

35 Cibulka, J. G., "Handbook of educational policy" Academic Press 184-213, 1999

36 Pyle, A., "Assessment in the kindergarten classroom : An empirical study of teachers’ assessment approaches" 41 : 373-380, 2013

37 Newmann, F. W., "Accountability and school performance : Implication form restructuring schools" 67 (67): 41-69, 1997