한국청소년의 교육격차 연구 = Inequality in cognitive and affective learnings of Korean students in primary and secondary schools

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

1. Background
The principles of equality and free competition, coupled with the trend toward social mobility based on individual achievement, attach greater importance to higher levels of individual competencies and qualifications. Accordingly, education is given relatively heavy weightage as an essential component of the nation's development policy.
The fact that education is the major means for social mobility clearly indicates that education is the most influential determinant for the socio-economic inequality of people. The conclusion from this argument is that education plays vital role in reducing socio-economic inequalities and restoring the human dignity of all people. From this perspective, the inequality in terms of education quality has become a serious problem as a major hindrance to social development. This concern was well reflected in Coleman Report and Plowden Report in the early 1960s.
The problems of inequality have permeated every sphere of education - not only the quantitative development but facilities, educational contents and the quality of education. In this sense, a clear understanding and analysis of such educational inequalities would offer vigorous ways to enhance the quality of education and to realize social justice by facilitating policy prescription.
2. Problems
This study starts with an attempt to define "educational inequality" under the assumption that the concept of educational inequality must be understood in the context of the relationship between individual potential, equality in educational opportunity and school education. Viewing that the equal opportunity for education provides necessary conditions for the maximum development of individual potential, school education may well concern itself with the equalization of educational outcomes. Therefore, the primary concern of educators is to reduce the inequality in achievement among individuals or groups and how far they are from the equal outcomes of learning.
This study is intended to analyze inequalities in the student achievement of both cognitive and affective domains. The former category involves intelligence, academic achievement and achievement of behavioral objectives, while the latter involves self-concept, value and aspiration. A comparative analysis of the inequalities in these aspects was made between urban and rural areas, between males and females and between the social strata.
3. Method
The conceptualization of a study model to this end involved a careful analysis of the characteristics of achievement gap, the extent to which educational opportunities are equal, and the variation of education quality. Since the purpose of this study was to investigate numerous variables that accounted for the variation of education quality, systems approach was adopted. This approach, originated in business management based on the clear-cut relationship of input and output, is not readily adaptable to the educational process. For all the difficulty, the fact that school is a subsystem of the social system suggests the desirability of using the systems approach in education.
◁그림 삽입▷(원문을 참조하세요)
It should be noted, however, that this approach has made significant contribution to educational reforms in recent years.
Bearing this point in mind, a study model was evolved through an extensive analysis of relevant literature.
The materials used in this study cover the whole range of tools which have been developed up to the present (1959 - 1979). To analyze factors related to output variables, Jones & Fiske's integrating significance test was used.
4. Findings
Inequality in Cognitive Objectives
To identify the inequality in intelligence between urban and rural areas, standardized intelligence tests (General Intelligence Test standardized in 1967 by B. M. Chung and H. K. Kim, Comprehensive Intelligence Test in 1979 by J. K. Whang and S. T. Kim) were used. The result shows that the achievement gap between urban and rural areas ranges from 11 to 27 in primary school, from 14 to 34 in middle school and from 30 to 38 in high school. KWIS' difference between urban and rural areas was 21 points. The regional difference based on K-WISC was found significant at the level of p <.01 and it was larger in the verbal achievement than in the performance achievement.
The difference of intelligence between males and females was found significiant (p <.001) at the high school level, while it was negligible between social strata.
The difference in achievement between urban and rural areas ranged from 10 to 20 in primary school (p <.001, χ²=325.28, df = 74). It was much larger in mathematics (16 points), science (13 points) and arts (music 20 points). As regards basic learning skills, the regional difference was noticeable in language, computation and problem-solving (p <.01 ∼ p <.001) in primary school. In the case of middle and high schools, the difference averaged little more than 10 points (p <.01 ∼ p <.001) and it was more noticeable in mathematics (19 points).
Male students showed higher levels of achievement than female students (p <.01 ∼ p <.001) in primary and high schools. The difference between social strata was found significant at the level of p <.01; that is, the achievement level was higher with the elevation of social strata.
In the case of behavioral achievement, the difference between urban and rural areas was noticeable (p <.001), with the former showing higher levels of achievement.
Inequality in Affective Objectives
The attempt to identify the difference in the achievement in affective domain was handicapped by the ambiguity of affective behaviors, the paucity of valid tools and ineffective method of sampling.
The difference in the achievement of self-concept was noticeable (p<.005, χ²=82.84, df=18), indicating that "the higher the achievement, the stronger self-concept is." The family environment has a close relation with self concept (r=.50). The difference in the achievement of self-concept that is affected by the family environment is significant at the level of p<.005 (χ²=68.38, df=14).
The effort to measure the difference in values had limitations because of the dearth of valid measurement tools. Despite the difficulty, this study helped to throw light on a partially significant difference in value between males and famales.
The result of a comprehensive test is indicative of a significant difference in aspirations that are affected by student achievement (p<.001, χ²=38.36, df=8). There was also a noticeable difference in aspirations among social strata (p<.01).
5. Conclusion
On the basis of the aforementioned findings, a conclusion may be derived as follows.
First, a significant difference in intelligence exists between urban and rural students. The difference in intelligence between urban and rural areas ranges from 11 to 27 points in primary school, from 14 to 34 points in middle school, and from 30 to 38 points in high school. The KWIS' difference is 21 points, and urban students show higher levels of intelligence. This difference becomes larger as students go on to higher grade levels. The difference in intelligence between male and female students is negligible in primary and middle schools. At the high school level, however, male students show 5-8 points higher than female students (p<.01 ∼ p<.001).
Second, for the past 20 years, the achievement level of urban students has been more than 10 points higher than their counterparts in rural areas. This difference is significant (p<.01 ∼ p<.001). The problem becomes more serious when one consider that the nationwide achievement of children in elementary and secondary schools averages only 50-60 points against the full score of 100 points. The fact that school education is far from fulfilling its basic goals poses unpalatable implications for education in the future. Male students achieve markedly higher than female students in primary and high schools. This difference seems to have much to do with socio-cultural background related to the sexual relationship.
Third, the achievement level of behavioral objectives is much lower than that of cognitive domain and the difference between male and famale students is much larger. This fact suffices to say that school education is more concerned with the imparting of information and facts, with little attention paid to the development of higher mental processing skills. It is one of major educational roles to play vital role in reducing the socio-economic gaps between urban and rural areas. Despite this mandate, school education today rather contributes to widening the gaps by mirroring the social reality as it is.
Fourth, it is theoretically and empirically well established that the family background has profound impact on the achievement of cognitive learning. Therefore, the difference in the achievement of cognitive learning as observed in the previous section should be understood in the context of family background.
Fifth, the achievement of affective behaviors is also important. The problem is that the characteristics of affective behaviors have yet to be elucidated and there is no consensus as to the concept of affective behaviors and measurement tools. For all the conceptual problems, the clear fact is that the affective traits have much to do with personal success.
In this sense, the difference in the achievement of affective behaviors assumes great importance as a major factor that accounts for much of personal success. This study attempted to illuminate this difference although it was on a partial basis. The findings of this study is clearly indicative of the significant differences in self-concept and aspirations that have profound bearing on the achievement of cognitive learning.
Considering along this line leads us to the need for an in-depth study on the specific outcomes in both cognitive and affective domains of education, causes for the regional variance of achievement and how this contributes to social inequalities.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• I. 問題의 提起 = 1
• II. 理論的 背景 = 13
• 1. 敎育隔差의 槪念 = 13
• 2. 敎育隔差의 歷史的·哲學的 含蓄性 = 20
• A. 先天的 等級의 人間觀: 能力不變의 假定 = 21
• B. 變化를 前提한 人間觀: 潛在力啓發의 假定 = 25
• C. 人間觀과 學敎의 機能 = 29
• 3. 敎育隔差와 敎育機會均等 = 31
• A. 敎育機會均等의 槪念 = 31
• B. 敎育機會均等의 發達脈絡 = 36
• C. 敎育機會均等과 敎育隔差의 函數 = 40
• 4. 敎育隔差硏究의 諸 論議 = 43
• A. 遺傳·環境과 認知隔差 = 43
• B. 家庭背景과 敎育隔差 = 47
• C. 社會的 背景과 敎育隔差 = 52
• D. 學校敎育과 敎育隔差 = 54
• III. 硏究設計 = 63
• 1. 槪念模型 = 63
• 2. 硏究方法 = 73
• A. 資料의 蒐集 = 73
• B. 資料의 分析 = 75
• C. 有意度綜合檢證法 = 77
• D. 硏究의 制限點 = 82
• IV. 結果: 産出변인의 隔差 = 85
• 1. 認知隔差 = 86
• A. 知能의 隔差 = 87
• B. 學業成績의 隔差 = 105
• C. 行動領域別 成就水準의 隔差 = 154
• 2. 情意隔差 = 160
• A. 自我槪念의 隔差 = 161
• B. 價値觀의 隔差 = 173
• C. 抱負水準의 隔差 = 176
• V. 論議 = 183
• VI. 要約 및 結論 = 201
• A. 要約 = 201
• B. 結論 = 204
• 參考文獻 = 211
• 附錄 = 237
• 英文槪要 = 239