영재교육 프로그램 평정척도 개발 및 적용 = Development of a rating scale of the program evaluation for the gifted education programs and its application

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 영재교육 프로그램 평정척도를 개발하고 개발한 척도의 타당화와 우리나라 영재교육 프로그램 운영수준과 실태를 분석하는데 목적이 있다.
연구대상은 현재 우리나라 초?중학교 과정의 영재교육 프로그램이 운영되는 235개 기관과 이에 소속된 영재 지도자 245명이며, 이들의 프로그램 평가 결과가 연구 자료로 활용되었으며 연구결과는 다음과 같이 요약할 수 있다.
첫째, 영재교육 프로그램 평정척도는 문헌 연구, 선행 프로그램 평가 분석, 전문가 협의 및 영재 교육기관의 실무자 면담을 통해서 7개 평가 범주와 24개의 하위 평가 항목 및 81개의 평정 문항으로 구성하였다.
둘째, 개발한 평정척도를 연구 대상자에게 배포하여 영재교육 프로그램을 평가하고 분석한 결과 문항평균, 문항-총점 상관 계수 및 신뢰도 분석 결과 양호한 수준으로 분석되었다. 또 구인 타당도 분석에서 구조방정식 모형을 적용한 요인 분석 결과, 모형 적합도에서 만족한 수준에 이르지 못한 영역이 발견되었으나 요인 부하량 산출에서는 전체 및 하위 항목에서 모형 적합도가 양호한 것으로 나타났다.
셋째, 우리나라 영재교육 프로그램 운영수준과 실태를 분석한 결과, 전체적인 프로그램 운영수준은 7개 범주에서 교수-학습활동이 가장 잘 운영되는 것으로 나타났고 상담활동은 가장 낮게 평가되었다.
하위 평가 항목을 살펴보면, 영재교육대상자 판별은 전남의 평가 수준이 가장 높았으며, 영재교육 담당자의 전문성 개발은 시?도 교육청 소속의 영재교육원이 높은 점수를 받았다. 또 상담활동은 전반적으로 낮게 평가되고 있는 영역으로 영재를 직접 지도하는 교사?교수 보다 프로그램 관리?행정 담당자가 더 높은 점수를 준 것으로 나타났다. 영재교육 프로그램 설계 영역에서는 초등과정이 중학교 과정보다 운영수준이 높은 것으로 인식하고 있으며 지역별 평정에서는 서울이 가장 높았다. 교수-학습 활동은 지도 교사가 평가한 점수가 관리자보다 높게 나타났고 지역별에서는 서울이 가장 높은 점수를 받았다. 프로그램 평가 영역에서는 부산의 운영수준이 가장 잘되고 있는 것으로 나타났고 경남이 가장 낮은 평가 점수를 받았다.
연구 결과에 따른 결론은 다음과 같다.
첫째, 본 영재교육 프로그램 평정척도는 문헌 분석과 전문가 검토 및 실무자의 면담 과정을 통하여 우리나라 영재교육 프로그램 평가에 적합하게 구성하였다.
둘째, 개발한 평정척도의 타당성을 검증하기 위하여 통계 분석한 결과, 문항평균, 문항-총점의 상관계수 및 신뢰도 분석에서 일반적인 척도 문항의 적합성 범위 내에 분포하고 있었으며, 공변량 구조방정식 모형을 적용한 모형의 적합성 검증에서 양호한 결과를 보여주었기 때문에 척도의 기본적인 조건을 갖추었다고 할 수 있다.
셋째, 우리나라 영재교육 프로그램 운영수준을 평가자의 배경 특성별로 분석한 결과 배경 변인에 따라서 프로그램 운영수준의 차이가 큰 것으로 나타났다.
프로그램 하위 범주에서도 같은 결과로 분석되었는데 이는 우리나라 영재교육 프로그램 운영의 종합적인 관리체계와 프로그램 질 관리 시스템 정비가 필요함을 시사한다고 볼 수 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purposes of this study were to develop a rating scale of the program evaluation for the gifted (RSPEG) and to gather validity evidences for the scale. This study was also designed to analyze actual programs for the gifted children education in Korea using the developed scale. Research objects of this study were 235 education programs for the gifted children education at the elementary and junior high schools. Total 245 teachers or professors in these programs responded to the developed scale. The results of this study can be summarized as follows:
First, the RSPEG consists of 7 evaluation categories (student identification, professional development, emotional counselling, program design, curriculum and institution, program administration, program evaluation) with total 81 questions, which were created through literature review, examination of existing programs, and consultation with experts and interviews with persons who were involved in the programs for the gifted children education.
Second, the RSPEG was distributed to the people in charge of programs for the gifted children education. Item analyses and correlation coefficients between item and total scores showed that consisted items had relatively reasonable quality for the scale. The construct validity evidences supported the reasonable goodness of fit to the model.
Third, the analyses on the managemental levels of the programs for the gifted children education showed that, among seven sub-categories, the instructional strategy got the highest scpre and the emotional counselling got the lowest score in the scale.
Jeon-nam province ranked at the top in the student identification. For the item of professional development of persons in charge of the programs for the gifted children education, educational institutes for the gifted operated by metropolitan and provincial offices got higher scores than other areas did. The item of emotional counseling was rated low in general, and persons in charge of program management gave more higher scores than teachers or professors directly in charge of the program did.
In the program design for the gifted education, people believed that the courses for elementary schools could be higher quality level than those for junior high schools. Also, they believed institutes in Seoul were better than institutes in other cities and provinces. In items of instructional strategy, teacher's evaluation was higher than that of educational manager, and Seoul was rated at the top compared to other areas. In program evaluation item, Busan was rated at the top, and Gyoung-nam province was reated at the bottom.
Conclusions based upon the results of this study can be summarized as follows:
First, the RSPEG was developed with 7 evaluation categories and 81 questions to be suitable for the evaluation of the programs for the gifted children education in Korea. Those were based upon literature review, consultation with experts and interviews with persons in charge of the programs for the gifted children education.
Second, according to the evidences of validity, the RSPEG could be acceptable at a consistent level based upon the results from item analyses, item-total score correlation coefficients, and reliability analyses. Confirmatory factor analyses utilizing the structual equation modeling support construct validity of the scale developed in this study.
Third, according to the analysis on the managemental levels of the programs for the gifted children education, the results seem different due to the characters of actual programs. This study suggests that the current programs for the gifted children education could be needed to be reviewed comprehensively for readjustment.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성과 목적 = 1
• 2. 연구 내용 = 6
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 = 8
• 1. 영재교육 프로그램 평가의 개념 = 8
• 2. 영재교육 프로그램 평가 모형 = 15
• 3. 영재교육 프로그램 평가 범주와 요소 = 21
• 4. 영재교육 프로그램 평가 연구의 동향 = 44
• 5. 우리나라 영재교육 프로그램 운영 체계와 문제점 = 49
• Ⅲ. 연구 방법 = 55
• 1. 연구 대상 = 55
• 2. 연구 절차 및 자료 처리 = 56
• 가. 연구 Ⅰ: 평정척도 개발 및 타당화 = 56
• 나. 연구 Ⅱ: 평정척도의 적용 = 59
• Ⅳ. 결과 및 논의 = 60
• 1. 평정척도 개발 및 타당화 = 60
• 가. 평정척도 개발 = 60
• 나. 영재교육 프로그램 평정척도의 타당화 = 63
• 2. 평정척도 적용 연구 = 79
• 가. 프로그램 운영 수준의 전체적 경향 = 79
• 나. 프로그램 범주별 평가 분석 = 85
• 3. 논의 = 113
• Ⅴ. 요약, 결론 및 제언 = 121
• 1. 요약 = 121
• 2. 결론 = 123
• 3. 제언 = 124
• 참고문헌 = 126
• 부록 Ⅰ 영재교육 프로그램 평정척도 = 137
• 부록 Ⅱ 우리나라 영재교육 프로그램 구성 및 운영 기준 = 144
• 부록 Ⅲ 프로그램 평정 결과 = 149
• 영문초록 = 163
• 국문초록 = 165

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. Keeping track, Oakes, , 1985

2. 영재교육학, 전경원, , 2000

3. The enrichment triad, Renzulli, , 1977

4. Planing gifted programs, Gubbins, , 1992

5. Teaching the gifted child, Gallagher, James John, Allyn and Bacon, , 1994

6. 영재 학생 식별 편람, 김정휘, , 1998

7. Fourth generation evaluation, Goba, E. G., , 1989

8. Education and decision making, Stufflebeam, , 1971

9. Creative teaching of the gifted, Sisk, Dorothy A, McGraw-Hill, , 1987

10. Nature and nurture of giftedness, Tannenbaum, , 2003

11. How to raise your school's ranking, Hedges, , 1979

12. 영재아 실태 조사 및 지도, 정연태, , 1986

13. Minimum essential and accountability, Provus, , 1971

14. A new paradigm for parent involvement, Sheeley, , 1989

15. Course Improvement through evaluation, Cronbach, Course improvement through evaluation, , 1963

16. Gifted education programming criteria, National Association for Gifted Children, , 1998

17. Gifted students in regular classrooms, Parke, Beverly N, Allyn and Bacon, , 1989

18. Synthesis of research on gifted youth, Feldhusen, , 1989

19. How the gifted cope with their emotions, Roeper, , 1982

20. Teacher attitude toward gifted children, Jacobs, , 1972

21. Pros and Cons about Goal-free Evaluation, Scriven, , 1974

22. Utilization-focused evaluation (2nd ed.), Patton, , 1986

23. Recommended practices in gifted education, Cornell, Ward, Robinson, Shore, , 1991

24. Gifted Children : their nature and nurture, Hollingworth, Leta S, The Macmillan, , 1926

25. Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement, Whitmore, Joanne Rand, Allyn and Bacon, "Giftedness, , 1980

26. Ability grouping: A best-evidence synthesis, Slavin, , 1987

27. Assessment as the catalyst of school reform, Simmons, Renick, , 1993

28. Educating the Gifted : an axiomatic approach, Ward, Virgil S, Charles E. Merrill Books, , 1961

29. Issues in evaluating programs for the gifted, Callahan, , 1983

30. Self-conception and gifted child (RBDM 9103), Renzulli, Hoge, , 1991

31. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction, Tyler, Ralph W, Chicago University Press, Basic principles of curriculum and instruction, , 1971

32. Comparing GT trained and GT untrained teachers, Feldhusen, Hansen, , 1992

33. Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, Maker, , 1982

34. Evaluation gifted program: A broader perspective, Borl, , 2003

35. Differentiated curriculum for the gifted/talented, Passow, , 1982

36. Planning and implementing programs for the gifted, Borland, James H, Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, , 1989

37. High ability students who are unpopular with their, Cornell, , 1990

38. Talent identification and development in education, Feldhusen, , 1992

39. The autonomous learner for the gifted and talented, Betts G.T, , 1991

40. 수학 영재성 측정과 판별에 관한 연구, 송상헌, 서울대학교 대학원, "박사학위논문, , 1998

41. 영재교육. 한국교육개발원 연구논저(2), 신세호, , 1988

42. Gifted adolescents attitudes toward their giftedness, Colangelo, Gaegh, Kerr, , 1988

43. Family environments of underachieving gifted students, Lowe, Rimm, , 1988

44. Frames of mind : the theory of multiple intelligences, Gardner, Howard, BasicBooks, Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences,

45. Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.), VanTassel-Baska, , 1993

46. Cooperative learning and academically talented students, Robinson, , 1991

47. Counseling agendas for gifted young people: A commentary, Robinson, , 1996

48. Planning effective evaluation for program for the gifted, Tomlinson, Callahan, , 1993

49. Whatdo we mean bygiftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory, Sternberg, Zhang, , 1995

50. A comprehensive framework for total educational evaluation, Rimm, , 1977

51. Identifying and programming for young black gifted children, Karnes, , 1990

52. A practitioner's guide to evaluating programs for the gifted, Callahan, Carolyn M, A Service Publication of The National Association for Gifted Children, , 1997

53. Effective curriculum and instructional models for the gifted, VanTassel-Baska, , 1986

54. How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms, Tomlinson, Carol A, Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, , 2005

55. Why do bright children underachieve? The pressures they feel, Rimm, , 1987

56. Integrating gifted education into the total school curriculum, Cooper, , 1995

57. Naming gifted children: An example of unintended "reproduction, Margolin, Peterson, "Naming gifted children: An example of unintended ""reproduction", , 1997

58. Writing Units that challenge: A guidebook for and by educators, Samara, Curry, , 1990

59. Program designanddevelopmentforgiftedandtalentedstudents(2nded.), Tuttle, Becker, Program design and development for gifted and talented students (2nd ed.), , 1983

60. The education of gifted children in the United States: Delphi study, Cramer, , 1991

61. The grid: A model toconstruct differentiated curriculum for thegifted, Kaplan, , 1986

62. Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented, Renzulli, Joseph S, Creative Learning Press, , 1986

63. Using evaluation results to improve programs for the gifted and talented, Caldwell, Callahan, , 1995

64. An analysis of the impact of curriculum compacting on classroom practices, Reis, Purcell, , 1991

65. Academic and social self-concepts of gifted, general, and special students, Colangelo, Kelly, "Academic and social self-concepts of gifted, , 1984

66. Diagnostic and evaluative scales for differential education for the gifted, Renzulli, Ward, , 1969

67. The K-3 teacher's role in recognizing and supporting young gifted children, Kitano, , 1989

68. Using the Purdue Three-Stage Model to facilitate local program evaluations, Moon, , 1990

69. 영재교육에 대한 국제비교 및 교사, 학부모의 인식 연구, 최미림, 영재교육에 대한 국제비교 및 교사?학부모의 인식 연구, , 2002

70. Fostering effective, independent learningthrough individualized programming, Treffinger, "Fostering effective, , 1986

71. Gifted teacher competencies: Rating by rural principals and teachers compared, Prindle, Nelson, , 1992

72. The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for education excellence, Renzulli, Reis, , 1985

73. Qualitative extensions of the learning outcomes study (Research Monograph 94109), Evans, Delcourt, , 1994

74. Perceived need, teacher efficacy, and teacher strategies for the gifted and talented, Starko, Schack, "Perceived need, , 1989

75. The exceptulization of educational evaluation: an analytical review of the literature, Nevo, , 1983

76. Lead us not into temptation: Issues in evaluating the effectiveness of gifted programs, Southern, , 1992

77. 영재아동의 교육을 위한 부모와 교사의 역할. 초등교육연구 제5집, 배진수, , 1995

78. Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students, Robinson, , 1990

79. A guidebook for developing individualized educational programs for gifted and talented student, Renzulli, Smith, , 1978

80. Developing and testing innovation component configuration map for gift education in elementary school, Evans.M, , 2001

81. 학교교육개혁지원을 위한 학교컨설팅 사업(Ⅱ). 한국교육개발원 연구보고 RR 2001-7, 김정원, 이인효, 정수현, , 2001

82. 영재교육진흥종합계획(안) 수립을 위한 공청회. 한국교육 개발원 연구자료 RM 2002-27, 한국교육개발원, , 2002

83. Attitudes of university faculty, administrator, teacher, supervisors, and university students toward the gifted, Wiener, O'Shea, "Attitudes of university faculty, , 1963

84. Identification of gifted students: An analysis of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, classroom teacher, and teachers of the gifted, Starko, Schack, "Identification of gifted students: An analysis of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, , 1990

85. 영재교육 프로그램의 평가. 한국교육개발원 2003년도 영재교육 담 당교원 심화연수 사이버연수 강의자료, 강충열, , 2003

86. Guidelines for conducting useful evaluations of programs for gifted learner (Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act Grant No. R206R00001). Virginia, Talented, National Research Center on the Gifted, , 1992

87. Technical report for the classroom practice study: An observation study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented student in regular classrooms, Dobyns, Aechambault, Salvin, Westbreg, , 1991