RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
자동완성 버튼

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력
    あ ぁ か が さ ざ た だ な は ば ぱ ま や ゃ ら わ ゎ ん い ぃ き ぎ し じ ち ぢ に ひ び ぴ み り う ぅ く ぐ す ず つ づ っ ぬ ふ ぶ ぷ む ゆ ゅ る え ぇ け げ せ ぜ て で ね へ べ ぺ め れ お ぉ こ ご そ ぞ と ど の ほ ぼ ぽ も よ ょ ろ を
    ア ァ カ サ ザ タ ダ ナ ハ バ パ マ ヤ ャ ラ ワ ヮ ン イ ィ キ ギ シ ジ チ ヂ ニ ヒ ビ ピ ミ リ ウ ゥ ク グ ス ズ ツ ヅ ッ ヌ フ ブ プ ム ユ ュ ル エ ェ ケ ゲ セ ゼ テ デ ヘ ベ ペ メ レ オ ォ コ ゴ ソ ゾ ト ド ノ ホ ボ ポ モ ヨ ョ ロ ヲ ―

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    ㅥ ㅦ ㅧ ㅨ ㅩ ㅪ ㅫ ㅬ ㅭ ㅮ ㅯ ㅰ ㅱ ㅲ ㅳ ㅴ ㅵ ㅶ ㅷ ㅸ ㅹ ㅺ ㅻ ㅼ ㅽ ㅾ ㅿ ㆀ ㆁ ㆂ ㆃ ㆄ ㆅ ㆆ ㆇ ㆈ ㆉ ㆊ ㆋ ㆌ ㆍ ㆎ
    Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ξ Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
    á à Á À é è É È ç Ç ê
    Ä Ö Ü ä ö ü ß
    ְ ֳ ֲ ֱ ָ ַ ֵ ֶ ִ ֹ ּ ֻ ׂ ׁ ּ פ ם ן ו ט א ר ק ף ך ל ח י ע כ ג ד ש ץ ת צ מ נ ה ב
    ‘ ’ “ ” 〔 〕 〈 〉 「 」 『 』 【 】 ＂ （ ） ［ ］ ｛ ｝
    ± × ÷ ≠ ≤ ≥ ∞ ∴ ♂ ♀ ∠ ⊥ ⌒ ∂ ∇ ≡ ≒ ≪ ≫ √ ∽ ∝ ∵ ∫ ∬ ∈ ∋ ⊆ ⊇ ⊂ ⊃ ∪ ∩ ∧ ∨ ￢ ⇒ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∮ ∑ ∏ ＋ － ＜ ＝ ＞
    、 。 · ‥ … ¨ 〃 ― ∥ ＼ ∼ ´ ～ ˇ ˘ ˝ ˚ ˙ ¸ ˛ ¡ ¿ ː ！ ＇ ， ． ／ ： ； ？ ＾ ＿ ｀ ｜
    ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁿ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄
    Æ Ð Ħ IJ Ł Ø Œ Þ Ŧ Ŋ æ đ ð ħ ı ij ĸ ŀ ł ø œ ß þ ŧ ŋ ʼn
    А Б В Г Д Е Ё Ж З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ы Ь Э Ю Я а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я
    ′ ″ ℃ Å ￠ ￡ ￥ ¤ ℉ ‰ ＄ ％ Ｆ ￦ ㎕ ㎖ ㎗ ℓ ㎘ ㏄ ㎣ ㎤ ㎥ ㎦ ㎙ ㎚ ㎛ ㎜ ㎝ ㎞ ㎟ ㎠ ㎡ ㎢ ㏊ ㎍ ㎎ ㎏ ㏏ ㎈ ㎉ ㏈ ㎧ ㎨ ㎰ ㎱ ㎲ ㎳ ㎴ ㎵ ㎶ ㎷ ㎸ ㎹ ㎀ ㎁ ㎂ ㎃ ㎄ ㎺ ㎻ ㎽ ㎾ ㎿ ㎐ ㎑ ㎒ ㎓ ㎔ Ω ㏀ ㏁ ㎊ ㎋ ㎌ ㏖ ㏅ ㎭ ㎮ ㎯ ㏛ ㎩ ㎪ ㎫ ㎬ ㏝ ㏐ ㏓ ㏃ ㏉ ㏜ ㏆
    § ※ ☆ ★ ○ ● ◎ ◇ ◆ □ ■ △ ▽ → ← ↑ ↓ ↔ 〓 ◁ ◀ ▷ ▶ ♤ ♠ ♡ ♥ ♧ ♣ ⊙ ◈ ▣ ◐ ◑ ▒ ▤ ▥ ▨ ▧ ▦ ▩ ♨ ☏ ☎ ☜ ☞ † ‡ ↕ ↗ ↙ ↖ ↘ ♭ ♩ ♪ ♬ ㉿ ㈜ № ㏇ ™ ㏂ ㏘ ℡ ＃ ＆ ＊ ＠ ª º
    ⅰ ⅱ ⅲ ⅳ ⅴ ⅵ ⅶ ⅷ ⅸ ⅹ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ Ⅵ Ⅶ Ⅷ Ⅸ Ⅹ
    ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ک ل م ن ه و ی
    닫기

    韓國 敎師評價制의 診斷및 發展 模型 構案 = (A) Diagnosis of teachers' evaluation systems in Korea and design of their improved model

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T9784988

    • 0

      상세조회

    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    영어
    한국어
    In general, it is possible to discuss teacher evaluation in two categories. One method is to divide teachers into desirable and undesirable ones to obtain some data necessary to make decisions on their personnel management, and the other method is to evaluate teachers to help them develop their professional ability. The former method is sort of summative evaluation based on performances, while the latter method is a kind of formative evaluation based on processes. Usually, teacher evaluation uses both methods, although one method is more or less focused on than the other. In Korea, however, the current teachers' job performance evaluation focuses on the results of classroom performances, comparison among teachers, and their ranks and thereby, rating them to obtain the data required for their personnel management. In this regard, the current system seems to be similar to summative evaluation. It is required, therefore, to take into consideration teachers' comments on classroom processes and students' learning behaviors and thereby, evaluate teachers' performances to help them enhance their professionalism and teaching efficiency. In short, it is necessary to change the current summative evaluation system into a formative one or complement it. Then, the new teacher evaluation system will serve to enhance teachers' enthusiasm and desire for teaching-learning, and thereby, motivate them to perform their job in a creative and positive way and sharpen their professionalism.
    Thus, it may well be important to discuss how diverse evaluators can participate in the process of evaluating teachers and how the formative evaluation can be done and thereby, how the results can be reflected in the process of exploring a teacher evaluation model. In other words, it is essential to implement a formative evaluation system based on processes in order to relieve teachers' resistance to the evaluation by diverse evaluators and at the same time, help them enhance their professionalism actually. On such an assumption, our teacher evaluation system would develop much if goal, contents, methods, timing and feedback of the evaluation should be reviewed comprehensively and systematically and thereupon, a new teacher evaluation model be suggested.
    With such basic conceptions in mind, this study was aimed at comparatively analyzing the arguments being raised by our education community and various walks of life regarding the teacher evaluation system and thereupon, addressing the various problems of the current evaluation system and explore its alternatives. In other words, the problems of the current teacher evaluation system were analyzed and reviewed to be improved, and thereby, a new evaluation model was proposed as an alternative to improve teachers' professionalism and instruction quality. Moreover, the new evaluation model proposed was referred to experts to poll their opinions about how much it would contribute to enhancement of teachers' professionalism, instruction quality and their job performances. Besides, experts were asked to comment on how effectively and optimally this model had been designed.
    The new teacher evaluation model suggested in this study may be divided into the two-model for teachers. On the other hand, it was designed to be operated for 'formative' and 'summative' evaluations. Specifically, the formative evaluation may be done to evaluate teachers' pedagogic growth every year or every two years, and the summative evaluation may be done for their instruction ability and job performance every 3 years or anytime when deemed necessary. The formative evaluation model was focused on enhancement of teachers' professionalism, while the summative evaluation model was focused intentionally on personnel management, reward for performances or correction.
    The formative evaluation model for teachers distinguishes the novice teachers who have been working for 3 years from career teachers. The novice teachers can be evaluated for their job performances, instruction ability, classroom management, administrative work, counselling for parents and students, and their understanding of schooling conditions and actions thereof. On the other hand, the career teachers can be evaluated to enhance and predict their responsibility and professionalism. And the details of such goals may be suggested more specifically and controlled by a 'teacher evaluation committee' established at each unit school in consideration of schooling conditions and teachers' individual differences. In this context, it may well be desirable to organize the 'teacher evaluation committee' with the participation of principal, vice principal, peer teachers and parents and coordinate and allow the committee to determine the specific goals of evaluation for individual teachers through consultation between teachers and evaluators.
    The primary evaluation points are personality and attitude as official, curriculum guidance (class operation, pedagogic evaluation), guidance of school life and extracurricular activities, counselling, classroom management, research and training, administrative work, relation with parents and community, participation in school management, etc. Thus, teachers' individual capacity and professionalism can be comprehensively evaluated with this sub-model.
    And, the local school inspector, namely principal or vice principal can evaluate the teachers for all the evaluation points enumerated above, while peer teachers evaluate instruction process and inter-teacher cooperation, and teachers themselves can evaluate themselves for all the points mentioned above. Besides, it is deemed necessary to use such evaluation scales as observation, questionnaire, rating, interview, checklist or goal management according to the actual conditions.
    Teachers can be evaluated at the end of first or second semester every 3 years, or any time if necessary to be summed up at the end of the grade. If a teacher has reached the goals of evaluation under such a formative evaluation system, he or she needs to be urged to set the next goals towards which he or she can continue develop himself or herself. In contrast, those teachers who have not reached such goals may be urged to re-coordinate the evaluation goals through consultation with evaluators, or if necessary, evaluators and teachers may be allowed to ask the evaluation committee to evaluate the teachers under the summative evaluation system. And the committee needs to make public the results of the formative evaluation, while recording and managing them annually.
    On the other hand, the summative evaluation model checks teachers' quality, maintain the educational level at school (community), and obtain the data for personnel management of the career teachers. To this end, principal, vice principal, peer teachers, parents and evaluation expert (local school inspector, etc.,) are required to join hands to organize a teacher evaluation committee which will arrange control evaluation references at the level of school or community and therewith, evaluate teachers.
    As with the formative evaluation model, the primary evaluation points are personality and attitude as official, curriculum guidance (instruction process, pedagogic evaluation), guidance of school life and extracurricular activities, counselling, classroom management, research and training, administrative work, relation with parents and community, participation in school management, and other areas related with teachers' pedagogic activities and job performances. etc. On the other hand, the evaluation committee and local school inspector, namely principal or vice principal can evaluate all the points enumerated above according to the references while peer teachers evaluate instruction process and inter-teacher cooperation, and parents and students evaluate teachers' pedagogic counselling and education service activities by using such evaluation scales as observation, questionnaire, rating, interview, checklist, etc. Teachers themselves can suggest their opinions about the results of the entire evaluation.
    In principle, teachers can be evaluated at the end of the grade every 3 years, or anytime if deemed required for personnel management. Those teachers who are deemed to have reached the required levels will be rewarded by means of promotion, transfer, pay raise, bonus, prize or other personnel management merits. If necessary, not only individual teachers but also each teachers' group (school) may be rewarded so that their pedagogic performances can be appreciated. In contrast, those teachers who have not reached the required levels should be urged to undergo a correction or training program designed for them. Also, the evaluation committee needs to make public the results of evaluation, while any teacher that complains about them may request the committee to re-evaluate him or her.
    Today, teacher evaluation is a means of educational reform designed to enhance teachers' professionalism and check if teachers are responsible for their job. Accordingly, the success of the educational reform must depend on how the teacher evaluation system can be improved. Recently, the educational reforms of many advanced nations focus on improvement of the quality of teachers' personnel management evaluation. Namely, their educational reforms start with the perception that quality of education may be improved through effective teacher evaluation. Now, although teachers' evaluation is used to select teachers, promote or reward them, it is more used to help teachers develop their desired ability and thereby, improve the pedagogic quality. Therefore, it is necessary to feedback the processes and results of teacher evaluation into the system to improve classroom activities, enhance teachers' professionalism, and ultimately, enhance the quality of school education. In this regard, it is essential to continue to research into a better teacher evaluation system.
    Above all, new teacher evaluation model suggested in this study should be supported by positive and empirical study in teachers' job performance and we should grope for educational community's agreement on teacher multi-rater system so that this model will be successfully settled in school.
    번역하기

    In general, it is possible to discuss teacher evaluation in two categories. One method is to divide teachers into desirable and undesirable ones to obtain some data necessary to make decisions on their personnel management, and the other method is to ...

    In general, it is possible to discuss teacher evaluation in two categories. One method is to divide teachers into desirable and undesirable ones to obtain some data necessary to make decisions on their personnel management, and the other method is to evaluate teachers to help them develop their professional ability. The former method is sort of summative evaluation based on performances, while the latter method is a kind of formative evaluation based on processes. Usually, teacher evaluation uses both methods, although one method is more or less focused on than the other. In Korea, however, the current teachers' job performance evaluation focuses on the results of classroom performances, comparison among teachers, and their ranks and thereby, rating them to obtain the data required for their personnel management. In this regard, the current system seems to be similar to summative evaluation. It is required, therefore, to take into consideration teachers' comments on classroom processes and students' learning behaviors and thereby, evaluate teachers' performances to help them enhance their professionalism and teaching efficiency. In short, it is necessary to change the current summative evaluation system into a formative one or complement it. Then, the new teacher evaluation system will serve to enhance teachers' enthusiasm and desire for teaching-learning, and thereby, motivate them to perform their job in a creative and positive way and sharpen their professionalism.
    Thus, it may well be important to discuss how diverse evaluators can participate in the process of evaluating teachers and how the formative evaluation can be done and thereby, how the results can be reflected in the process of exploring a teacher evaluation model. In other words, it is essential to implement a formative evaluation system based on processes in order to relieve teachers' resistance to the evaluation by diverse evaluators and at the same time, help them enhance their professionalism actually. On such an assumption, our teacher evaluation system would develop much if goal, contents, methods, timing and feedback of the evaluation should be reviewed comprehensively and systematically and thereupon, a new teacher evaluation model be suggested.
    With such basic conceptions in mind, this study was aimed at comparatively analyzing the arguments being raised by our education community and various walks of life regarding the teacher evaluation system and thereupon, addressing the various problems of the current evaluation system and explore its alternatives. In other words, the problems of the current teacher evaluation system were analyzed and reviewed to be improved, and thereby, a new evaluation model was proposed as an alternative to improve teachers' professionalism and instruction quality. Moreover, the new evaluation model proposed was referred to experts to poll their opinions about how much it would contribute to enhancement of teachers' professionalism, instruction quality and their job performances. Besides, experts were asked to comment on how effectively and optimally this model had been designed.
    The new teacher evaluation model suggested in this study may be divided into the two-model for teachers. On the other hand, it was designed to be operated for 'formative' and 'summative' evaluations. Specifically, the formative evaluation may be done to evaluate teachers' pedagogic growth every year or every two years, and the summative evaluation may be done for their instruction ability and job performance every 3 years or anytime when deemed necessary. The formative evaluation model was focused on enhancement of teachers' professionalism, while the summative evaluation model was focused intentionally on personnel management, reward for performances or correction.
    The formative evaluation model for teachers distinguishes the novice teachers who have been working for 3 years from career teachers. The novice teachers can be evaluated for their job performances, instruction ability, classroom management, administrative work, counselling for parents and students, and their understanding of schooling conditions and actions thereof. On the other hand, the career teachers can be evaluated to enhance and predict their responsibility and professionalism. And the details of such goals may be suggested more specifically and controlled by a 'teacher evaluation committee' established at each unit school in consideration of schooling conditions and teachers' individual differences. In this context, it may well be desirable to organize the 'teacher evaluation committee' with the participation of principal, vice principal, peer teachers and parents and coordinate and allow the committee to determine the specific goals of evaluation for individual teachers through consultation between teachers and evaluators.
    The primary evaluation points are personality and attitude as official, curriculum guidance (class operation, pedagogic evaluation), guidance of school life and extracurricular activities, counselling, classroom management, research and training, administrative work, relation with parents and community, participation in school management, etc. Thus, teachers' individual capacity and professionalism can be comprehensively evaluated with this sub-model.
    And, the local school inspector, namely principal or vice principal can evaluate the teachers for all the evaluation points enumerated above, while peer teachers evaluate instruction process and inter-teacher cooperation, and teachers themselves can evaluate themselves for all the points mentioned above. Besides, it is deemed necessary to use such evaluation scales as observation, questionnaire, rating, interview, checklist or goal management according to the actual conditions.
    Teachers can be evaluated at the end of first or second semester every 3 years, or any time if necessary to be summed up at the end of the grade. If a teacher has reached the goals of evaluation under such a formative evaluation system, he or she needs to be urged to set the next goals towards which he or she can continue develop himself or herself. In contrast, those teachers who have not reached such goals may be urged to re-coordinate the evaluation goals through consultation with evaluators, or if necessary, evaluators and teachers may be allowed to ask the evaluation committee to evaluate the teachers under the summative evaluation system. And the committee needs to make public the results of the formative evaluation, while recording and managing them annually.
    On the other hand, the summative evaluation model checks teachers' quality, maintain the educational level at school (community), and obtain the data for personnel management of the career teachers. To this end, principal, vice principal, peer teachers, parents and evaluation expert (local school inspector, etc.,) are required to join hands to organize a teacher evaluation committee which will arrange control evaluation references at the level of school or community and therewith, evaluate teachers.
    As with the formative evaluation model, the primary evaluation points are personality and attitude as official, curriculum guidance (instruction process, pedagogic evaluation), guidance of school life and extracurricular activities, counselling, classroom management, research and training, administrative work, relation with parents and community, participation in school management, and other areas related with teachers' pedagogic activities and job performances. etc. On the other hand, the evaluation committee and local school inspector, namely principal or vice principal can evaluate all the points enumerated above according to the references while peer teachers evaluate instruction process and inter-teacher cooperation, and parents and students evaluate teachers' pedagogic counselling and education service activities by using such evaluation scales as observation, questionnaire, rating, interview, checklist, etc. Teachers themselves can suggest their opinions about the results of the entire evaluation.
    In principle, teachers can be evaluated at the end of the grade every 3 years, or anytime if deemed required for personnel management. Those teachers who are deemed to have reached the required levels will be rewarded by means of promotion, transfer, pay raise, bonus, prize or other personnel management merits. If necessary, not only individual teachers but also each teachers' group (school) may be rewarded so that their pedagogic performances can be appreciated. In contrast, those teachers who have not reached the required levels should be urged to undergo a correction or training program designed for them. Also, the evaluation committee needs to make public the results of evaluation, while any teacher that complains about them may request the committee to re-evaluate him or her.
    Today, teacher evaluation is a means of educational reform designed to enhance teachers' professionalism and check if teachers are responsible for their job. Accordingly, the success of the educational reform must depend on how the teacher evaluation system can be improved. Recently, the educational reforms of many advanced nations focus on improvement of the quality of teachers' personnel management evaluation. Namely, their educational reforms start with the perception that quality of education may be improved through effective teacher evaluation. Now, although teachers' evaluation is used to select teachers, promote or reward them, it is more used to help teachers develop their desired ability and thereby, improve the pedagogic quality. Therefore, it is necessary to feedback the processes and results of teacher evaluation into the system to improve classroom activities, enhance teachers' professionalism, and ultimately, enhance the quality of school education. In this regard, it is essential to continue to research into a better teacher evaluation system.
    Above all, new teacher evaluation model suggested in this study should be supported by positive and empirical study in teachers' job performance and we should grope for educational community's agreement on teacher multi-rater system so that this model will be successfully settled in school.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • 목차
    • Ⅰ. 문제의 제기 = 1
    • Ⅱ. 연구의 설계 = 5
    • 1. 연구의 목적 = 5
    • 2. 연구 문제 = 6
    • 목차
    • Ⅰ. 문제의 제기 = 1
    • Ⅱ. 연구의 설계 = 5
    • 1. 연구의 목적 = 5
    • 2. 연구 문제 = 6
    • 3. 연구 내용 = 6
    • 4. 연구 방법 및 절차 = 7
    • 가. 문헌연구 = 7
    • 나. 전문가 의견조사 = 7
    • 다. 연구 절차 = 9
    • 5. 연구의 제한점 = 12
    • Ⅲ. 이론적 배경 = 12
    • 1. 교사평가의 개념과 의의 = 12
    • 가. 교사평가의 정의 = 12
    • 나. 교사평가의 중요성 = 14
    • 다. 교사평가의 목적 = 15
    • 라. 교사평가의 원리 = 17
    • 2. 교사평가의 영역과 유형 = 18
    • 가. 교사평가의 범위와 한계 = 18
    • 나. 교사평가의 영역 = 20
    • 다. 교사평가의 유형 = 21
    • 3. 교사평가의 방법 = 27
    • 가. 평가 주체에 의한 방법 = 27
    • 나. 평가 도구에 의한 방법 = 31
    • 4. 우리나라 교사평가의 변천 = 36
    • 가. 교사평가제의 제·개정 과정 = 36
    • 나. 교사평가제의 변천 내용 = 37
    • 다. 교사평가제의 법제적·행정적 장치의 한계 = 38
    • 5. 교사평가의 국제적 동향 = 39
    • 가. 미국의 교사평가 동향 = 39
    • 나. 일본의 교사평가 동향 = 42
    • 다. 영국의 교사평가 동향 = 43
    • 라. 프랑스의 교사평가 동향 = 44
    • 마. 우리에게 주는 시사점 = 45
    • Ⅳ. 현행 교사평가제의 진단 : 2002년 개정 이후 = 47
    • 1. 현행 교사평가제의 현황 = 47
    • 2. 현행 교사평가제의 문제점 분석 = 51
    • 가. 평가 주체의 문제점 = 51
    • 나. 평가 목적의 문제점 = 53
    • 다. 평가 내용의 문제점 = 54
    • 라. 평가 기준 및 방법의 문제점 = 55
    • 마. 평가 결과의 활용 문제점 = 56
    • Ⅴ. 교사평가제의 개선 방향 및 발전 모형 구안 = 59
    • 1. 교사평가제의 개선에 관한 쟁점 분석 = 59
    • 가. 현행 교사평가제에 대한 기본 태도 = 60
    • 나. 평가 주체 및 주관의 개선에 관한 쟁점 = 60
    • 다. 평가 목적의 개선에 관한 쟁점 = 61
    • 라. 평가 내용의 개선에 관한 쟁점 = 62
    • 마. 평가 방법의 개선에 관한 쟁점 = 63
    • 바. 평가 결과 활용의 개선에 관한 쟁점 = 64
    • 2. 교사평가제의 영역별 발전 방향 = 66
    • 가. 평가 주체의 발전 방향 = 66
    • 나. 평가 목적의 발전 방향 = 68
    • 다. 평가 내용의 발전 방향 = 70
    • 라. 평가 기준 및 방법의 발전방향 = 71
    • 마. 평가 결과 활용의 발전 방향 = 73
    • 3. 교사평가제의 발전 모형 구안 = 75
    • 가. 모형 구안의 기본전제 = 75
    • 나. 모형 구안의 기본 방향 = 76
    • 다. 모형 적용상의 유의점 = 78
    • 라. 새로 구안된 교사평가의 모형 = 80
    • 1) 교사형성평가 모형 = 80
    • 2) 교사총괄평가 모형 = 83
    • 마. 구안된 교사평가 모형에 관한 전문가 의견조사 = 85
    • 1) 의견조사 목적 = 85
    • 2) 전문가 선정 = 86
    • 3) 의견조사 도구 및 자료 분석 = 87
    • 4) 의견조사 결과 = 88
    • Ⅵ. 요약 및 결론 = 94
    • 1. 요약 = 94
    • 2. 결론 = 100
    • 참고문헌 = 103
    • ABSTRACT = 1
    • 부록 = 8
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1. 사학, 대한사립중고등학교장회, , 2004

    2. 교사론, 황의일, , 2001

    3. 교육평가, 변창진, 학지사, , 1996

    4. (신) 교사론, 한숙경, 학지사, , r

    5. 교사평가론, 김남순, 세영사, , 1991

    6. 교육제도론, 정진환, , 1998

    7. 인사행정론, 오장홍, , 1978

    8. 교육인사행정, 서정화, , 1989

    9. 교직실무편람, 김성기, , 2001

    10. 새인사행정론, 하태권, , 1996

    1. 사학, 대한사립중고등학교장회, , 2004

    2. 교사론, 황의일, , 2001

    3. 교육평가, 변창진, 학지사, , 1996

    4. (신) 교사론, 한숙경, 학지사, , r

    5. 교사평가론, 김남순, 세영사, , 1991

    6. 교육제도론, 정진환, , 1998

    7. 인사행정론, 오장홍, , 1978

    8. 교육인사행정, 서정화, , 1989

    9. 교직실무편람, 김성기, , 2001

    10. 새인사행정론, 하태권, , 1996

    11. http://www.ebs.co.kr, EBS,

    12. http://himang21.co.kr, 희망교육연대,

    13. 교육법전편찬회, 교육법전, , 2003

    14. 교육행정평가론, 박종렬, 한국교육행정학회, , 2003

    15. 교육행정학원론, 윤정일, 학지사, , 2007

    16. 새행정학(제2판), 최창호, , 2002

    17. http://goodteacher.org, 좋은교사운동,

    18. 교육사회학 신강, 김동위, , 2002

    19. 신판 행정학원론, 김규정, , 1997

    20. 교직발전종합방안, 교육개혁위원회, , 2000

    21. Education as a profession, Lieberman, Myron, Prentice-Hall, , 1956

    22. http://hakbumo.netian.com, 학부모연대,

    23. 다면평가 운영요령, 중앙인사위원회, , 2002

    24. Methods of Peer Assessment, Kane, E.E.Lawler, , 1978

    25. http://mailzine.kedi.re.kr, 교육정책포럼,

    26. 교육과정과 교육평가, 박도순, 문음사, , 1999

    27. http://moim.ktu.or.kr/eduhope, 전국교직원노동조합,

    28. 교육행정 및 교육경영, 박세훈, , 2008

    29. 교육행정·경영의 이해, 김윤태, 동문사, , 2006

    30. 외국의 교원 평정 제도, 정광희, , 1999

    31. 교원인사제도 국제비교, 박독규, , 1997

    32. 교원 신인사체제 지침서, 학교법인 중동학원, , 1996

    33. 학교개혁론-쟁점과 과제, 윤정일, , 1996

    34. 장학론 : 이론·연구·실제, 김정한, 학지사, , 2004

    35. 주요 국의 교사 평가 비교, 홍광식, 韓國敎員敎育學會, "한국교사교육 16(1), , 1999

    36. The Elementary Principal's Handbook, Gerald C.Ubben, Larry W.Hughes, , 1978

    37. 작은 정부와 지방교육자치, 정진환, 대한사립중고등학교장회, 사학: 여름호, , 1998

    38. Teacher Self-Evaluation with Support, Bradley Emil Hermann, , 1999

    39. Supervision; A redefinition (6th ed.), Starratt, Serigovanni, , 1983

    40. 교직의 전문성, 교직과 사도, 강영삼, , 1983

    41. 교사평가의 문제와 개선방향, 강인수, , 2000

    42. 교육행정학 및 교육경영 신강, 김창걸, , 1996

    43. 한국 교육평가의 쟁점과 대안, 황정규, 교육과학사, , 2000

    44. Evaluating Teachers; An Alterative Model, Haefele, , 1992

    45. 교사의 법적 지위에 관한 연구, 고전, 대한교육법학회, 연세대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, , 1996

    46. 교육행정론 - 이론, 법제, 실제, 고전, 이형행, , 1998

    47. 장학론 논고: 교내 자율장학론, 이윤식, , 1993

    48. 교사평가의 문제점과 개선방안, 강인수, , 2003

    49. 교원근무평정제도에 관한 연구, 김남순, , 1992

    50. Personnel management for effective schools, Seyfarth, John T, Allyn & Bacon, , 1996

    51. 교원평가제도 개선에 관한 연구, 한국교원단체총연합회, 한국교원단체총연합회, , 1999

    52. 교사평가의 질 관리에 관한 연구, 이수정, 연세대학교 대학원, 연세대학교 대학원 석사학위논문, , 2000

    53. 교사평가의 현황 및 주요 논쟁점, 박상완, , 1997

    54. 교원의 현직교육 평가 모형 연구, 고완태, 전북대학교, 전북대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, , 1999

    55. 교원평가 이론 모형의 확장 논의, 신상명, 한국교육학회, 교육학연구 Vol. 38(2), , 2000

    56. 교육개혁을 Design 한다,손우정 역, 사토 마나부, , 2001

    57. 교원 근무성적평가체제 개선 연구, 박영숙, 한국교육행정학회, , 1993

    58. 현행 교원평가제도의 한계와 대안, 정수현, 대한사립중고등학교장회, , 1999

    59. 교사 평가의 준거개발에 관한 연구, 전제상, 홍익대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, , 2000

    60. 교사지도성의 개념 정립에 관한 연구, 김영태, 부산대학교 대학원, 부산대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, , 1998

    61. 현안분석보고서Ⅰ‘교원평가제 논란, 한만길, , 2004

    62. Improving Teacher Performance-Formative Evaluation, Barber, , 1985

    63. 高等學生의 敎師授業評價에 關한 硏究, 김종한, 김종한, 忠南大學校 大學院, , 1998

    64. 새학교문화 창조 시범학교 운영보고서, 부산가야고등학교, , 1999

    65. 교사평가를 위한 연구？개발, 학교경영, 김이경, , 2004

    66. Concerns of teacher:A developmental conceptualization, Fuller, , 1969

    67. The Clinical Manual for Teacher Performance Evaluation, Stow, Manatt, , 1984

    68. 교사평가제도에 대한 교원들의 인식조사, 전화주, 이화여자대학교 교육대학원, 이화여자대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문, , 2001

    69. Educational Administration:Conceps and Practices,3rd ed, Allan C.Ornstein, Fred C.Lunenburg, , 2000

    70. 교원평가의 합리적 모델개발에 관한 연구, 최준열, , 1999

    71. Principles and Practices for Effective Teacher Education, Valentine, , 1992

    72. Teacher performance evaluation: A total systems approach, Manatt, , 1988

    73. 교사의 교수수행평가 영역 및 요소의 분석, 원효헌, 고려대학교 대학원 박사 학위논문, , 1997

    74. Creating an Excellent School: Some New Management Technique, Hedley Beare, , 1989

    75. 농어촌 소규모 중등 사학의 진단 및 진로모색, 정진환, 한국교육행정학회, 교육행정학연구 제19권 제3호 통권 제44호, , 2001

    76. 중등교사의 근무성적평정제도 발전방안 연구, 정재명, 충북대학교 교육대학원, 충북대학교 교육대학 원 석사학위논문, , 2000

    77. 공무원 근무성적평정 제도의 합리적 운영방안, 하상묵, , 1998

    78. Teacher satisfaction with formative teacher evaluation systems, Reeves, Mary Ellen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, , 2001

    79. 학업성취 평가결과 정보의 유형과 교육적 의의, 김성훈, 한국교육평가학회, , 2001

    80. 고등학교 교사들의 자기평가 실태 및 인식 분석, 박종하, 인천대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문, , 1999

    81. 교원의 승진평정체제 개선 및 합리적 평가 방안, 박덕규, 한국교원교육학회, , 2000

    82. 초·중등학교 교사평가의 평가준거체계 개발연구, 권기욱, 한국교육학회, , 2000

    83. 교사의 수업행동 진단 척도 개발과 그 타당성 연구, 손충기, 인하대학교 대 학원 박사학위논문, , 1994

    84. Teacher evaluation in tradition: Emerging Roles and Evolving Methods, Hammond, , 1990

    85. Self-Appraisal in Performance Evaluation : Development versus Evaluation, Campbell, Cynthia Lee, , 1988

    86. 敎育人事の評價, 日本敎育經營學會編, 敎育經營と評價, 佐竹勝利, , 1995

    87. Disigning Teacher Evaluation Systems That Support Professional Growth, 2nd ed, McColskey, , 1997

    88. 학교급별,직급별,취득자별 교원직무수행 기준에 관한 연구, 박영숙, , 1999

    89. 360도 피드백의 기법과 사례, The Art and Science of 360 Degree Feedback, 리차드 레프싱어, 토니 루시아, 권순달, , 2000

    90. 교원의 정체성 확립을 위한 교사의 직무수행 모형 개발 연구, 주삼환, , 1996

    91. Do whole-school reform models boost student performance: Evidence from New York City, Bifulco, Robert, Syracuse University, , 2001

    92. 수업평가의 쟁점 및 방향, 한국교육평가의 쟁점과 대안-황정규편, 김성훈, , 2000

    93. Legitimacy and school reform: Implementing and sustaining democratic school governance, Kirkpatrick, Heather Ann, Stanford University, , 2000

    94. Reinventing Education, Dutton Signet, a division of Penguin. 학교가 달라져야 한다, 김용구, Louis V.Gerstner, , 2001

    95. Taking the lead: How teacher and principal leadership matter in a local high school reform, Cohen, Howard Seth, University of California, Berkeley, , 2000

    96. 근무성적평정의 다면평가제 도입에 관한 연구 : 동료평가를 중심으로, 이병대, 강원대학교, 강원 대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문, , 2001

    97. 세계화·정보화시대를 주도하는 신교육체제 수립을 위한 교육개혁 방안, 교육개혁위원회, , 1995

    98. 중등교원 양성교육과정의 전문성 확보 : 교육과정 구조의 논거를 중심으로, 한명희, , 1997

    99. Self and Superior Rating of Performance : As Related to Self Esteem and Satisfaction with Supervision, Baid, , 1977

    100. 근무성적평정제도 및 개선방향에 대한 고등학교 교사들의 인식에 관한 연구, 김남중, 순천향대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문, , 2001

    101. Instructional Change within the Context of School Reform: the Development and Testing of a Technical Model, Ronald A.Beghetto, , 2001

    102. 교원의 승진？평가제도 개선, 교직발전종합방안(시안)에 대 한 쟁점 과제 전문가협의, 한국교육개발원, , 2000

    103. Tenured high school teachers' perceptions of their professional growth when using an alternative form of teacher evaluation, Black-Gomez, Lisa R, Northern Illinois University, , 2002

    104. 교사는지성인이다, Henry A. Giroux의 Teachers as Intellectuals Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning,이경숙 역, Henry A. Giroux, , 2001

    105. 석,박사 학위청구논문 기획론, Developing and Defending A Dissertation Proposal(fifth edition). 서울: 정민사, 정진환, William B.Castetter, , 1997

    106. Whole School Reform Progress: Examining Leadership in the Restructuring and Reculturing of an Urban Small Learning Community, Audra M.Philippon, , 2001

    107. Innovations in Teacher Evaluation: Case Studies of Two Districts with Teacher Evaluation Systems Based on The Framework for Teaching, Steven M.Kimball, , 2001

    108. A Conceptual Model for Enhancing the Relevance of Vocational-Technical High School Education in Meeting the Socio-Economic Needs of Korea, Joung Chin-Whan, , 1982

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼