Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.45-72 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.28.2.201806.45 IPA * Analysis of Perception and Needs on Teaching Competencies of Faculty Using Importance-Performance Analysis Purpose: The purpose of this study is to suggest methods for improving teaching competencies by investigating the difference between university faculty s perception of importance and performance of teaching competencies in order to understand educational needs. Method: The teaching competencies questionnaire survey, which was developed basedonthe A university's educational vision, was conducted for A university s faculty. The 93 questionnaires collected were analyzed using Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA). Results: The results showed that the means of importance of all sub-factors of teaching competencies were higher than the means of performance, and the difference was statistically significant except for the communication competence. Also, it was found that factors that should be urgently improved due to low importance and high degree of performance are the instructional design factors and self-diagnosis and reflection factor. Conclusion: It is necessary to develop a teaching support system focusing on the sub-factors with high educational needs of the faculty. Key words : teaching competencies, university faculty, Importance-Performance Analysis, Needs Analysis *. Corresponding Author: Kim, Bo-Kyung. Seoul Women s College of Nursing, Dept. of Nursing, 38 Ganhodae-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea, e-mail: bk1980@snjc.ac.kr
. 4,.,, (, 2013),,. (,,,, 2014).,,,,, (2009), (, 2012).,,, (2012),,.,, (2012),..,, (teaching competency).,, (Tigelaar, Dolmans, Wolthagen, & Vander Vleuten, 2004). (Institutional Research: IR),,. IR
(, 2018)., (, 2010).,.,.. A..,?,?. 1) 교수역량의일반적정의및요인 (teaching) (research) (,,, 2013),.,, (,, 2012), (,, 2017;,,, 2012). < -1>,.
/, (2017), (2004), (2009),, (2012), (2007) (2017), (2012), (2016) Smith & Simpson (1995) Srinivasan et al. (2011) Tigelaar, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, Vander Vleuten (2004) (,, ) (,,, ) (,, ) (,,,,, ), (,,,,,, ), (,,,,, ) (, /,,,,, ) (, /, ) (,,,,, ) / ( ) (,,,,,, ) (, ) () (,,,,,,, ) (, ) (,,,,, ) (, /,, ) (,, ) /
.,,, (teaching),,,.,,,,,,,,,., (, 2017;,, 2016).,,,,,. 2) A 대학의교수역량정의및요인 A,, 3,,,. A.,. A..,, (2018), (2012).,, (2018) 208
.,,,.,, 5, 5 9, 10 19, 20 29, 30. (2012) 119.,..,, /..,.,.,.. A A. 93 93. 82 (88.2%), 11 (11.8%), 30 4 (43%), 40 35 (37.6%), 50 33 (35.5%), 60 18 (19.4%) 40 50.
5 5 (5.4%), 5 10 20 (21.5%), 11 15 18 (19.4%), 16 20 15 (16.1%), 21 25 8 (5.6%), 26 30 13 (14.0%), 30 6 (6.5%) 5 10 11 15, 28 (30.1%), 12 (12.9%), 8 (8.6%), 20 (21.5%), 12 (12.9%), 2 (2.2%). (,,,,, 2018) A -. (,, 2017;,, 2004;,, 2009;,,, 2012;,, 2012;,, 2016; Srinivasan et al., 2011; Tigelaar, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, & Vander Vleuten., 2004),. 2. 15 1) 10 2) A A 5. 1, 2 0 5,,. Lwashe(1975) (Content Validity Ratio: CVR).49. 41 11, 16, 7, 4, 3. - (Importance-Performance Analysis)., 5. 5 Cronbach α.700.975,.958.
,,, /,,, 11.908.871 16.935.880 7.932.880 4.871.700 3.844.805 41.975.958 2018 1 25 2018 2 20 4,. 93 SPSS 20.0. A t - (IPA),,,. IPA, Martilla James(1977),, (,,,, 2016)., A.
. 1) 교수역량전체중요도 - 실행도차이분석 (< IV-1> ), A (M=4.22, SD=.69), (M=4.11, SD=.59) (M=4.11, SD=.68), (M=4.04, SD=.59), (M=4.03, SD=.71), (M=4.00, SD=.65) (M=4.00, SD=.70), (M=3.86 SD=.60), (M=3.83, SD=.55), (M=3.82, SD=.58). t,.. (t=7.45, p<.05) (t=4.11, p<.05), (t=4.22, p<.05), (t=4.04, p<.05).,,,,. (M) (M) - t p 4.11 3.82.28 7.45.000 1 4.04 3.83.20 5.01.000 4 4.03 4.00.03 0.52.603-4.11 3.86.25 4.69.000 2 4.22 4.00.22 3.89.000 3 4.08 3.88.20 5.67.000-2) 수업설계영역중요도 - 실행도차이분석 (< IV-2> ), A 1(M=4.47, SD=.79), 2(M=4.35, SD=.82), 8(M=4.32, SD=.72), 5(M=4.19, SD=.77), 3(M=4.1, SD=.85), 11(M=
4.08, SD=.88), 6(M=4.08, SD=.83), 7(M=3.98, SD=.82), 9(M=3.94, SD=.86), 4(M=3.85, SD=.78), 10(M=3.82, SD=.86), 8(M=4.18, SD=.75), 1(M=4.12, SD=.76), 5(M=4.00, SD=.83), 6(M=3.90, SD=.84), 9(M=3.82, SD=.92), 11(M=3.8, SD=.94), 3(M=3.76, SD=.94), 7(M=3.74, SD=.83), 2(M=3.73, SD=.84), 4(M=3.57, SD=1.05), 10(M=3.44, SD=.85). 1( ) 10( ). 8( ) 4( ). t, 9( ). 2(, t=7.59, p<.05), 10(, t=4.95, p<.05), 1(, t=5.11, p<.05), 3(, t=4.33, p<.05), 4(, t=3.63, p<.05), 11(, t=3.92, p<.05), 7(, t=3.43, p<.05), 5(, t=2.96, p<.05), 8(, t=2.01, p<.05).,,,,. (M) (M) - t p 1( ) 4.47 4.12.35 5.11.000 3 2( ) 4.35 3.73.62 7.59.000 1 3( ) 4.10 3.76.33 4.33.000 4 4( ) 3.85 3.57.28 3.63.000 5 5( ) 4.19 4.00.19 2.96.004 8 6( ) 4.08 3.90.17 2.61.011 9
( ) (M) (M) - t p 7( ) 3.98 3.74.24 3.43.001 7 8( ) 4.32 4.18.14 2.01.047 10 9( ) 3.94 3.82.12 1.47.146-10( ) 3.82 3.44.38 4.95.000 2 11( ) 4.08 3.80.27 3.92.000 6 4.11 3.82.28 7.45.000 3) 수업운영영역중요도 - 실행도차이분석 (< IV-3> ), A 6(M=4.32, SD=.80), 8(M=4.15, SD=.77), 11(M=4.14, SD=.72), 10(M=4.13, SD=.94), 12(M=4.13, SD=.89), 1(M=4.11, SD=.83), 3(M=4.10, SD=.82), 5(M=4.05, SD=.779), 14(M= 4.03, SD=.88), 4(M=4.02, SD=.82), 7(M=3.99, SD=.81), 2(M=3.95, SD =.91), 13(M=3.93, SD=.82), 9(M=3.91, SD=.85), 15(M=3.89, SD=.97), 16(M=3.72, SD=.90), 6(M=4.26, SD=.82), 10(M=4.20, SD=.92), 14(M=4.13, SD=.82), 15(M=4.09, SD=1.01), 1(M =3.98, SD=.91), 5(M=3.94, SD=.82), 12(M=3.83, SD=1.04), 7(M=3.76, SD=.83), 3(M=3.74, SD=.89), 11(M=3.72, SD=.98), 8(M=3.71, SD=.91), 4(M=3.67, SD=.98), 2(M=3.67, SD=.86), 13(M=3.63, SD=.95), 9(M=3.58, SD=.90), 16(M=3.47, SD=1.05). t, 1(), 5( ), 6(), 10( ), 14( ), 15(e-class ). 8(, t=5.84, p<.05), 11(, t=4.91, p<.05), 3(, t=4.89, p<.05), 4(, t=4.41, p<.05), 9(, t=4.17, p<.05), 13(, t=4.13, p<.05), 12(,
t=3.16, p<.05), 2(, t=4.52, p<.05), 16(TED, t=2.39, p<.05), 7(, t=2.74, p<.05).,,,,. (M) (M) - t p 1( ) 4.11 3.98.13 1.92.057-2( ) 3.95 3.67.27 4.52.000 8 3( ) 4.10 3.74.36 4.89.000 3 4() 4.02 3.67.35 4.41.000 4 5( ) 4.05 3.94.12 1.78.078-6() 4.32 4.26.06 1.14.259-7( ) 3.99 3.76.23 2.74.007 10 8( ) 4.15 3.71.45 5.84.000 1 9( ) 3.91 3.58.34 4.17.000 5 10( ) 4.13 4.20 -.08 -.98.330-11( ) 4.14 3.72.42 4.91.000 2 12( ) 4.13 3.83.30 3.16.002 7 13( ) 3.93 3.63.30 4.13.000 6 14( ) 4.03 4.13 -.10-1.26.209-15(e-class ) 3.89 4.09 -.20-1.86.066-16(TED ) 3.72 3.47.25 2.39.019 9 4.04 3.83.20 5.01.000 4) 자가진단및성찰영역중요도 - 실행도차이분석 (< IV-4> ), A 3(M=4.20, SD=.74),
4(M=4.15, SD=.78), 1(M=4.07, SD=.86), 2(M=4.03, SD=.81), 3(M=4.02, SD=.76), 4(M= 3.88, SD=.83), 2(M=3.84, SD=.85), 1(M=3.71, SD=.86). t,. 3(, t=2.68, p<.05), 2(, t=2.26, p<.05), 4(, t=3.92, p<.05), 1(, t=4.34, p<.05).,,,,. (M) (M) - t p 1( ) 4.07 3.71.36 4.34.000 4 2( ) 4.03 3.84.19 2.26.026 2 3() 4.20 4.02.17 2.68.009 1 4( ) 4.15 3.88.27 3.92.000 3 4.11 3.86.25 4.69.000 5) 전문적지식영역중요도 - 실행도차이분석 (< IV-5> ), A 1(M=4.33, SD=.73), 3(M=4.18, SD =.77), 2(M=4.14, SD=.88), 1(M= 4.14, SD=.79), 2(M=3.95, SD=.88), 3(M=3.92, SD=.82). t,. 1(, t=3.14, p<.05) 2(, t=2.88, p<.05), 3(, t=3.61, p<.05)
.,,,. 1( ) (M) (M) - t p 4.33 4.14.19 3.14.002 1 2() 4.14 3.95.19 2.88.005 1 3() 4.18 3.92.26 3.61.001 2 4.22 4.00.22 3.89.000 1) 교수역량 IPA 분석 41 4.08(SD=.58) 3.88(SD=.52).,. ( -, - ), ( -, - ), ( -, - ), ( -, - )...,,. IPA,.
1 : 4.22 4.00 2 : 4.11 3.82 4.11 3.86 3 : 4.04 3.83 4 : 4.03 4.00 4.08 3.88 2) 수업설계영역 IPA 분석 11 4.11(SD=.59) 3.82(SD=.58). 2( ). 1( ), 5( ), 8( ).,
6( ), 3( ), 4( ), 7( ), 9( ), 10( ), 11( ). IPA,,,.. 1 1( ) 4.47 4.12 1 : 5 5( ) 4.19 4.00 8 8( ) 4.32 4.18 2 : 2 2( ) 4.35 3.73 3 3( ) 4.10 3.76 4 4( ) 3.85 3.57 3 : 7 7( ) 3.98 3.74 9 9( ) 3.94 3.82 10 10( ) 3.82 3.44 11 11( ) 4.08 3.80 4 : 6 6( ) 4.08 3.90 4.11 3.82
1( ) 2( ) 3( ) 4( ) 5( ) 6( ) 7( ) 8( ) 9( ) 10( ) 11( ) 3) 수업운영영역 IPA 분석 16 4.04(SD=.59) 3.83(SD=.55). 3( ), 8 ( ), 11( ), 12( ). 1( ), 5( ), 6(), 10( )., 14( ), 15(e-class ), 2( ), 4(), 7( ),
9( ), 13( ), 16(TED ). IPA,,,,,,,. e-class. 1 1( ) 4.11 3.98 1 : 5 5( ) 4.05 3.94 6 6() 4.32 4.26 10 10( ) 4.13 4.20 3 3( ) 4.10 3.74 2 : 8 8( ) 4.15 3.71 11 11( ) 4.14 3.72 12 12( ) 4.13 3.83 2 2( ) 3.95 3.67 4 4() 4.02 3.67 3 : 7 7( ) 3.99 3.76 9 9( ) 3.91 3.58 13 13( ) 3.93 3.63 16 16(TED ) 3.72 3.47 4 : 14 14( ) 4.03 4.13 15 15(e-class) 3.89 4.09 4.04 3.83
1( ) 2( ) 3( ) 4() 5( ) 6() 7( ) 8( ) 9( ) 10( ) 11( ) 12( ) 13( ) 14( ) 15(e-class ) 16(TED ) 4) 자가진단및성찰영역 IPA 분석 4 4.11(SD=.68) 3.86(SD=.60).. 3( ), 4 ( ).,, 1( ), 2( ).
IPA,,. 3 3() 4.20 4.02 1 : 4 4( ) 4.15 3.88 3 : 1 1( ) 4.07 3.71 2 2( ) 4.03 3.84 4.11 3.86 1( ) 2( ) 3() 4( ) 5) 전문적지식 IPA 분석 3 4.22(SD=.69) 4.00(SD=.70)
.. 1( ).,, 2(), 3(). IPA,. 1 : 1 1( ) 4.33 4.14 3 : 2 2() 4.14 3.95 3 3() 4.18 3.92 4.22 4.00 1( ) 2() 3()
.,., 5,., IPA -, 1, 3.,..,,, (2018).,, (2018),,,. (,, 2017;,, 2004;,,, 2012;, 2017;,, 2016)..,,,. (2012) A. A,
. IPA 2.,., (,,,, 2018).. CQI(Continuous Quality Improvement)..,,.. -, IPA. IPA,,,,. (2012), A., (2012). A.,,, (2018)
, ( ) (, MOOC/TED/YOUTUBE ). IPA, e-class,.,, (2018),,., (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Kramarski & Michalsky, 2010) (Niess, 2005). A e-class e-class. A,.,..,. IPA,,,,.,,,. (, 2017; Chesbro & McCroskey, 2001; Titsworth, Quinlan, & Mazer, 2010).,.
,.,,..,..,.,.,.,., (2017).. (9), 88-98.,,, (2014).. (4), 61-84.,,,, (2018). :.,, (2018).. (1), 133-163.,,,,, (2009). :. (2), 195-214. (2013).. http://edzine.kedi.re.kr/article_2013summer/issue_01.jsp 2018.4.21.., (2004). (teaching competency). (2), 1-28.
(2012). []? http://news.unn.net/news/articleview.html?idxno=110000 2018.04.26..,,, (2016). IPA. (3), 427-447. (2018). -8. :.,, (2013).. (4), 149-179. (2010). : A.., (2009).. :.,, (2012). (Teaching Competency). (3), 439-469., (2007).. (4), 413-434.,, (2012).. (2), 30-37., (2012).. (2), 285-310., (2012).. (1), 1-22. (2017). :. (2), 224-258.,,, (2018). -A. (3), 415-437.,, (2012). : 30. (2), 179-199., (2012).. (4) 837-862. (2017).. (1), 1-26., (2016). (Blended Learning). (2), 391-425.
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(1), 59-68. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 434-447. Smith, K. S., & Simpson, R. D. (1995). Validating teaching competencies for faculty members in higher education: a national study using the Delphi method. Innovative Higher Education, 19(3), 223-234. Srinivasan, M., Li, S. T. T., Meyers, F. J., Pratt, D. D., Collins, J. B., Braddock, C., Skeff, K. M., West, D. C., Henderson, M., Hales, R. E., & Hilty, D. M. (2011). Teaching as a competency : competencies for medical educators. Academic Medicine, 86(10), 1211-1220. Tigelaar, D. E., Dolmans, D. H., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Vander Vleuten, C. P. (2004). The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Higher education, 48(2), 253-268. Titsworth, S., Quinlan, M. M., & Mazer, J. (2010). Emotion in teaching and learning: Development and validation of the classroom emotions scale. Communication Education, 59(4), 431-452. Lwashe, C. H. (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523. : 2018.04.30. / : 2018.05.14. / : 2018.06.20.
IPA :. : A A, 93 IPA. :,.,. :.