Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.271-295 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.29.2.201906.271 Awareness, Current Status and Support Request of Special Education Teachers on Curriculum Reconstruction and Performance Assessment of Students Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate awareness, current status and support request of special education teachers on curriculum reconstruction and performance assessment of student. Method: Participants were 540 special education teachers. They were 378 females and 162 males. 334 teachers of them worked in special school and 206 teachers worked in special day classroom. Results: First, most of teachers recognized the need of curriculum reconstruction. Teachers who had career more than 15 years had highest interest. Secondary school teachers and special school teachers had higher recognition about curriculum reconstruction than elementary school teachers and special day classroom teachers. Relation to current curriculum reconstruction status, teachers who had career more than 15 years did it more than other teachers. Special school teachers did it more than special day classroom teachers. Second, most of teachers recognized the need of performance assessment of students. Teachers had career less than ten years recognized highest necessity. Most of teachers used narrative recording for performance assessment. Third, as support request on school and education district, teachers required reference development and improvement of school environment based on instruction. Conclusion: This results will provide information on the development of field training program and reference for special education curriculum reconstruction and performance assessment of student with disabilities. Key words : special education teacher, curriculum reconstruction, performance assessment Corresponding Author: Han, Kyung-Im. Changwon National University, Dept. of Special Education, Chagnwondaehak-ro 20, Euchang-gu, Changwon, Korea, e-mail: hriver2@hanmail.net
. 2015 (, 2015),....,.., (,,, 2016;,, 2015) (,,,, 2016;,, 2017). - (,, 2008), (, 2013),,,, (,,, 2016).. (,,,,, 2018).,..,, (, 2019). (2018) (2017).,,.,
(, 2019). 2015 (, 2015), (,, 2018, 2019;, 2016).. (,,,, 2002)., (Salend & Duhaney, 2002), (Johnson, 2000). (,, 2010) -., (,,, 2017). (2017).,. (Soodak, 2000),, (,, 2017).,. (,, 2017;, 2010) (, ; 2019) (, 2010;,, 2017). (,,,, 2016),,,
, 2015.,,.,?,?,?.. 2019 2 17 3 10 3.. 554 14 540 ( 97%). < -1>. ( ) (%) 136 25.2 200 37.0 204 37.8 162 30.0 378 70.0 330 61.1 184 34.1 26 4.8 5 156 28.9 10 168 31.1 15 94 17.4 15 122 22.6
( ) ( ) (%) 196 36.3 344 63.7 334 61.9 206 38.1 44 8.1 382 70.7 114 21.1 368 68.1 172 31.9 214 39.6 326 60.4 540 100.0.,, 3. 4, 6, 10, 4, 3 7. 3, 20. (, 2018;, 2018;,,,, 2016;, 2010;,, 2017;, 2014;,,, 2017), 34, 25. 25 2, 10 3, 5,,, (.92). 5 4 5 20 9 29. < -2>.
,,,,,, 9,, - () - () - ( ) - () 10 - () -,, () - () - () - () - () - ()() - ()() - () -, () - () -() -() 29 7 3 SPSS(Statistical Package for the Social Science)WIN 23.0.,., (,, ) ANOVA Chi-square.,., ANOVA Scheffé...
1) 교육과정재구성에대한특수교사의인식 (1) < -1> 5 4.36. (F=4.277, p<.01), (p<.05), 15 10, 15 15., (t=-2.476, p<.05). (t=2.544, p<.05). n M SD t F Scheffé 5 a 156 4.35.75 5-10 b 168 4.30.79 4.277 d>b 10-15 c 94 4.23.72 d>c p<.05, p<.01 15 d 122 4.56.64 196 4.26.83 344 4.42.68 334 4.43.69 206 4.25.81 540 4.36.74-2.476 2.544 (2) < -2> (28.9%),,,,.
( ) (%) 72 10.5 198 28.9 110 16.1 150 21.9 80 11.7 18 2.6 38 5.6 18 2.6 684 100.0 21 < -3>,, 2015.. 2015 2015 (3) < -4> (40.6%),
,,,,,. ( ) (%),,, 214 22.1 294 40.6 228 23.5 134 13.8 970 100.0 2) 특수교육교육과정재구성에대한실태 (1) < -5> 5 3.64. 15 (M=3.89), 5-10 (M=3.63), 10-15 (M=3.60), 5 (M=3.50), (F=4.961, p<.01). (p<.05), 15 5., (t=2.586, p<.05).. n M SD t F Scheffé 5 a 156 3.50.86 5-10 b 168 3.63.80 10-15 c 94 3.60.87 4.961 d>a p<.05, p<.01 15 d 122 3.89.85 196 3.56.95 344 3.69.79 334 3.72.84 206 3.52.86 540 3.64.85-1.630 2.586
(2) < -6> (32.4%),,,,,. ( ) (%) 208 14.2 300 20.5 328 22.4 276 18.9 74 5.1 30 2.0 60 4.1 184 12.6 4 0.3 1,464 100.0 (3) < -7> (44.2%),,,,. ( ) (%) 358 44.2 198 24.4 142 17.5 76 9.4 34 4.2 2 0.2 810 100.0
(4) < -8> (27.1%),,,,,,. ( ) (%) 222 17.0 354 27.1 242 18.6 176 13.5 128 9.8 100 7.7 80 6.1 2 0.2 1,304 100.0 (5) < -9> (43.9%),,, --,. ( ) (%) 428 43.9 -- 106 10.9 194 19.9 82 8.4 164 16.8 974 100.0
(6) < -10> (26.9%),,,,. ( ) (%) 42 26.9 40 25.6 42 26.9 2 1.3 12 7.7 14 9.0 4 2.6 156 100.0 156 1) 학생수행평가에대한특수교사의인식 (1) < -11> 5 4.27. 10 (M=4.37), 5 (M=4.33), 15 (M=4.19), 15 (M=4.13), (F=3.540, p<.05). (p<.05), 10 15..
n M SD t F Scheffé 5 a 156 4.33.66 5-10 b 168 4.37.69 10-15 c 94 4.19.74 3.540 b>d p<.05 15 d 122 4.13.74 196 4.29.69 344 4.27.72 334 4.29.67 206 4.24.75 540 4.27.70.290.812 (2) < -12> (32.5%),,,,. ( ) (%) 344 32.5 164 15.5 186 17.5 190 17.9 160 15.1 12 1.1 4 0.4 1,060 100.0 (3) <-13>.
χ² 5 4(2.6) 20(12.8) 22(14.1) 60(38.5) 8(5.1) 20(12.8) 22(14.1) 156(100.0) 5-10 4(2.4) 30(17.9) 10(6.0) 72(42.9) 6(3.6) 32(19.0) 14(8.3) 168(100.0) 10 15 2(2.1) 22(23.4) 10(10.6) 32(34.0) 8(8.5) 18(19.1) 2(2.1) 94(100.0) 15 8(6.6) 20(16.4) 2(1.6) 58(47.5) 4(3.3) 10(8.2) 20(16.4) 122(100.0) 4(2.0) 28(14.3) 18(9.2) 78(39.8) 12(6.1) 32(16.3) 24(12.2) 196(100.0) 14(4.1) 64(18.6) 26(7.6) 144(41.9) 14(4.1) 48(14.0) 34(9.9) 344(100.0) 50.27 12(3.6) 52(15.6) 38(11.4) 136(40.7) 16(4.8) 50(15.0) 30(9.0) 334(100.0) 15.06 6(2.9) 40(19.4) 6(2.9) 86(41.7) 10(4.9) 30(14.6) 28(13.6) 206(100.0) 18(3.3) 92(17.0) 44(8.1) 222(41.1) 26(4.8) 80(14.8) 58(10.7) 540(100.0) p<.05, p<.001 5.66 < -13> (41.1%),,,,,,. 5,,, 10,,,, 15,,, 15,, (χ²=50.27, p<.001).,,, (χ²=15.06, p<.05). (4) < -14> (33.3%),,,,,.
( ) (%) 104 23.4 44 9.9 148 33.3 76 17.1 18 4.1 54 12.2 444 100.0 2) 특수교사의학생수행평가실태 (1) < -15>,,,,,,. χ² 5 2(1.3) 56(35.9) 50(32.1) 28(17.9) 6(3.8) 6(3.8) 8(5.1) 156(100.0) 5-10 6(3.6) 56(33.3) 50(29.8) 34(20.2) 2(1.2) 12(7.1) 8(4.8) 168(100.0) 10 15 4(4.3) 38(40.4) 32(34.0) 18(19.1) 0(0.0) 2(2.1) 0(0.0) 94(100.0) 15 0(0.0) 26(21.3) 42(34.4) 20(16.4) 6(4.9) 14(11.5) 14(11.5) 122(100.0) 4(2.0) 56(28.6) 78(39.8) 30(15.3) 6(3.1) 10(5.1) 12(6.1) 196(100.0) 8(2.3) 120(34.9) 96(27.9) 70(20.3) 8(2.3) 24(7.0) 18(5.2) 344(100.0) 44.58 4(1.2) 94(28.1) 110(32.9) 76(22.8) 8(2.4) 20(6.0) 22(6.6) 334(100.0) 20.01 8(3.9) 82(39.8) 64(31.1) 24(11.7) 6(2.9) 14(6.8) 8(3.9) 206(100.0) 12(2.2) 176(32.6) 174(32.2) 100(18.5) 14(2.6) 34(6.3) 30(5.6) 540(100.0) p<.01, p<.001 9.90 < -15> 5,,,, 10,,, 15,,, 15,,, (χ²=44.59, p<.001)
.,,,,,,, (χ²=20.01, p<.001).. (2) < -16> (35.2%),,,,,. ( ) (%) 174 16.1 380 35.2 36 3.3 328 30.4 150 13.9 10 0.9 2 0.2 1,080 100.0 (3) < -17> (37.4%), (31.5%),,,,,. ( ) (%) 404 37.4 24 2.2 122 11.3 122 11.3 340 31.5 66 6.1 2 0.2 1,080 100.0
1) 특수교육교육과정재구성과학생수행평가를위한교육청차원의지원요구 < -18> (20.1%),,,,,,,,,. ( ) (%) 220 13.6 210 13.0 204 12.6 326 20.1 196 12.1, 188 11.6,, 264 16.5 8 0.5 1,620 100.0 2) 특수교육교육과정재구성과학생수행평가를위한학교차원의지원요구 < -19>. ( ) (%) 222 20.6 138 12.8 156 14.4 142 13.1 98 9.1 324 30.0 1,080 100.0
< -19> (30.0%),,,,,. 3) 특수교육교육과정재구성과학생수행평가를위한교사차원의실천요구 < -20>,, (19.4%),,,,,,. ( ) (%) 206 12.7,, 204 12.6 204 12.6,, 314 19.4 200 12.3 226 14.0 120 7.4 146 9.0 1,620 100.0. 540..,, 15. (,,,, 2016) 20
. 10 15 5., 10 15. (2005) 10 1015.., (,,, 2016) 11 20.,. ( ) ( ) (,, 2015).. 2015,., (,,,, 2016),.,, (2016),.,.
,,.,, (2017). (2018). 2015. (,, 2015),,,..,. (2018),,,,.., 5-15, 15.., 1325 12 (2017).,,.
,... (2017). (2017),.,. (2017).,, (2017).,,,.. (2010),. (2004),., (, 2018;,,,, 2016),,,,. (,,, 2013) (,, 2019)
,.,.,,,,,,,,,,. (, 2016),,,, (,, 2017)..,..,., (2018). - -. (1), 75-100., (2019). - -. (1), 63-85. (2015). 2015-81. (2016). (2016. 1. 25.). (2018). :.
, (2008).,,,. (4), 195-212., (2010). :. (1), 81-107. (2018). e-.. (2018). 2015..,,, (2016).. (3), 335-363.,,,, (2018). :. (2005). :.,,, (2002). :. (2010). -. (1), 57-76. (2016)..., (2017).. (3), 135-159. (2010).. (2), 31-50., (2017).. (2), 95-119., (2017).. (2), 197-222., (2017).. (2), 267-296.,, (2015).. (4), 117-143.,, (2016).. (2), 105-128. (2013).. (4), 141-164.
, (2015),. (4), 95-123. (2014).. (3), 107-131. (2017). : ( ).,, (2017),. (2), 245-266., (2004). - :. (2), 69-95., (2019).. (1), 229-255., (2015).. (1), 120-137. (2018)...,, (2017),,. (3), 225-252.,, (2013).. (2), 169-194.,,,,, (2019). :. Johnson, E. S. (2000). The effecs of accommodations on performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 261-267. Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. G. (2002). Grading students in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 8-15. Soodak, l. C. (2000). Performance assessments and students with learning problems: promising practice or reform rhetoric? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 257-280. : 2019.05.08. / : 2019.05.13. / : 2019.06.20.
:. : 540 378, 162. 334, 206., ANOVA Chi-square. :,, 15,. 15.,. 5 10..,,,,,. :.