Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Study on Stakeholder' Concerns Regarding Consulting for Gifted Education Institutes

영재교육기관 컨설팅에 대한 영재교육 이해관계자의 관심도 연구

  • Received : 2016.05.02
  • Accepted : 2016.06.27
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined whether there were differences in stakeholders' concerns regarding consulting in gifted education institutes. A total of 122 stakeholders in gifted and talented education responded to SoCQ(the Stage of Concerns Questionnaire, Hall & Hord, 2011). The SoCQ responses of these stakeholders to consulting for gifted education institutes were converted into relative intensities and SoCQ profiles, which were analyzed by the affiliated areas of institute, teaching years in gifted education, continuities of affairs in gifted education, and approaches to teacher training for gifted education with using t-test and one-way analysis of variance. Results indicated that stakeholders generally showed the highest concern for stage 1(information) and the lowest concerns for stage 4(consequence), which were the initial stage of change and innovation in consulting for gifted education institutes. In the meanwhile, skakeholders having training program for professionals showed the more concern for stage 6(refocusing), which was a kind of resistance for the present consulting for gifted education institutes. On the based on these results, this study suggested ways(or methods) for settlement and the diffusion of successful gifted education consulting.

본 연구는 영재교육기관 컨설팅에 대한 관심도를 조사하기 위하여, 영재교육 이해관계자를 대상으로 설문을 실시하였다. 122명의 이해관계자가 SoCQ(The Stages of Concerns Questionnaire, Hall & Hord, 2011)에 응답하였으며, Hall과 Hord(2011)의 채점표(SoCQ scoring device)를 활용하여 이해관계자의 응답 반응을 상대적 강도(relative intensity)로 환산하였다. 본 연구는 영재교육 이해관계자의 특성(소속기관, 영재교육경력, 영재업무 지속여부, 영재 연수유형)에 따른 영재교육기관 컨설팅에 대한 관심도를 살펴보기 위하여 t 분석과 일원분산분석을 실시하였다. 연구결과, 영재교육 이해관계자들은 1단계(정보)에 대한 관심이 가장 높고, 4단계(결과)에 대한 관심이 가장 낮은 변화초기 단계의 양상을 보여주었다. 한편, 전문가 연수를 받은 이해관계자들은 6단계(재조정)에 대한 관심도가 높게 나타나, 영재교육기관 컨설팅에 대하여 저항을 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 이에 본 연구에서는 연구결과에 기초하여 성공적인 영재교육기관 컨설팅을 정착하고 확산하는 방안을 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강영삼(1998). 학교조직 특성에 따른 장학문화의 차이에 관한 연구. 교육행정학연구, 16(1), 136-179.
  2. 강현석, 정정희, 박창언, 박은영, 황윤세, 장사형, 이신동, 이경화, 최미숙, 이순주, 이효녕, 문병상(2007). 최신영재교육과정론. 서울: 시그마프레스.
  3. 권낙원, 추광재, 박승렬(2006). 교육과정 실행 수준 결정 요인 탐색. 교육과정연구, 24(3), 87-106.
  4. 권정국(2006). 제7차 체육교육과정에 대한 교사의 관심도 및 실행 수준 연구. 박사학위논문. 공주대학교.
  5. 김경자(1993). 교육과정 혁신: 관심에 기초한 교육과정 실행 모형(CBAM). 서울: 교육과학사.
  6. 김대현(2011). 교육과정의 이해. 서울: 학지사.
  7. 김도기(2005). 컨설팅 장학에 관한 질적 실행 연구. 박사학위논문. 서울대학교.
  8. 김민환(2009). 2007년 개정 교육과정에 관한 초등학교 교사의 관심수준 분석. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 9(3), 87-107.
  9. 김이천(2005). 초등학교 재량활동에 대한 교사의 관심도와 실행 분석. 박사학위논문. 경남대학교.
  10. 김찬민, 서순식(2003). 정보통신활용교육에 대한 초등교사의 관심유형과 실행수준 조사연구. 교육연구, 20, 275-299.
  11. 문대영(2010). 초등 예비교사의 발명교육에 대한 관심도. 한국실과교육학회지, 23(3), 245-262.
  12. 이경순(2007). 한국과학영재학교의 u-러닝에 대한 관심도 분석. 교육과학연구, 38(2), 169-196.
  13. 이용운(2004). 교사의 교육과정 관심수준에 기초한 지원처방 효과 연구: 창의적 재량활동 개발사례를 중심으로. 박사학위논문. 고려대학교.
  14. 이지은, 신재한(2012). CBAM에 기초한 2007년 개정 교육과정에 대한 교원의 관심도 및 실행도 분석. 교사교육연구, 51(1), 137-151.
  15. 진동섭(2003). 학교 컨설팅: 교육개혁의 새로운 접근 방법. 서울: 학지사.
  16. 진동섭, 홍창남, 김도기(2008). 학교경영컨설팅과 수업 컨설팅. 경기: 교육과학사.
  17. 차정호, 백상수, 오정숙(2010). E-러닝에 대한 예비유아특수교사의 관심도 분석: 관심중심수용모형(CBAM)을 중심으로. 유아특수교육연구, 10(4), 191-215.
  18. 추광재(2007). 교육과정에 관한 교사의 관심.인식.실행 결정요인 분석. 박사학위논문. 한국교원대학교.
  19. 한국교육개발원(2012). 제 3차 영재교육진흥종합계획 수립 연구. 서울: 한국과학창의재단.
  20. 한국교육개발원(2013). 국가 수준의 영재교육기관평가 방안 연구. 서울: 한국교육개발원
  21. 한국교육개발원(2004). 영재교육기관 평가 편람. 서울: 한국교육개발원.
  22. 홍후조(2002). 교육과정의 이해와 개발. 서울: 문음사.
  23. Callahna, C. M.(2001). Program evaluation. In M. S. Landrum, C. M. Callahan & B. D. Shaklee(Eds.), Aiming for excellence: annotations to the NAGC pre-k-grade 12 gifted program standards(pp. 53-66). Washington DC: Prufrock press.
  24. Callahan, C. M., & Caldwell, M. S. (1995). A practitioner's guide to evaluating programs for the gifted. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
  25. Cooke, L., & Friend, M. (1991). Principles of practices of consultation in schools. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 6-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.1991.9944251
  26. Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & National Association for Gifted Children (2012). 2010-2011 State of the stated in gifted education. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
  27. Curtis, M. J., & Meyers, J. (1985). Best practices in school-based consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology. Washington, DC: National Association for School Psychologists.
  28. Donovan, A. (1990). Team consultation. A presentation to York Country Public Schools.
  29. Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 263-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782483
  30. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  31. Davis, N. W., & Roblyer, M. D.(2005). Preparing teachers for the "school that technology Built": Evaluation of program to train teachers for virtual schooling. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619-641.
  32. Feng, A. X. (2004). A metaevaluation of survey result of stakeholder perceptions of gifted program. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng (Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 67-86). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
  33. Feng, A. X., & Brown, E. (2004). Using focus groups in gifted program evaluation. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng(Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 109-132). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
  34. Feng, A. X., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004). Collecting students impact data in gifted programs:Problems and processes. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng(Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 133-154). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
  35. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006002207
  36. Gagne, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  37. George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin: SEDL.
  38. George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Uchiyama, K. (2000). Extent of implementation of a standards-based approach to teaching mathematics and students outcomes. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(1), 8-25.
  39. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC questionnaire. Univ. of Texas at Austin. (ERIC Document ED 147-342)
  40. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  41. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and Potholes(3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  42. Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Education Research Journal, 14(3), 263-276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312014003263
  43. Hall, G. E., & Rutherford, W. L. (1976). Concerns of teachers about implementing teach ing. Educational Leadership, 34(3), 227-233.
  44. Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies pf prospective science teachers' beliefs constructivist teaching practices. Science Eduction, 86(6). 737-863. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10016
  45. Kubr, M. (1996). Management consulting: A guide to the profession. Geneva: International Labour Office.
  46. Olenchak, F. R., & Castle, C. (1995). Reliable and valid attitude assessment in gifted education. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa, FL.
  47. Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 75-99). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  48. Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2007) Analysis of Predictive Factors That Influence Faculty Members Technology Adoption Level. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 167-190
  49. Schwartz, J., & Taylor, E. L.(1995). Accountability in gifted education: Indicators of success. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa FL.
  50. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 88-99). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  51. Traxler, M. A. (1987). Gifted education program evaluation: A national review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328701000206
  52. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers'practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
  53. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004a). The processes in gifted program evaluation. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng(Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 23-40). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
  54. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004b). Assessing classroom practice: The use of a structured observation form. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng(Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 87-108). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
  55. Ward, J. R., West, L. S., & Issak, T. J.(2002). Mentoring: A strategy for change in teacher technology education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 553-569.