대한치위생과학회지 (Journal of Korean Dental Hygiene Science)

대한치과위생학회 & 한국치위생과학회 (The Korean Academy of Dental Hygiene & The Korean Society of Dental Hygiene Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

치위생(학)과 학생이 지각한 비대면 시험의 공정성, 시험 불안 및 학교 신뢰 간의 구조적 관계

Structural relationship among justice of non-face-to-face exam, trust, and satisfaction with university

  • 투고 : 2023.05.18
  • 심사 : 2023.06.10
  • 발행 : 2023.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

연구배경: 본 연구는 치위생학과 학생들이 지각한 비대면 시험의 공정성과, 시험 불안 및 학교 신뢰간의 구조적 관계를 분석하고자 한다. 연구방법: 치위생학과 학생 267명을 대상으로 설문조사를 하였다. 조사항목은 일반적 특성과 평가에 대한 의견, 비대면시험의 공정성(분배 공정성, 절차 공정성, 상호작용 공정성), 학교 만족도, 학교 신뢰도 등으로 구성하였다. 통계분석은 독립표본 t검정과 일원배치분산분석, 구조모형분석을 하였다. 연구결과: 비대면 시험에서 학교만족도와 신뢰도에 직접적인 영향을 미치는 요인은 상호작용 공정성(β=.401, p<.001)과 분배공정성(β=.232, p=.002)이 높을수록 학교에 만족하였으며, 학교 만족도(β=.606, p<.001)와 절차공정성(β=.299, p<.001)이 높을수록 학교를 신뢰하였다. 학교신뢰도에 간접적인 영향을 미치는 요인은 상호작용공정성(β=.243, p=.010), 분배공정성(β=.141, p=.010)이었다. 학교만족에 영향을 미치는 요인은 상호작용 공정성(β=.592, p=.010), 분배 공정성(β=.208, p=.010)이며, 학교 신뢰도에 영향을 미치는 요인은 학교만족도(β=.56, p=.010), 상호작용 공정성(β=.332, p=.010), 절차 공정성(β=.229, p=.010), 분배 공정성(β=.116, p=.010)이었다. 결론: 비대면 시험에 대한 정보를 학교 또는 교수들이 충분히 제공하며, 시간을 들여 노력했을 때 정당한 성적을 받을 수 있도록 올바른 절차로 시행해야 학교를 신뢰하고 학교에 대해 만족할 수 있다. 학생들이 학교를 신뢰할 수 있는 공정한 비대면시험을 위한 다양한 콘텐츠 개발에 기초자료를 제공하고자 한다.

Background: This study investigated the structural relationships among justice, test anxiety, and school reliability s non-face-to-face tests of dental hygiene students. Methods: A survey was conducted with 267 dental hygiene students. The survey items included general characteristics, opinions on evaluation, the fairness of non-face-to-face tests (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice), school satisfaction, and school reliability. For statistical analysis, independent-sample t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and structural modeling analyses were performed. Results: Among factors that directly affected distributive justice and reliability towards non-face-to-face tests, the higher the interactional justice (β=0.401, p<0.001) and distributive justice (β=0.232, p=0.002) levels, the higher the school satisfaction. The higher the school satisfaction (β=0.606, p<0.001) and procedural justice (β=0.299, p<0.001) levels, the higher the perceived reliability of the school. Factors that indirectly affected school reliability included interactional justice (β=0.243, p=0.010) and distributive justice (β=0.141, p=0.010). Interactional justice (β=0.592, p=0.010) and distributive justice (β=0.208, p=0.010) were the factors affecting school satisfaction. Moreover, factors that influenced school reliability were distributive justice (β=0.56, p=0.010), interactional justice (β=0.332, p=0.010), procedural justice (β=0.229, p=0.010), and distributive justice (β=0.116, p=0.010). Conclusions: Students will trust and be satisfied with schools when schools and professors sufficiently provide information on face-to-face tests and ensure proper procedures to achieve reasonable grades as rewards for exerted time and effort. Furthermore, this study provides a reference base for developing a variety of content for fair, non-face-to-face tests, thereby allowing students to trust their schools.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Shin YC. Toward one health & welfare: Health and welfare in the Covid-19 pandemic. Health and Social Welfare Review 2020;40(1):5-10. Ministry of education. [Inernet] Sejong: press release. Retrieved September 20, 2020 Fromhttps://bit.lv/3fADO3 (2022, Dec. 31) 
  2. SBS news: The first day of college online classes...'Site paralyzed one after another'student confusion. Retrieved September 20, 2022, from https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1005700722(2020, March 16) 
  3. Jeong SM. Analysis of differences in satisfaction with remote learning between two-year college students and four-year university students after the outbreak of COVID-19. Jour. of KoCon. a 2021;21(5):276-284. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2021.21.05.276 
  4. Hankook-Ilbo: University Online Lecture Satisfaction is only 7%. Give me back my Tuition. Retrieved May 9, 2022, from https://hankookilbo.com/News/Read/202004051554074446(2020, Apr. 6) 
  5. Kim JY. A study on the changes in the satisfaction of distance learning learners. HSS21 2021;12(1):1647-59. https://doi.org/10.22143/HSS.21.12.1.116 
  6. Jang JK, Kim HS. Prevention of cheating online test with random question. J of KIISE 2002;29(2):397-99. 
  7. Ko JY, Shim JC, Kim HK. A system for improving fairness of online test using camera. J of KMMS 2009;12(10):1427-35. 
  8. Kim MY. A research on the problems of the smart device-based distance instruction in college writing classes : using surveyed data from hongik university students & instructors. Journal of the Humanities 2020;120(0):5-49.  https://doi.org/10.23017/INMUN.2020.120..5
  9. Yoon MH. Perceived justice of college education services and its effect on relationship quality and customer voluntary behaviors. Korean Management Review 2003;32(1):315-40. 
  10. Kim KS. Real-time online test experience and fairness at a university. JKAIS 2020;21(9):229-37. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2020.21.9.229 
  11. Do JW. An investigation of design constraints in the process of converting face-to-face course into online course. JOEC 2020;26(2):153-73. https://doi.org/10.24159/joec.2020.26.2.153 
  12. Park SJ, Chae SH. Study on teaching performance for satisfaction of online class learner of C university graduate school of education due to COVID-19. KALCI 2020;20(20):1319-44. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2020.20.20.1319 
  13. Kim TW. The effects of feedback patterns by instructor to the discussion participation levels and satisfaction levels in the online discussion environments. JEER 2020;13(6):24-32. https://doi.org/10.18108/jeer.2010.13.6.24 
  14. Jang WY. Causal relationship between learning motivation and thinking in programming education using online evaluation tool. JKAIE 2020;24(4):379-90. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2020.24.4.379 
  15. Mitchell RJ 2001 Mitchell RJ. Path Analysis. In: Scheiner S.M., Gurevitch J.. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. 2nd ed. New York:Oxford University Press;2001:217-234. 
  16. Choi, SW, Choi, SU. A Study on Unproctored Exams in a Business School:Perspectives on Justice Perceptions, Trust, and Student Satisfaction. Korean Business Education Review 2015;30(6):377-401. 
  17. Son JS. Structural Relations between Trust-Forming Factors in General Physical Education Class in College and Students' Trust in School, and between Relationship Quality and Maintenance of Relationship[Doctoral dissertation]. Seoul: Univ. of Hanyang, 2016. 
  18. Jeong JE, Kwak EJ. A case study for deriving online exam conducting strategies. JLCCI 2021;21(19):469-488. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2021.21.19.469 
  19. Park KH, Jang HS. Research of the Fairness about On-line Testing. Journal of the Korea industrial information systems society 2011;16(4):67-73.  https://doi.org/10.9723/jksiis.2011.16.4.067
  20. Park CK. Design and Implementation of a System for Operating Online Examinations at Online Universities. Journal of Cyber Education 2013;7(2):119-136. 
  21. Hwang HS. A Comparative Analysis of Text on the Face-to-face and Non-face Answer Sheet of University Liberal Arts. The Journal of Humanities and Social science 2021;12(2):2845-2856.  https://doi.org/10.22143/HSS21.12.2.200
  22. Jung HK. College students' satisfaction with the overall implementation of online classes and testing during the Corona 19 pandemic. MALL 2020;23(3):392-412. 
  23. Kim EH, Moon SJ. A Research Study on Professor Trust and Learning Satisfaction of College Students in Rural & Fishing Communities - For Students at Universities in Pohang, Gyeongsangbuk-do -. The Journal of Korean Island 2021;33(4):243-256. https://doi.org/10.26840/JKI.33.4.243 
  24. Yeo SH, Kim DJ. An Analysis on the Satisfaction of Real-time Online Tests from a Medical School By Gender, Age, and Test Area of Students During COVID-19. JLCCI 2021;21(23):805-818. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2021.21.23.805