Browse > Article

Development and Application of Self-Evaluation Test Items for Secondary Science Teacher Professional Growth  

Kim, Sung-won (Ewha Womans University)
Jeong, Se-Mi (Ewha Womans University)
Hwang, Yoon-Jin (Ewha Womans University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.25, no.7, 2005 , pp. 736-745 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to develop and execute self-appraisal test items on secondary science teachers. Test items included 6 sub-fields-subject knowledge, teaching strategies, teaching skills, assessment, laboratory management, and professional development - and 77 items. Using these test items, science teachers were able to evaluate their ability as prescribed by a 5-point Likert scale. Furthermore, teachers were able to comprehend fields showing their highest and lowest scores among the 6 sub-fields. They could then place special attention on the lowest field insuring self-growth as a science teacher. Self-appraisal test items were developed by analyzing related references on teacher evaluation criteria and standards. 220 subjects composed the sample on which these test items were executed. The results of this study were as follows. First, content validity of the test items was 80.8%. The range of sub-field reliabilities was .76 - .86 and the reliability coefficient of the entire test was .95. The range of correlation coefficient between each subfield was .54 - .69 and that of subfields and entire test was .54 - .79. The correlation coefficient between professional development and the whole test was .79, the highest coefficient observed. Second, significant difference was found according to teaching experience. More experienced teachers had higher scores in all 6 sub-fields (p<.05). In addition, a significant difference according to gender was observed in subject knowledge and laboratory management (p<.05); male teachers had higher scores than female teachers. Also, the higher the level of experience, the higher the scores for subject knowledge (p<.05). Lastly, the teacher's major did not result in any significant differences.
Keywords
self-evaluation; science teacher;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 김수현(1999). 과학 교사의 전문성 발달을 위한 계속 교육 프로그램의 평가 준거 요소. 서울대학교 박사학위논문
2 김현희 (2002). 한국과 미국의 중학교 과학교사 양성 목표와 교유과정 비교 연구. 서울대학교 석사학위논문
3 배호순 (1991). 수업평가. 서울: 양서원
4 정영수 (1998). 교사와 교육. 서울: 문음사
5 최병순 (1994) 과학과 교육론. 경기과학 통간 제100호 특집, 경기도과학교육원, 127-130
6 Duke, Daniel L, & Stiggins, Richard J. (1990). Teacher Evaluation-Five Keys to Growth, Washington D.C: NEA Professional Library
7 Labosky, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: a study of preservice teachers. Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University
8 Valentine, Jerry. W. (1992). Principles and Practices for Effective Teacher Evaluation. futon: Allyn and Bacon
9 한종하 (1990). 과학교사의 자질과 과학교육. 교육 개발, 12(5), 2-13
10 Barber, L. W. (1985). Improving Teachers Performance-Formative Edvaluation. Indiana: A Publication of Phi Delta Kappa's Center on Evaluation Development and Research
11 서혜애 등 옮김 (2000). 국가과학교육 기준-미국의 과학교육 개혁. 서울: 교육과학사
12 성민웅 (1994). 학교과학교육의 문제점과 개선방안. 과학교육(12), 31-52, 시청각교육사
13 권낙원 (1993). 효과적인 수업을 위한 교사 평가. 교육윌보 12(11), 49-53
14 Shulman. L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22
15 Jones, Jeff & Mathias, John (1995). Training for Appraisal and Professional Development, London: Cassell
16 김정규, 권낙원 (1988). 교사와 교육. 서울: 형설출판사
17 Campbell, Donald, J., & Lee, Cynthia. (1998). Self-Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development versus Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 302-314   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Shinkfield, A. J., & Stufflebeam, Daniel, (1995). Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective Practice. Boston/Dordrecht/London; Kluwer academic publishers
19 권난주, 권재술 (1993). 수월성의 준거: NSTA. 한국 과학교육학회지, 13(1), 100-120
20 Wenning, C. J. (1998). Knowledge base for prospective secondary level physics teacher. http://www.phy. ilstu.edu/profiles/studkb.html
21 Sergiovani, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1983). Supervision: Human Perspectives. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.
22 National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington nc.: National Academy Press
23 Vito Germinario & Cram, Henry G. (1998). Change for Public Education-Practical Approches for the 21st Century. Lancater Basel: Technomic Publishing Co.
24 박수원 (2002). 전문성 신장을 위한 교사근무평정의 특성 연구. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문
25 Beerens, Daniel, R. (2000). Evaluating Teachers for Professional Growth-Creating a Culture of Motiviation and Learning. Thousand Oaks. California: Corwin Press. Inc.
26 전제상 (2000). 교사평가의 준거개발에 관한 연구. 홍익대학교 박사학위논문
27 정태범 (1993). 미국교육의 동향과 한국 교육의 방향, 서울: 교육과학사
28 Turner, T. & DiMarco, W. (1998). Learning to Teach Science in the Secondary Schcol, London and New York: Routledge
29 원효헌 (1998). 교사의 교수 수행평가 영역 및 요소의 분석. 고려대학교 박사학위논문
30 주삼환 (1996). 교원의 정체성 확립을 위한 교사의 직무수행 모형 개발 연구. 서울특별시 중부교육청
31 Baird, L. S. (1977). Self and Superior Rating of Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 20(2), 291- 300   DOI   ScienceOn
32 김정환 (2000). 전문성 신장 중심의 교사평가 방안. 한국교육학회 2000년도 춘계학술대회논문집, 133-154
33 박용현 (1994). 교사 자질 평가척. 서울: 코리안테스팅센터