Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2019.23.6.573

Development of Measuring tools for Analysis of Elementary and Secondary School Students' Software Education Satisfaction  

Lee, Young-ho (Seoul Youngdo Elementary School)
Kim, Sung-ae (Woonam Middle School)
Hong, Ji-Yeon (Hanteo Elementary School)
Koo, Duk-hoi (Seoul National University of Education)
Park, Jungho (Chinju National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education / v.23, no.6, 2019 , pp. 573-581 More about this Journal
Abstract
In order for education to be effective, it is necessary to properly evaluate the subjects. In order to increase the effectiveness of SW education, it is necessary to reconstruct the curriculum by analyzing the students' satisfaction with education and refluxing the results. Therefore, this study designed and developed the SW education satisfaction measurement tool to accurately measure students' satisfaction with SW education. The categories and items of satisfaction measurement tools were developed, validity was verified through expert verification and AHP analysis, and final items were selected through preliminary examination. Through this study, we developed a tool to measure the satisfaction of SW education, and it is expected that it can be helpful for meaningful education design.
Keywords
SW education; satisfaction surveys; Measuring tools developed;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ahn S. H. (2016). Development of programming evaluation index for elementary and middle school SW education. Journal of Korean Society for Computer Education, 19(4), 11-20.
2 Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86.   DOI
3 Barrett, P. T., & Kline, P. (1981). The observation to variable ratio in factor analysis. Personality Study & Group Behaviour.
4 Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
5 Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.   DOI
6 Kim Y.B. (2004) Development of Educational Satisfaction Survey Tool. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
7 National Civil Service Development Institute. (2016). A Study on Improvement of Evaluation Items for Curriculum Satisfaction and Practical Application.
8 Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575.   DOI
9 Lee, Hwan-Cheol, (2016). Study on Surveying the Actual Conditions and Evaluating the Effectiveness of SW Education in Elementary and Secondary Schools. KOFAC.
10 Lee, S. H., & Pershing, J. A. (2002). Dimensions and design criteria for developing training reaction evaluations. Human Resource Development International, 5(2), 175-197.   DOI
11 Park P. W., & Shin S. G. (2019). A Study on the Content System and Curriculum Design for Elementary School Software Education. Journal of Information and Education, 23(3), 273-282.
12 Tak J. G. (2007), Psychological Test, hagjisa.
13 Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 26(7), 641-658.   DOI
14 Yu S. M. (2013). Learn SPSS statistical analysis for paper writing. hwangsogeoleum akademi.
15 Jeong O. B.. (2010). Child Research and Statistical Methods. hagjisa.