earticle

영어

The purpose of this study is, as a standard to evaluate the academic credit bank system, to develop the meta-evaluation criteria. For that, the researcher established meta-evaluation criteria through a literature survey, and on the basis of that, conducted an investigation-study in the order of investing the appropriateness of the criteria, its validity research. Meta-evaluation area has been composed of the three items including evaluation input, evaluation process, evaluation results & application, and total 30 criteria were established. After revising & supplementing under the examination of the appropriateness of the criteria by 13 experts, 29 criteria were selected through the process of verifying their appropriateness. A questionnaire survey for the appropriateness verification was conducted on the evaluation committees(the 15th) of academic credit bank system, for its accreditation, and on the working-level persons for academic credit system in 463 educational training institutes throughout the country.
First, ten criteria for evaluation input area were developed: 1) the validity of evaluation purposes; 2) the appropriateness of evaluation organizationㆍsystem; 3) quantitative appropriateness of evaluation committees; 4) the speciality of evaluation committees; 5) the appropriateness in the selection & composition of evaluation committees; 6) the adequacy of evaluation budget; 7) the
appropriateness of evaluation data; 8) the validity of evaluation area & items; 9) the validity of evaluation index; 10) the validity of the allocation of evaluation score. Second, twelve criteria for evaluation process area were developed: 1) the appropriateness of evaluation time; 2) the appropriateness of evaluation cycle; 3) the appropriateness of evaluating method; 4) the accuracy of in-house reporting; 5) the faithfulness of written evaluation; 6) the faithfulness of on-the-spot evaluation; 7) the rationality of evaluating procedures; 8) the appropriateness of
orientation by an outside evaluating organization; 9) the appropriateness of evaluation handbook distribution; 10) the appropriateness of pre-evaluation education for evaluation committees; 11) the objectivity of evaluation; 12) the fairness of evaluation.
Finally, seven criteria for evaluation results & their practical use area were developed: 1) the reliance of evaluation results; 2) the faithfulness of evaluation result report; 3) the appropriateness of objection chance; 4) the openness of evaluation results; 5) the practical use of evaluation results; 6) the influence of evaluation results; 7) the performance of meta-evaluation.

한국어

본 연구는 학점은행제 평가인정을 평가하기 위한 준거인 메타평가 준거를 개발하는 데 목적이 있다. 문헌연구를 통해 메타평가 영역을 평가투입, 평가과정, 평가결과 및 활용의 세 영역으로 설정하여 총 30개의 준거를 설정하였다. 이에 근거하여 준거의 적합성 검토, 타당성 검증의 과정을 거쳐 29개의 준거를 개발하였다. 준거의 적합성 검토는 전문가 13명에게 실시하였고, 타당성 검증은 학점은행제 평가인정 평가위원(제15차)과 전국의 463개 교육훈련기관 학점은행제 실무자를 통하여 이루어졌다.
평가투입 영역의 준거는 평가목적의 타당성, 평가조직ㆍ기구의 적절성, 평가위원의 양적 적절성, 평가위원의 전문성, 평가위원의 선정 및 구성의 적절성, 평가예산의 적정성, 평가자료의 적절성, 평가영역 및 항목의 타당성, 평가지표 및 기준의 타당성, 평가점수 배분의 적절성 등 10개가 개발되었다. 평가과정 영역의 준거는 12개로서 평가주기의 적절성, 평가시기의 적절성, 평가방법의 적절성, 자체보고의 정확성, 서면평가의 충실성, 현장방문평가의 충실성, 평가절차의 합리성, 평가대상기관 오리엔테이션의 적절성, 평가 편람 배포의 적절성, 평가위원 사전평가교육의 적절성, 평가의 객관성, 평가의 공정성
등이다. 평가결과 및 활용 영역의 준거는 평가결과의 신뢰성, 평가결과보고서의 충실성, 이의제기 기회의 적절성, 평가결과의 공개성, 평가결과의 활용성, 평가결과의 영향성, 메타평가의 적절성 등 7개이다.