한국어 쓰기 평가 구인과 채점 기준에 관한 연구 - 한국어 쓰기 평가 범주의 회귀분석을 중심으로
A Research on Test Construct and Application of Analytic Scale of Writing Test in Korean Language - Focusing on Regression Analysis of Writing Test Outcome.
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Until recently, scoring in writing test of Korean language tended to depend on ‘subjective intuition’, and, except for a few evaluation organization, it relied on two or three evaluation criteria such as ‘content and accuracy’, ‘content, format, expression’, or ‘content, format, organization’. Also, evaluation criteria and standard had significant variance, and allocation of scores on criteria has been obscure and subjective. As a result, there have been some doubts regarding reliability and validity of the test. However, just like there is no right answer to ‘what is the good writing?’ which has been debated among philosophers and researchers, there has been little structured discussion regarding ‘how could we define good writing?’ while researches so far has been focusing on analytic scale, criteria description, and reliability and validity, it is time to raise questions regarding which evaluation criteria have bigger impact through the evaluation process. In summary, metacognitive competence mattered much more than overall knowledge in language through the process of writing evaluation. However, considering that objective of Korean language education is to enhance communication capabilities as a second language, to make this evaluation more meaningful, we need to first compare holistic score in writing from native speakers and score in knowledge level of language, and understand the correlation. This could be a theoretical rationale to differentiate importance of various evaluation criteria.
Abstract
Until recently, scoring in writing test of Korean language tended to depend on ‘subjective intuition’, and, except for a few evaluation organization, it relied on two or three evaluation criteria such as ‘content and accuracy’, ‘content, format, expression’, or ‘content, format, organization’. Also, evaluation criteria and standard had significant variance, and allocation of scores on criteria has been obscure and subjective. As a result, there have been some doubts regarding reliability and validity of the test. However, just like there is no right answer to ‘what is the good writing?’ which has been debated among philosophers and researchers, there has been little structured discussion regarding ‘how could we define good writing?’ while researches so far has been focusing on analytic scale, criteria description, and reliability and validity, it is time to raise questions regarding which evaluation criteria have bigger impact through the evaluation process. In summary, metacognitive competence mattered much more than overall knowledge in language through the process of writing evaluation. However, considering that objective of Korean language education is to enhance communication capabilities as a second language, to make this evaluation more meaningful, we need to first compare holistic score in writing from native speakers and score in knowledge level of language, and understand the correlation. This could be a theoretical rationale to differentiate importance of various evaluation criteria.
참고문헌 (25)
- 이원경, "한국어 평가론" (2006), 태학사
- 한국어능력시험의 등급별 합격 점수 및 채점 기준 설정 방안 연구, "김정숙", 한국교육과정평가원, ~ (2005)
- 김정숙, "한국어 쓰기 능력 평가 방안- 종합적 채점과 분석적 채점 결과를 중심으로", 이중언어학, (43), pp.81~99 (2010), 이중언어학회
- 김성숙, "학문 목적 한국어 쓰기 능력에 대한 분석적 평가의 일반화가능도 검증", 한국어교육, 22(3), pp.29~48 (2011), 국제한국어교육학회
- 박영목, "작문 능력 평가 방법과 절차", 국어교육, (99), pp.81~99 (1999), 한국국어교육연구회
- 박영목, "쓰기 평가 연구의 주요 과제", 작문연구, (6), pp.9~38 (2008), 한국작문학회
- 신동일, "Rasch 모형을 이용한 고등학교 영어과 말하기 및 쓰기 능력 등급 기술표 개발", 영어교육, 57(4), pp.469~499 (2002), 한국영어교육학회
- 이영식, "영어작문 평가에 대한 채점자 훈련의 원리, In 언어평가의 이해", pp.311~332 (2003), 서울대학교 출판부
- 이은하, "학문 목적 한국어 학습자의 쓰기 수행 평가를 위한 분석적 채점척도 개발", 석사, pp.2007
- 장소영, "언어교육평가 연구를 위한 FACETS 프로그램." (2009), 글로벌콘텐츠
- Bachman, L F., "Language Testing in Practice" (1996), Oxford University Press
- Bachman, L. F., "Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing" (1990), Oxford University Press
- Canale, M., "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing", Applied Linguistics, 1, pp.1~47 (1990)
- Cooper, C., "Evaluating writing" (1999), NCTE
- Jacobson, H., "Testing ESL Composition : a pracical approach" (1981), Newbury House
- Savignon, S., "Communicative Competence : Theory and Classroom Practice" (1983), Addison-Wesley
- Sternberg, R. J., "The Triarchic Mind : A New Theory of Human Intelligence" (1988), Viking
- Hyland, K., "Second Language Writing" (2003), Cambridge University Press
- Weigle, S. W., "Effects of training on raters of ESL compositions", Language Testing, 11(2), pp.197~223 (1994)
- Weigle, S. C., "Assessing Writing" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Widdowson, H. G., "Learning Purpose and Language Use" (1983), Oxford University Press
- Wier, C. J., "Communicative Language Testing" (1990), Prentice Hall
- Wolcott, W., "An Overview of Writing Assessment : theory, research, and practice" (1998), The National Coucil of Teaches of English
- IRA, "Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing", pp.1994, IRA