한국과 핀란드의 고등학교 내신평가체제 비교분석

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find out the implications for the successful settlement of high school achievement evaluation system by comparing and analyzing the evaluation system of high school in Korea and Finland. For this purpose, main documents related to achievement evaluation system in Korea and evaluation policy in Finland are analyzed. In terms of evaluation purpose, Korea intends to achieve ‘assessment of learning’ in the outward gaze, while Finland aims to make ‘assessment for learning’ to promote the growth and development of students themselves. In the aspect of evaluation governance, Finland maintains two-dimensional system in which the external reviewer reviews the content of the teacher, unlike Korea, where teachers have both responsibility and authority for evaluation. In the process of evaluation, Korea selects one of the fixed division score or the unit school division score, but Finland does not have a clear evaluation standard provided at the national level. In terms of the evaluation results, both countries have determined the grade of students by summing up the summative and formative evaluation, but it turns out that Finland makes better use of the original meaning of formative evaluation. In terms of teacher’s evaluation competence, the achievement evaluation system has contributed positively to the integration of the curriculum and the evaluation, and teachers in Finland builds up their evaluation ability in a freely atmosphere guaranteed professionalism and autonomy. Finally, in terms of evaluation culture, the most important factor is the score of university entrance examination in Korea while university entrance examination and university level tests is more important in Finland. Base on the results of analysis, this study tries to achieve the following suggestions. First, the method of calculating the unit school split score should be reviewed in order to ensure reliability of evaluation result. Second, external supervisory agency to guarantee objectivity and fairness of evaluation results by teachers is needed. Third, there should be a social atmosphere that can guarantee the autonomy and professionalism of the teachers. Fourth, it is necessary to express a firm and concrete stance on the achievement evaluation system at the government level. Fifth, it is needed to improve the method of reflecting grades from high school at universities. Finally, teachers should focus more on providing feedbacks to the students when executing formative evaluation.