대학평가의 메타평가 준거 개발

국문 초록 (Abstract)

우리나라 대학평가에 대한 불만이 계속 제기되는 것은 평가에 대한 점검이 부족하였기 때문이다. 대학평가 기관은 대학교육의 수월성과 책무성을 점검해야 할뿐만 아니라 평가 기관으로서 평가활동의 질 제고를 위해 책무성을 다하고 있는 지에 대한 점검받아야 한다. 즉 대학평가 기관의 책무성 점검 차원에서 대학평가에 대한 평가가 요구되고 있다.
이러한 맥락에서 본 연구는 대학평가를 평가할 수 있는 준거를 개발하는데 그 목적이 있다. 타당도와 신뢰도가 높은 준거를 개발하기 위해 문헌 연구, 전문가협의회, 조사 연구 등을 수행하였다. 문헌 연구는 주로 대학평가의 메타평가 모형 및 준거 설정의 근거를 탐색하는데 이용되었다. 약 10명의 대학평가 전문가를 선정하여 두 차례에 걸쳐 전문가 협의회를 개최하여 메타평가의 방향과 준거의 적합성을 검토 받았다. 조사 연구를 통해 대학평가 위원, 교육학 교수, 피평가 기관인 대학의 평가실무자 등으로부터 타당도와 신뢰도를 검증받았다.
본 연구 결과, 대학평가의 메타평가 모형으로 PSPaVRU 모형이 정립되었으며 기획 단계, 자체평가 단계, 서면평가 단계, 방문평가 단계, 결과보고 단계, 결과 활용 단계 등을 포함하는 45개의 메타평가 준거가 개발되었다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to develop the meta evaluation criteria of university evaluation. Through the literature study, the theory of meta evaluation and university evaluation is inquired. University evaluation conference consisted of ten elected persons was held twice, the directions of meta evaluation and criteria was reviewed. The validity and reliablity of the criteria are demonstrated through evaluators of university evaluation, professors of the department of education in university, self evaluators in university. Through this study, 45 criteria are developed, the reliability is .9553 and the validity is .445.
In the university evaluating planning step, there are thirteen criteria such as the sufficiency of the evaluation planning and research manpower, the professionalism of the evaluation planning and research manpower, the sufficiency of the finances, the sufficiency of the prognosis of university situation, the validity of purpose, the validity of the evaluation area and items, the relevance of evaluation method, the relevance of evaluation manual, the clearness of judging the evaluation standards, the relevance of evaluation procedure, the relevance of the guidance on the plan of the utilizing the evaluation result, the relevance of the period of the evaluation manual distribution and the relevance of the evaluation orientation program for universities.
The self-evaluating step, which consists of seven criteria, includes the property of the period of the self evaluation manual distribution, the relevance of administrative and financial support for self evaluation, the concreteness of self evaluation guidelines and standards, the appropriateness of the self-evaluating planning, the appropriate of the staffs participation, the accuracy of the self-evaluation, and the utility of the results of self-evaluation. The paper-evaluating step has ten criteria: the sufficiency of the evaluator, the professionalism of the evaluator, the relevance of the evaluator selection standards, the relevance of training for evaluators, the relevance of the support for paper-evaluation, the relevance of understanding the contents of the self evaluation report, the fullfillness of paper evaluation practice, the clearness of the establishment materials to be identified for visiting evaluation, the fullfillness of analysing of traits individual university. The visiting-evaluating step has seven criteria. the clearness of information request and resource, the relevance of the evaluation-practicing method, the ethics of the evaluation practice, the sufficiency of collecting information, the relevancy the period of site evaluation, the objectivity of the evaluation and the impartiality of evaluation. The step of reporting result contains the reliability of the evaluation results, the impartiality of the rating between university evaluation results, and the sufficiency of the evaluation report. In the utilization step, there are the openness of the evaluation results, the utilization of the evaluation results, the utility of the evaluation, the impact of the evaluation results and the relevance of the
meta-evaluation.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 요약
• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 연구 방법
• Ⅲ. 이론적 배경
• Ⅵ. 연구 결과
• Ⅴ. 논의 및 결론
• 참고문헌
• Abstract