유아교육·보육기관 평가인정 도구의 타당화 연구

Abstract

Since the 1980s, rapid economic growth and the accentuated importance of early education have fueled the swift quantitative growth of early childhood education institutes and daycare centers. However, the rational management of those institutes and the development of curriculum have relatively been disregarded, which ends up deteriorating overall early childhood education and daycare services, sparking the complaints of clients and disturbing the early development of human resources. The purpose of this study was to delve into how the quality of early childhood education and daycare services could be guaranteed to meet demand for education at a personal level and to improve the excellency of early childhood education and daycare services at a national level. Four research questions posed in this study were to make a comparative analysis of the structure of the evaluation and authentication system for domestic and international early childhood education institutes and daycare centers, to verify the content validity and construct validity of evaluation and authentication tools for those institutes, to examine the practical fitness of the evaluation items of those tools used by different institutes, and to check what the government should consider to boost the evaluation and authentication system. To address the research questions, the structure of domestic and foreign evaluation systems and tools was compared in terms of the objects of evaluation, evaluating institutes, rater, procedure, feedback and method to determine in which way an evaluation tool should be developed. Second, the content validity and construct validity of evaluation tools were verified by having an in-depth interview with experts. Nationwide experimental research was conducted on those who worked at early childhood education institutes and daycare centers, and then factor analysis was carried out. Besides, Cronbach a that showed item internal consistency was employed to test the reliability of the evaluation standard of the evaluation and authentication system. Third, a nationwide survey was conducted on teachers, caregivers and administrators at early childhood education institutes and daycare centers to verify the practical adequacy of the items and segments of the revised evaluation tools, and then frequency analysis and t-test were implemented. In addition, statistical data on mean and standard deviation were obtained. Fourth, those who provided early childhood education and daycare services were examined to suggest what kind of evaluation and authentication system should be introduced and applied in the future. In particular, whether or not teachers, caregivers and administrators consented to that system and why they agreed or didn't were investigated, and their opinions about how that could take root in the future were collected. All those data were analyzed with x2 test. The subjects who were selected in a different manner were 20 experts in early childhood education and daycare services and 1,000 people who worked at 1,000 early childhood institutes and daycare centers. After a survey was conducted on the expert group from October 1 through November 30, 2004, the answer sheets from 13 respondents were analyzed, and seven respondents who filled out the questionnaires in an subjective way were ruled out. The other group included the chiefs, assistant chiefs, teachers and caregivers at 500 early childhood education institutes and 500 daycare centers. After they were surveyed from June 1 through July 25, 2005, the responses from 900 people were collected, and 768 answer sheets were analyzed except the incomplete ones. Yang Ok-seung(2001)'s Evaluation & Authentication Tool turned out to be valid in terms of content based on the advice of 13 experts in early childhood education and daycare services. The structure of an evaluation and authentication tool reconstructed in this study was examined, and to what extent the groups agreed with one another was checked to test the validity and reliability of it. How they perceived its items was analyzed in consideration of the type of their work places to determine the practical fitness of them, and what the government should allow for in introducing and applying an evaluation and authentication system was investigated after the relevant items were prepared according to the results of the survey. The major findings of the study were as follows: First, primary advanced countries already woke up to the importance of an integrative evaluation and authentication system as a formal mechanism to enhance the quality of early childhood education and daycare services, and they developed and utilized such a system. To facilitate the well-rounded development and growth of young children, it's needed to strike a balance between their cognitive and physical development. The kind of mechanism that could ensure higher-quality, integrative early childhood education and daycare services should be built to comply with the fashion of the day. Second, when the validity and reliability of the evaluation and authentication system were tested, it's found, regarding content validity, that a systematic tool should be prepared in the future by taking the construction and coverage of the revised 24 evaluation criteria into account. The revised 24 evaluation criteria were more comprehensive and specific than those of existing domestic and international tools in covering parents' demand for education, the safety and welfare of children, and the level of education provided by early childhood education institutes and daycare centers. Especially, they were more advanced in association with the securement and aesthetic utilization of teaching materials and aids, the safety of indoor facilities, regular safety accident education geared toward the teaching staff and the preparation of seasonal bedding. As for the construct validity of the evaluation and authentication tool, its five segments didn't appear to work as intended, being overlapped. When a new tool is prepared in the future, the opinions of people concerned should be reflected in selecting appropriate segments and clear criteria. Finally, as a result of checking the reliability of the tool, Cronbach a coefficients for each segment and item ranged from 0.87 to 0.96. Overall, the revised tool turned out to be highly reliable, and that was eventually identified as one of the reliable evaluation and authentication tools. Third, the views of the educators at different institutes about the practical adequacy of the items should be considered when the quality of early childhood education is controlled. Out of the five segments, they gave the highest marks, a mean of 4.50, to the basic attitude of teachers, and it implied that regardless of the type of foundation and institute, teacher qualifications and expertise were most important, and curriculum and programs that nurture early childhood education teachers and caregivers should be designed in light of that. As to the items about satisfying the needs of special children and coping with child abuse, they gave a mean of 4.06 and 4.27 respectively, which weren't low, but those items appeared to be valid the least, compared to the other items of the same segments. It signified that the early childhood education institute and daycare centers didn't fully recognize the importance of those segments. Nowadays, integrated education is being widespread, and it's required to take an institutional measure against child abuse. Under the circumstances, curriculum and training courses should be built in a more careful manner. Furthermore, the backup system segment ranked lowest with a mean of 4.18, which was lower than the collective averages of all the segments. Early childhood education institutes and daycare centers should take an opener attitude toward the development of programs about parent involvement, volunteer work and information sharing. Fourth, the government should push ahead with introducing an evaluation and authentication system in consideration of regional characteristics, the type of institute and the type of foundation. To make it happen, more professional, higher-quality evaluation criteria should be supplied, and how to manage the system should be determined. In other words, it's needed to gather extensive opinions from all the people concerned, including parents, educational administrators, local educational authorities and central government agency, to address their needs and to establish a democratic decision-making process.