• Journal of Engineering Education Research
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.59-67
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to analyze that hours for participating in CTL program and whether or not make of CQI have a effect on the student evaluation about teaching of engineering professor. This inquiry have done a multiple regression analysis that student evaluation grade of teaching on 2018-1st semester of 240 engineering subjects of N University in Chungcheongnam-do as dependent variable, and background factors and work factors as independent variable. Research results is follows. First, employment type haven't a effect on teaching evaluation scores. And subject type, student' concentration of class, teaching evaluation pre-scores have a positive effect on teaching evaluation rating, but student number have a negative effect. Second, hours for participating in CTL program haven't a effect on teaching evaluation scores, but to make of CQI report have a positive effect on teaching evaluation scores. And I suggested to make CQI for improve teaching evaluation scores and manage the quality of education.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.494-502
• /
• 2005

This study investigated the current science teaching evaluation system implemented in schools and directions for improving teaching evaluation using literature review, survey, and teacher interview. The first part of this paper analyzed the types, roles, and major issues of the current science teaching evaluation. In-service teachers argued that the current teaching evaluation system was discredited because of the bureaucratic procedures of teacher performance review, showcase classrooms, teachers' views on classroom as their own personal space, low ratio of teaching component in the current teacher evaluation, untrained evaluators, and the absence of professional teaching standards. The second part of the paper investigated the need for a formative teaching assessment, an ideal type of teaching assessment, and the role of participants in the teaching evaluation processes. The way forward, therefore, is to start not at the level of the administrative superstructure but at the level of teachers who will assume responsibility for developing standards of practice as the basis for evaluating their own work and improving their own professional learning to provide quality assurance.

• Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.81-93
• /
• 1998

The purpose of this study was to analyze the results of teachers' self-evaluation on their health teaching behaviors, then to furnish the basic data to be able to improve teachers' health teaching activities and the educational issues on the education of teachers. To put above aims into practice, these were required: 1. Are there any differences in the results of self-evaluation on health teaching behaviors factors by teachers? 2. Are there any differences in the results of health teaching self-evaluation whether he/she take P.E as major of study in-serviece training period? 3. Does it have any influence on the results of health teaching self-evaluation whether he or she completed on the job training for the school health? 4. Are there any differences in the results of health teaching self-evaluation by sex and career? To carry out a research for this purpose, the factors of health teaching self-evaluation were divided into the clearness of the procedure, the active interaction, the variety of the ways showing the contents, and the individualization of the procedure. Then a questionnaire form, consisting of 28 specific inquires to evaluate health teaching behaviors, was delivered and conducted by 450 teacher of the elementary school in Kyungki-do. The analysis of data was done by SPSS; producing mean and standard deviation and they were inspected statistically to compare the evaluation levels and find out the differences by teachers' personal variables. The conclusion were as follows: 1. In the self-evaluation level of teachers' health teaching behaviors, teachers showed 68.23 point as are percentile distribution. And it was in order of a school-nurse(71.68), an athletic teacher(67.29), and a class-room teacher (65.66). Score obtained by teacher was statistically significant difference (p〈.001) 2. In the factors affecting to teachers' health instruction, “active interaction” showed the highest score(18.55), “variety of ways showing the contents”(17.38), “clearness of the procedure” (16.70), and “individualization of the procedure” (15.59). In the analysis of the differences by teachers, according to factors, there were significant differences in “active interaction”, “variety of the ways showing contents”, “clearness of the procedure”(p〈.001). 3. Self-evaluation score for graduates from Dept. of P. E in Teachers' collage was not significant difference compared with other majors(p〉.05). 4. Teachers receiving health education was significantly higher self-evaluation score than that of teachers not-receiving health education (P〈.01). 5. Self-evaluation score of female teacher was significant difference compared with that of male teacher (p〈.001). 6. Career (working duration) did not influenced to self-evaluation score on health teaching behaviors (P〉 .05). On the basis of the conclusion of this study, the next are suggested: First, the further studies to make use of the results of health teaching behaviors and to examine the effect are needed. Second, the further studies to examine the relations between academic achievement and teachers' major(a school-nurse, an athletic teacher, and a class-room teacher) are needed. Third, the following studies to improve health teaching by both teachers' self-evaluation on health teaching behaviors and students' evaluation of teachers, and to find out more effective health teaching, are needed. Fourth, Health education for pre-service training course and On-the-Job training program are need the effective factors on the teachers' Health teaching obtained from this study.

• Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.241-263
• /
• 2011

On the standards or elements of teaching evaluation, the Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation(KICE) has carried out several research as follows : 1) establishment of observation elements for selecting examples of good mathematics instruction between 2001 and 2002, 2) development of the standards on teaching evaluation between 2004 and 2006, and 3) investigation on the elements of Pedagogical Content Knowledge including ‘teaching and learning methods and assesment' between 2007 and 2008. The purposes of development of mathematics teaching evaluation standards through those studies were to improve not only mathematics teachers' professionalism but also their own teaching methods or strategies. In this study, the standards were revised and modified by analyzing the results of those three studies (namely, evaluation standards) focused on the knowledge of 'teaching and learning methods and assessment'. For this purpose, seventh evaluation domains such as instruction involving instructional goal and content, instruction involving problem-solving activity, instruction involving learners' achievement level and attitude, instruction on communication skills, planning of assessment method and procedure, development on assessment tool, application on assessment result in class were new established. According to those seventh evaluation domains, elements on teaching evaluation focused on the knowledge of 'teaching and learning methods and assessment' were established.

• Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.397-413
• /
• 2010

On the standards or elements of teaching evaluation, the Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation(KICE) has carried out the following research such as : 1) development of the standards on teaching evaluation between 2004 and 2006, and 2) investigation on the elements of Pedagogical Content Knowledge including understanding of learners between 2007 and 2008. The purposes of development of mathematics teaching evaluation standards through those studies were to improve not only mathematics teachers' professionalism but also their own teaching methods or strategies. In this study, the standards were revised and modified by analyzing the results of those studies (namely, evaluation standards) focused on the knowledge of teaching contexts. For this purpose, application of instructional tools and materials, commercial manipulatives, environment of classroom including distribution and control of class group, atmosphere of classroom, management of teaching contexts including management of student were re-established based on the results of the search mentioned above. According to those evaluation domains, elements on teaching evaluation focused on the knowledge of teaching contexts were established.

• Communications of Mathematical Education
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.109-135
• /
• 2012

On the standards or elements of teaching evaluation, the Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation(KICE) has carried out the following research such as : 1) development of the standards on teaching evaluation between 2004 and 2006, and 2) investigation on the elements of Teacher Knowledge. The purposes of development of evaluation standards for mathematics teaching through those studies were to improve not only mathematics teachers' professionalism but also their own teaching methods or strategies. In this study, the standards were revised and modified by analyzing the results of those studies focused on the knowledge of subject matter knowledge, knowledge of learners' understanding, teaching and learning methods and assessments, and teaching contexts. For this purpose, the part of subject matter knowledge was consisted of four evaluation domains such as the knowledge of curriculum reconstruction, knowledge of mathematical contents, methodological knowledge, mathematical value. The part of Learners' unders tanding included the evaluation domains such as students' intellectual and achievement level, students' misconception in math, students' motivation on learning, students' attitude on mathematics learning, and students' learning strategies. The part of teaching methods and evaluation was consisted of seventh evaluation domains such as instruction involving instructional goal and content, instruction involving problem-solving activity, instruction involving learners' achievement level and attitude, instruction on communication skills, planning of assessment method and procedure, development on assessment tool, application on assessment result in class were new established. Also, the part of teaching context was consisted of four evaluation domains such as application of instructional tools and materials, commercial manipulatives, environment of classroom including distribution and control of class group, atmosphere of classroom, management of teaching contexts including management of student. According to those evaluation domains of each teacher knowledge, elements on teaching evaluation focused on the teacher's knowledge were established using the instructional evaluation framework, which is developed in this study, including the four areas of obtaining, planning, acting, and reflecting.

• School Mathematics
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.327-352
• /
• 2007

The Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation(KICE) has carried out the research on the development of the standards on teaching evaluation between 2004 and 2006, and particularly on the 'mathematics' teaching evaluation in 2006. The purpose of development of mathematics teaching evaluation standards is to improve not only mathematics teachers' professionalism but also their own teaching methods or strategies. The standards on mathematics teaching evaluation were developed based on the standards on general (not individual subject) teaching evaluation. They were revised and modified by analyzing the results of the interviews and survey with teachers about the adaptability of the standards in school. The standards were classified into four major areas of knowledge, planning, practice, and professionalism. Each area of these four were categorized into 6 smaller divisions and 36 elements. In addition, it was presented that brief descriptions on each teaching evaluation standards(element), guideline for evaluation methods, evaluator's observation index, and performance level with explanation for the standard achievement in four stages.

• Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.45-67
• /
• 2010

On the standards or elements of teaching evaluation, the Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation(KICE) has carried out several research as follows : 1) establishment of observation elements for selecting examples of good instruction between 2001 and 2002, 2) development of the standards on teaching evaluation between 2004 and 2006, and 3) investigation on the elements of Pedagogical Content Knowledge including Subject Matter Knowledge between 2007 and 2008. The purpose of development of mathematics teaching evaluation standards through those studies were to improve not only mathematics teachers' professionalism but also their own teaching methods or strategies. Especially, the standards on mathematics teaching evaluation were developed based on the standards on general teaching evaluation. In this study, the standards were revised and modified by analyzing the results of those studies (namely, evaluation standards) focused on SMK. For this purpose, four domains such as the knowledge of curriculum reconstruction, knowledge of mathematical contents, methodological knowledge, mathematical value were new established based on the theories relevant to SMK and on the base of these four domains, standards or elements on teaching evaluation focused on SMK were reconstructed.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.836-849
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to analyze changes of competency observed in teaching of pre-service science teachers through the teaching evaluation and reflective journal writings on science class during the period of student-teaching at high school. To do this, we videotaped all the science classes of six pre-service teachers participating in this study, evaluated their class teachings, and collected moving video clips recorded in their classes, reflective journals, interviews, instructional materials, and teaching evaluation they have provided. From the "Standards for teaching evaluation of science instruction" developed by Korea Education Curriculum and Assessment, sixteen evaluation elements were selected and used for the analysis. According to our results, all preservice teachers show improvement of teaching performance in most of the class evaluation elements as the number of science classes increases. They presented the lowest improvement in the 'to design meaningful learning program,' which was one of the sixteen elements. However, there are substantial individual differences in the pre-service teachers' teaching competence on each evaluation element. Although they thought that 'understanding of scientific concepts' is the most important part of a science class in the beginning of student-teaching training, they showed changes in recognition that 'interaction and respect' and 'managing student behaviors' are also important in the end. They have recognized that writing a reflective journal, based on the video clips recorded in class and teaching evaluation, helps improve their teaching competency. In addition, improvement in teaching competency has influence upon career-orientation towards the school teacher in the future.

• Journal of Engineering Education Research
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.38-50
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to analyze the current evaluation methods on faculty performance at Korean engineering colleges and develop teaching evaluation indicators for faculty performance. We investigated the faculty performance cases in engineering colleges inside and outside of the Korea, the engineering faculty's awareness of evaluation factors for their educational performance, and the appropriate ratios by indicating factors. Also we developed evaluation indicators for educational achievements to improve the current faculty performance system. 227 engineering faculty members answered our survey questionnaire. The result in the case study on faculty performance evaluation is as follows. First, most items of faculty performance evaluation are about quantitative indicators that can easily conduct objective evaluation. Second, evaluation items of faculty performance are mostly focused on instruction in a classroom. Third, the evaluation by students and administrative managers is more dominant than that by professors or their colleagues, document evaluation than on site evaluation, general evaluation than formative evaluation, and static evaluation than dynamic evaluation. Lastly, Some universities tend to substitute outstanding articles for underperforming instruction. The evaluation indicators that we have developed can be implemented by four types of subjects, such as students, professors, their colleagues, and deans. Also, based on the evaluation indicators, faculties can freely select their evaluation domains depending on the their tracks, such as a teaching track, a research track, or an industry-university cooperation track. The mandatory evaluation fields include teaching, student counselling, teaching portfolio evaluation by mentors or colleagues, class management evaluation by deans, and self-evaluation. The other areas are optional and professors can choose their evaluation factors.