CBM을 활용한 청각장애 학생의 쓰기 표현 평가

Assessment of Written Expression Applied to CBM Indicators for Students with Hearing Inpairment

본 연구는 청각장애학교에서 실행하고 있는 쓰기 표현 평가유형을 살펴보고, 새로운 한 대안인 CBM이 청각장애 학생의 쓰기 표현 평가 영역에 접근가능한지를 알아보는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 청각장애학교 교사(46명)에게 설문을 실시하였으며, 청각장애학생(49명)에게 국어기초학습검사, CBM을 활용한 쓰기, 편지글 쓰기를 실행하였다. 그 결과, 쓰기 평가를 대부분 별도로 실시하였고, 둘이상의 방법을 병행하였으며, 직접평가 시 다양한 표본을 활용하여 흔히 상중하방법으로 채점하였다. 분석적 방법사용자는 주로 문장구조·문법기준을 이용하였고, 둘이상의 기준을 조합하여 평가하였으며, 간접 및 비독립적 평가의 시험문항은 선택형 질문, 단답형, 서술형이 두루 사용되었고, 주된 반응은 서술형과 단답형이었다. 학기당 실시횟수의 최대 반응빈도는 2회였으며, 수행소요시간은 평균 30.71~48.29분, 채점소요시간은 평균 9.29~14.71분이었다. 즉 다양한 방법이 시도되고 있었으나, 전형적인 유형이 공존하였고, 새로운 방법사용 및 빈번한 평가수행이 잘 이뤄지지 않는다고 볼 수 있으며 CBM에 비해 시간-소비적이라고 할 수 있다. CBM 측정기준의 신뢰도, 타당도 및 설명력에 있어서 쓴 어절, 맞은 어절, 맞은 어절이 연속된 횟수, 맞은 어절이 연속딘 횟수-틀린 어절이 연속된 횟수, 맞은 어절이 연속된 횟수 비율, 맞은 어절이 연속된 횟수의 평균길이에서 비교적 높은 신뢰도를 보였고(r=.69~.80), 세 가지 쓰기 평가간의 상관이 다소 강하게 나타난 기준은 쓴 어절, 맞은 어절, 맞은 어절이 연속된 횟수, 맞은 어절이 연속된 횟수-틀린 어절이 연속된 횟수였으며(r=.40~.62), 단일기준보다 조합이 더 높은 설명력을 보여주었다(36%~42%). 이를 통해 네 가지 측정기준의 적용가능성을 확인하였다.

In this study I discussed the types of assessment of written expression used by the teachers who instruct the students with hearing impairment and investigated the accessibility of a new alternative method, CBM indicators to assessment of the written expression for elementary students with hearing impairment. I first inquired of teachers(N=46) in special school for the deaf about how to assess the written expression of their students, secondly I asked the graduate students(N=32) whether the prompt sentences were appropriate to the next examination and finally the students(N=49) with hearing impairment in grades 4, 5, and 6 composed two story writing pieces, to be applied to CBM. The major results of these studies are as follows: Almost teachers(80.5%) assessed some supplementary written expression in addition to the test of subject, 48.6% of these independent raters carried out both direct and indirect assessment and 68.6% of those who assessed directly adopted both holistic and analytic scoring. In case of direct assessment the most typical genre of writing sample was the diary and rating of the three grades of good, fair and poor writing proficiency was used the most frequently. In case of analytic scoring the criterion of sentence structure·grammar was largely used and 90% of analytic raters adopted more than two criteria. In both cases of indirect and dependent assessment the general types of response of test item were the forms of multiple-choice, one word answer and description. The highest frequency of assessing for written expression included direct, indirect and dependent assessment respectively was twice a term. The average required time for administrating was about 30.71~48.29 minutes, and for scoring was about 9.29~36.50 minutes. The strong alternate-form reliability coefficients were found for words+affix written, correct words+affix, correct words+affix sequences, (correct word+affix sequences)-(incorrect word+affix sequences), correct word+affix sequences % and mean length of correct word+affix sequences(r=.69~.80). The correlations between the several CBM indicators(words+affix written, correct words+affix, correct words+affix sequences and (correct word+affix sequences)-(incorrect word+affix sequences)) and criterion-reference ratings were generally some high(r=.40~.62). The combination of CBM scoring measures was better than any single measures for accounting writing performance(36%~42%).