교육과정중심측정에서 목표 설정의 의미와 중재 효과

Abstract

본 연구는 교육과정중심측정에서 목표 설정의 의미를 고찰하고, 카드를 활용한 수 세기 학습이 수학 저성취 아동의 연산 유창성에 미치는 효과를 탐색하기 위해 수행되었다. 본 연구 결과, 카드를 활용한 수 세기 학습은 초등학교 저학년 수학 저성취 아동의 수 감각을 향상시키는 효과적인 교수전략으로서 연산 유창성의 향상에 기여할 수 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 교육과정중심측정에서의 역동적 목표 설정은 '야심성'과 '현실성'을 결합할 수 있는 효과적인 목표 구조로서 의미를 갖는다는 사실을 발견하였고, 그러한 역동적 목표 설정 구조가 특수교육의 효과성을 향상시키는 데 기여할 가능성이 크다는 점을 확인하였다. 또한 교육과정중심측정에 역동적 목표 설정 구조를 채택하는 것 자체를 통상적 의미의 중재에 추가되는 또 하나의 중재로 해석할 수 있음을 제시하였다.

This exploratory study investigates what does the goal-setting means within Curriculum-Based Measurement(CBM) and how the number-counting strategy influences on the calculation fluency to a low-achieving student. The subject was a 3rd grade student placed in general education elementary school who was struggling with low-achievement in mathematics. The instrument was BASA-MATH(Basic Academic Skills Assessment) standardized by Kim which measured mathematical calculation fluency. For the period of intervention(about 3 months, 27 sessions), the student practiced number-counting strategies and studied about 40-50 calculation(addition, subtraction) problems each sessions. The results of the study were as follows: First, the calculation correct digits of the student was changed from 14 to 50 per 2 minutes. This result was interpreted that the number-counting strategies could have dramatic effects on the number sense among mathematical low-achieving students. Second, the number of goal changes was 3, and the goal ambitiousness was 257%. This result was interpreted that, this dynamic goal-increasing behavior was prompted by the student exceeding the rates of progress that researcher anticipated. This means that, despite the importance of ambitious goals, special educators' typical goal-setting standards may underestimate students' potential. The author suggested that the dynamic goal-setting strategy within Curriculum-Based Measurement(CBM) can be an workable methodology the special education teacher might employ for empirically deriving ambitious, but realistic, goal. The author also suggested that the dynamic goal-setting strategy itself function as another intervention, added to intended interventions. Implication of the results, limitations of this study, and suggestions for the following research were discussed.