각기 다른 특성을 가진 학습자 모두가 의미 있는 배움에 다다르기 위해서는 교육과정-수업-평가가 일체화되야 한다. 본 연구에서는 일체화를 내용적 적합성, 행위자 합치성, 제도적 연계성 등의 세 가지 측면으로 분류하고, 각각의 관점에서 일반학교 특수학급의 일체화 실태를 관련 연구를 통해 살펴보았다. 연구 결과, 내용적 적합성 측면에서는 특수교육 대상 학생에 대한 교육과정 조정-교수적 수정-평가 조정이 개별화 교수가 이루어지는 과목 외에는 잘 이루어지지 않았다. 행위자 합치성 측면에서는 일반교사와 특수교사의 역할의 모호성으로 인해 교육과정 조정자, 수업자, 평가자 등이 일치하지 못하거나 최소한의 협의조차 이루지 못하였다. 제도적 연계성 면에서는 개별화 교수가 이루어지는 과목 외에는 교육과정 조정, 교수적 수정, 평가 조정의 권한 관계와 역할 주체가 불분명했다. 이러한 문제점을 논의하고 개선하기 위한 대안으로 개별화 교육에 대한 인식 제고, 협의체 의무화, 제도적 정비 등을 제언하였다.
In order for learners with different characteristics to reach meaningful learning, the curriculum–class -assessment must be integrated. In this study, we classified the integration into three aspects: content compatibility, operator convergence, and institutional connectivity, and looked at the status of unifying special classes in general schools from each perspective. As a result of the study, in terms of content suitability, adjustment of the curriculum to those subject to special education-professorial revision-assessment adjustment was not performed well except for subjects where individualization professors were conducted. From an actor's perspective, the ambiguity of the roles of general and special teachers resulted in the inability of curriculum coordinators, educators, evaluators and others to agree or even minimal consultations. In terms of institutional linkage, the authority and role of curriculum coordination, professorial revision, and assessment coordination were unclear except for subjects where individualization professors were conducted. As an alternative to discuss and remedy these problems, it proposed increasing awareness of individualized education, compulsory consultation and institutional readjustment.
In order for learners with different characteristics to reach meaningful learning, the curriculum–class -assessment must be integrated. In this study, we classified the integration into three aspects: content compatibility, operator convergence, and institutional connectivity, and looked at the status of unifying special classes in general schools from each perspective. As a result of the study, in terms of content suitability, adjustment of the curriculum to those subject to special education-professorial revision-assessment adjustment was not performed well except for subjects where individualization professors were conducted. From an actor's perspective, the ambiguity of the roles of general and special teachers resulted in the inability of curriculum coordinators, educators, evaluators and others to agree or even minimal consultations. In terms of institutional linkage, the authority and role of curriculum coordination, professorial revision, and assessment coordination were unclear except for subjects where individualization professors were conducted. As an alternative to discuss and remedy these problems, it proposed increasing awareness of individualized education, compulsory consultation and institutional readjustment.
