著者

西岡 加名恵

出版者

一般社団法人 日本教育学会

雑誌

教育学研究 (ISSN:03873161)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.84, no.3, pp.311-319, 2017 (Released:2018-04-27)

参考文献数

65

著者

西岡 加名恵 NISHIOKA Kanae

出版者

名古屋大学高等研究教育センター

雑誌

名古屋高等教育研究 (ISSN:13482459)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.17, pp.197-217, 2017-03

---

本稿の目的は、2020年に向けた高大接続改革(以下、2020年改革)の動向について、特に大学入試において用いられる評価方法という視点から検討することである。「質的転換答申」以降の政策論議においては、「資質・能力」を育成するために、大学入試において「多元的な評価」の導入が推奨された。現在の一般入試においては、大学入試センター試験と個別入試を併用する割合が低くなり、また試験科目が2科目以下になっている例も多数にのぼる。AO・推薦入試については学力不問と揶揄される状況が見られる。そうした中、2020年改革で導入される「大学入学希望者学力テスト(仮称)」では、短答式・条件付き記述式などの問題を取り入れることにより、大学入試センター試験よりも幅広い学力を評価対象とすることが期待されている。また、ポートフォリオや課題・口頭試問を導入した京都大学教育学部の特色入試は、受験生の幅広い学習履歴や論理的・批判的思考力などを評価対象とするものとなっている。しかしながら、2020年改革は、各教科で取り組まれるパフォーマンス課題を大学入試に取り入れるという構想は示されていないという点では限界が見られる。This paper aims to examine the 2020 reform of the articulationbetween high schools and universities in Japan, focusing on theassessment methods used in university entrance examinations. Policydiscussions following the Report on Qualitative Change promotedmulti-dimensional assessment in university entrance examinations inorder to develop competencies and abilities.The number of universities that use both the National Center Testsand the second round of tests given independently by each universityfor general entrance examinations have both declined. There aremany universities that demand that candidates take no more than twosubjects for examination. Admission office (AO) entranceexaminations, or examinations for candidates recommended byhigh-school principals, are recognized to be inadequate measures ofexamining academic achievements.Against this backdrop, the University Candidate Academic Achievement Tests (provisional name) to be introduced in the 2020 reform are expected to evaluate wider achievements than the presentNational Center Tests through their use of problems such asshort-answer questions and conditional descriptive questions. Theunique entrance examination of the Faculty of Education, KyotoUniversity, examines a wider learning history and logical/criticalthinking of candidates by using a portfolio, tasks, and oralexamination.The 2020 reform, however, has a limitation in that it has notproduced a plan to incorporate performance tasks that are in theprocess of being introduced in various subjects for the universityentrance examination.

著者

西岡 加名恵

出版者

日本カリキュラム学会

雑誌

カリキュラム研究 (ISSN:0918354X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, pp.15-29, 2005-03-31 (Released:2017-10-17)

被引用文献数

2

---

This paper aims to describe in detail the theory of "backward design" advocated by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. They maintain that the process of curriculum development should follow these three stages: (1) to "identify desired results", (2) to "determine acceptable evidence" that shows whether those desired results are achieved, and (3) to "plan learning experiences and instruction". This paper examines the significant points and remaining issues to be discussed in the theory. Stage 1 is to clarify desired results, taking into consideration content standards, regional topic opportunities and teacher expertise and interest. At this stage, the object is to establish curricular priorities. There are three levels of importance: (1) "enduring" understanding, which should remain for the rest of the student's life, (2) important to know and do, and (3) worth being familiar with. For Wiggins and McTighe, "To understand a topic or subject is to use knowledge and skill in sophisticated, flexible ways". They identify six facets of understanding: explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge. In order to establish curricular priorities, four filters are to be used: enduring (i.e. representing "big ideas"), at the heart of the discipline, needing uncoverage (i.e. students tend to have misconceptions), and potentially engaging. They also put importance on "essential" questions as the "doorways to understanding". There are two kinds of "essential" questions: overarching "essential" questions; and "essential" and "unit" questions. Stage 2 is to determine acceptable evidence that shows the desired results are being achieved. Wiggins and McTighe argue that it is necessary to use performance tasks and projects in order to assess and promote "enduring" understanding. They make much of assessment methods in which students demonstrate the six facets of understanding. They also say that recurring tasks and longitudinal rubrics should be used in order to assess students' understanding of "big ideas". Stage 3 is to plan learning experiences and instruction, where also the six facets of understanding should be embedded. In order to design good learning experiences and instruction, Wiggins and McTighe suggest design guidelines and self-assessment criteria summarized in the acronym WHERETO. The acronym WHERETO stands for where we are going, hook student interest, equip the student, give opportunities to rethink, self-evaluation, tailor learning to various needs, organize and sequence the learning. Those three stages are to be used at both micro and macro levels of curriculum development. They believe that a focus on units (micro design) is helpful to build more robust and high-quality curricula. But the process of "backward design" also has elements which promote consistency between units and a curriculum as a whole (macro design). Such elements include a nesting structure of essential questions, recurring tasks and longitudinal rubrics. The theory of "backward design" represents a sophisticated version of Tyler Rationale, and it is significant in that it integrates various good ideas on curriculum theory. It makes use of new ideas from research on assessment, such as performance tasks and rubrics. By clarifying the relationship between objectives and various assessment methods, the depth of understanding which should be achieved is clearly defined. The six facets of understanding are useful in designing a curriculum that promotes "enduring" understanding. To build a curriculum around "essential questions" is the key strategy to bring "big ideas" into focus. (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

著者

西岡 加名恵 NISHIOKA Kanae

出版者

名古屋大学高等教育研究センター

雑誌

名古屋高等教育研究 (ISSN:13482459)

巻号頁・発行日

no.17, pp.197-217, 2017-03

---

本稿の目的は、2020年に向けた高大接続改革(以下、2020年改革)の動向について、特に大学入試において用いられる評価方法という視点から検討することである。「質的転換答申」以降の政策論議においては、「資質・能力」を育成するために、大学入試において「多元的な評価」の導入が推奨された。現在の一般入試においては、大学入試センター試験と個別入試を併用する割合が低くなり、また試験科目が2科目以下になっている例も多数にのぼる。AO・推薦入試については学力不問と揶揄される状況が見られる。そうした中、2020年改革で導入される「大学入学希望者学力テスト(仮称)」では、短答式・条件付き記述式などの問題を取り入れることにより、大学入試センター試験よりも幅広い学力を評価対象とすることが期待されている。また、ポートフォリオや課題・口頭試問を導入した京都大学教育学部の特色入試は、受験生の幅広い学習履歴や論理的・批判的思考力などを評価対象とするものとなっている。しかしながら、2020年改革は、各教科で取り組まれるパフォーマンス課題を大学入試に取り入れるという構想は示されていないという点では限界が見られる。This paper aims to examine the 2020 reform of the articulationbetween high schools and universities in Japan, focusing on theassessment methods used in university entrance examinations. Policydiscussions following the Report on Qualitative Change promotedmulti-dimensional assessment in university entrance examinations inorder to develop competencies and abilities.The number of universities that use both the National Center Testsand the second round of tests given independently by each universityfor general entrance examinations have both declined. There aremany universities that demand that candidates take no more than twosubjects for examination. Admission office (AO) entranceexaminations, or examinations for candidates recommended byhigh-school principals, are recognized to be inadequate measures ofexamining academic achievements.Against this backdrop, the University Candidate Academic Achievement Tests (provisional name) to be introduced in the 2020 reform are expected to evaluate wider achievements than the presentNational Center Tests through their use of problems such asshort-answer questions and conditional descriptive questions. Theunique entrance examination of the Faculty of Education, KyotoUniversity, examines a wider learning history and logical/criticalthinking of candidates by using a portfolio, tasks, and oralexamination.The 2020 reform, however, has a limitation in that it has notproduced a plan to incorporate performance tasks that are in theprocess of being introduced in various subjects for the universityentrance examination.

著者

西岡 加名恵

出版者

日本カリキュラム学会

雑誌

カリキュラム研究 (ISSN:0918354X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.14, pp.15-29, 2005-03-31

被引用文献数

2

---

This paper aims to describe in detail the theory of "backward design" advocated by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. They maintain that the process of curriculum development should follow these three stages: (1) to "identify desired results", (2) to "determine acceptable evidence" that shows whether those desired results are achieved, and (3) to "plan learning experiences and instruction". This paper examines the significant points and remaining issues to be discussed in the theory. Stage 1 is to clarify desired results, taking into consideration content standards, regional topic opportunities and teacher expertise and interest. At this stage, the object is to establish curricular priorities. There are three levels of importance: (1) "enduring" understanding, which should remain for the rest of the student's life, (2) important to know and do, and (3) worth being familiar with. For Wiggins and McTighe, "To understand a topic or subject is to use knowledge and skill in sophisticated, flexible ways". They identify six facets of understanding: explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge. In order to establish curricular priorities, four filters are to be used: enduring (i.e. representing "big ideas"), at the heart of the discipline, needing uncoverage (i.e. students tend to have misconceptions), and potentially engaging. They also put importance on "essential" questions as the "doorways to understanding". There are two kinds of "essential" questions: overarching "essential" questions; and "essential" and "unit" questions. Stage 2 is to determine acceptable evidence that shows the desired results are being achieved. Wiggins and McTighe argue that it is necessary to use performance tasks and projects in order to assess and promote "enduring" understanding. They make much of assessment methods in which students demonstrate the six facets of understanding. They also say that recurring tasks and longitudinal rubrics should be used in order to assess students' understanding of "big ideas". Stage 3 is to plan learning experiences and instruction, where also the six facets of understanding should be embedded. In order to design good learning experiences and instruction, Wiggins and McTighe suggest design guidelines and self-assessment criteria summarized in the acronym WHERETO. The acronym WHERETO stands for where we are going, hook student interest, equip the student, give opportunities to rethink, self-evaluation, tailor learning to various needs, organize and sequence the learning. Those three stages are to be used at both micro and macro levels of curriculum development. They believe that a focus on units (micro design) is helpful to build more robust and high-quality curricula. But the process of "backward design" also has elements which promote consistency between units and a curriculum as a whole (macro design). Such elements include a nesting structure of essential questions, recurring tasks and longitudinal rubrics. The theory of "backward design" represents a sophisticated version of Tyler Rationale, and it is significant in that it integrates various good ideas on curriculum theory. It makes use of new ideas from research on assessment, such as performance tasks and rubrics. By clarifying the relationship between objectives and various assessment methods, the depth of understanding which should be achieved is clearly defined. The six facets of understanding are useful in designing a curriculum that promotes "enduring" understanding. To build a curriculum around "essential questions" is the key strategy to bring "big ideas" into focus. Elements such as a nesting structure of essential questions, recurring tasks and longitudinal rubrics are particularly helpful to coordinate the macro and micro design of a curriculum. Lastly, the remaining issues to be discussed are examining the applicability of the six facets of understanding, specifying "big ideas", developing tasks and rubrics, and reestablishing the standards on the basis of school-based curriculum development.

著者

西岡 加名恵

出版者

京都大学大学院教育学研究科・教育方法学講座

雑誌

教育方法の探究 (ISSN:13492020)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.16, pp.1-8, 2013-03-31