出版社：Nihon Kyoiku Shinri Gakkai,Japanese Association of Educational Psychology
摘要：This symposiumw as plannedt o achievet he followingo bjectives. (1) Despite of the criticisms offered by Prof. Mantaro Kido, Prof. Masaki Masashi and Prof. AritsuneT suzuki,t he problemsi n educationalm easurementa nde valuationh ave so far been discussed without considering the goal and value of education. As a consequence, m ost of the researcheso n educationale valuationh ave ignoreds tudyingth e taxonomy of education,a nd have shownn o concerna bout the studyo f teachinga nd learning. In addition,t hey have causedm uchd elay in studyingt he validityo f achievementte st. Under these circumstancesw, e attemptedt o clarifyt he causes for sucht rends, and finds ome clues for solving the problem. (2) It is difficult to recognize that the research on measurement and evaluation has developedi n a relationshipc loselyi nterwovenin to the practiceo f education. In this symposium, therefore, we intended to establish a much closer relationship between them by criticizings ome aspectso f the researchesi n this area. The contentso f the reportss ubmittedb y four reporters can be summarizeda sfollows: Report1 (DaisukeM itsui) He presented his arguments from the viewpoint of industrial psychology (1) The recent trend in dealing with test and evaluation in education has become very similar in nature to that in industry. In the industrial field, the need of the employer is the most important factor, while the needs and feeling of the employees are a factor of secondary importance. On the other hand, in the educational field, we should not only evaluate the present state of the abilities of a child, but also make any possible efforts in the process of evaluation to develope his potential capabilities which will prepare him for the future. (2) It is generally said that emphasis should be placed upon evaluation rather than measurement. However, the interrelationphip between these two approaches needs further investigation. (3) In order to formulate a new test theory on the basis of criterion referenced measurement, we have to make a survey of the prevalance of scholastic abilities, and reexamine the concepts of the objectivity and validity of testing. Report2 (idenori Akiba) He reported the historical development of test and evaluation from which he suggested that we should learn the following two points. (1) Although it has been asserted that measurement should be replaced by evaluation, this has not yet been brought to realization. Therefore, we should return to the age of “Eight Years tudy”, and reexamine that Study from the viewpoint of the contemporary new thought of ability. (2) The movement for measurement in the 19th century was carried out in the age which did not pay any attention to the “Right of Learning”. Nowadays we should investigate the study of evaluation from the standpoint of “Right of Learning” and “Right of Development” Report3 (Kuniaki Miyajima). The method of evaluation in the prevailing cumulative record has adopted a form in which bnth the methods of analitical evaluation and norm referenced evaluation exist together. However, we find a great inconsistency between these two methods of evaluation because we think that, in theory, analitical evaluation is inevitably associated with criterion referenced evaluation, while synthetical evaluation, with norm referenced evaluation. In this sence, a proposition made by the Kyoto Prefectural Board of Education is worthy of our consideration. Report4 (Keiichi Saito) He defined educational evaluation by stating that a teacher judges whether his educational action upon his pupils is effective or not in the process of teaching, and then evaluate the direction of his teaching; in other words, educational evaluation can be thought to be a judgement for selecting a direction for his teaching.
其他摘要：This symposiumw as plannedt o achievet he followingo bjectives. (1) Despite of the criticisms offered by Prof. Mantaro Kido, Prof. Masaki Masashi and Prof. AritsuneT suzuki,t he problemsi n educationalm easurementa nde valuationh ave so far been discussed without considering the goal and value of education. As a consequence, m ost of the researcheso n educationale valuationh ave ignoreds tudyingth e taxonomy of education,a nd have shownn o concerna bout the studyo f teachinga nd learning. In addition,t hey have causedm uchd elay in studyingt he validityo f achievementte st. Under these circumstancesw, e attemptedt o clarifyt he causes for sucht rends, and finds ome clues for solving the problem. (2) It is difficult to recognize that the research on measurement and evaluation has developedi n a relationshipc loselyi nterwovenin to the practiceo f education. In this symposium, therefore, we intended to establish a much closer relationship between them by criticizings ome aspectso f the researchesi n this area. The contentso f the reportss ubmittedb y four reporters can be summarizeda sfollows: Report1(DaisukeM itsui) He presented his arguments from the viewpoint of industrial psychology (1) The recent trend in dealing with test and evaluation in education has become very similar in nature to that in industry. In the industrial field, the need of the employer is the most important factor, while the needs and feeling of the employees are a factor of secondary importance. On the other hand, in the educational field, we should not only evaluate the present state of the abilities of a child, but also make any possible efforts in the process of evaluation to develope his potential capabilities which will prepare him for the future. (2) It is generally said that emphasis should be placed upon evaluation rather than measurement. However, the interrelationphip between these two approaches needs further investigation. (3) In order to formulate a new test theory on the basis of criterion referenced measurement, we have to make a survey of the prevalance of scholastic abilities, and reexamine the concepts of the objectivity and validity of testing. Report2 (idenori Akiba) He reported the historical development of test and evaluation from which he suggested that we should learn the following two points. (1) Although it has been asserted that measurement should be replaced by evaluation, this has not yet been brought to realization. Therefore, we should return to the age of “Eight Years tudy”, and reexamine that Study from the viewpoint of the contemporary new thought of ability. (2) The movement for measurement in the 19th century was carried out in the age which did not pay any attention to the “Right of Learning”. Nowadays we should investigate the study of evaluation from the standpoint of “Right of Learning” and “Right of Development” Report3 (Kuniaki Miyajima). The method of evaluation in the prevailing cumulative record has adopted a form in which bnth the methods of analitical evaluation and norm referenced evaluation exist together. However, we find a great inconsistency between these two methods of evaluation because we think that, in theory, analitical evaluation is inevitably associated with criterion referenced evaluation, while synthetical evaluation, with norm referenced evaluation. In this sence, a proposition made by the Kyoto Prefectural Board of Education is worthy of our consideration. Report4 (Keiichi Saito) He defined educational evaluation by stating that a teacher judges whether his educational action upon his pupils is effective or not in the process of teaching, and then evaluate the direction of his teaching; in other words, educational evaluation can be thought to be a judgement for selecting a direction for his teaching.
