• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Tobacco Science Conference
• /
• 2005.10a
• /
• pp.9-10
• /
• 2005

• Proceedings of the KSLP Conference
• /
• 2003.11a
• /
• pp.198-199
• /
• 2003

최근에 음성언어장애에 대한 언어치료사의 평가 및 치료 활동이 활발히 이루어지고 있으나, 음성평가 기준 및 치료 자료가 충분치 않은 것이 현실이다. 음성 평가를 실시할 때에도 각 치료실마다 음성 평가에 사용하는 장비가 달라 결과물의 해석에 다소 차이가 있으며, 또한 같은 장비를 사용함에도 불구하고 음성 자료를 수집하는 방법에 있어서 표준화된 절차 및 자료에 따라 평가를 하지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 이러한 표준화된 측정절차에 대한 요구는 개인적인 기준으로 좌우될 수 있는 주관적인 평가에서는 더욱 절실하다. 음성의 지각적 평가에서 중요한 측면 중에 하나는 음성의 질에 정확한 판단 및 이에 대한 자료공유 및 정보교환이다. 현재 음성의 질에 대한 측정평가를 위해 제일 많이 사용되고 있는 방법 중 하나가 GRBAS 방법이 간편하여 임상적으로 많이 사용하나 음성의 질에 대한 세밀한 평가를 하는 데는 한계가 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 음질을 평가하는데 있어서 자주 사용되는 음질 용어에 대한 우리말 용어를 통일의 필요성의 시급한 실정에 기초하여 이를 대표할 수 있는 음성샘플 자료의 구축마련을 위한 일종의 발제이다. 이러한 작업을 통해 각 음성 및 언어치료실에서 음성의 질에 대한 청지각적 평가에 공통 기준을 마련하고, 임상교육 적인 목적으로 청지각적 훈련 자료로 이용이 가능할 수 있으리라 사료된다. (중략)

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.85-124
• /
• 2016

The Human gene testing act (GenDG) in Germany starts from the characteristic features of gene testing, i.e. dualisting structure consisted of anlaysis on the one side and the interpretation on the other side. The linguistic distincion of 'testing', 'anlaysis' and 'judgment' in the act is a fine example. Another important basis of the regulation is the ideological purpose of the law, that is information autonomy. The normative texts as such and the founding principle are the basis of the classification of testing types. Especially in the case of gene testing for medical purpose is classified into testing for diagnostic purpose and predictive purpose. However, those two types are not always clearly differentiated because the predictive value of testing is common in both types. In the legal regulation of gene testing it is therefore important to manage the uncertainty and subjectivity which are inherent in the gene-analysis and the judgment. In GenDG the system ensuring the quality of analysis is set up and GEKO(Commity for gene tisting) based on the section 23 of GenDG concretes the criterium of validity through guidelines. It is also very important in the case of gene testing for medical purpose to set up the system for ensurement of procedural rationality of the interpretation. The interpretation of the results of analysis has a wide spectrum because of the consistent development of technology on the one side and different understandings of different subjects who performs gene testings. Therefore the process should include the communication process for patients in oder that he or she could understand the meaning of gene testing and make plans of life. In GenDG the process of genetic counselling and GEKO concretes the regulation very precisely. The regulation as such in GenDG seems to be very suggestive to Korean legal polic concerning the gene testing.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.371-382
• /
• 2017

The texts in the national science curriculum documents are expected to be interpreted in the same meaning as that of the authors. In this study, the science achievement standards in national curriculum documents were examined through an analysis of the differences between the interpretations of Korean language education experts and science education experts. Three Korean language education experts designed and utilized an analysis framework on science curriculum standards from their viewpoints while three science education experts utilized TIMSS cognitive domain framework to analyze the 2009 Korean revised science curriculum achievement standards. The differences between interpretations of both groups were analyzed qualitatively through interviews. First of all, the two groups seemed to have different meanings for terms such as "explain," "analyze," "define," and "cause and effect." The science achievement standards described by general verbs like "explain" were interpreted in various ways. The verb "explain" that appears many times in the science achievement standards seem to be representing the "describe" subsections in the framework of Korean language education expert rather than the "explain" subsections of the framework of science education experts. Science education experts seemed to focus on prepositional phrases, which indicate inquiry process, while Korean language education experts seemed to focus on objective phrases. Moreover, the science education experts would interpret the achievement standards based on their background knowledge while the Korean language education experts would interpret them based on the structure of the sentences. This study suggests that achievement standards should specifically indicate the levels and scopes of cognitive domain as well as the knowledge domain. Also, integrations of achievement standards in cognitive domains of Korean language and science subjects should be considered.