<b>"In the AI era, the ability to ask questions and verify is more important than choosing the correct answer"</b>
<b>Advocating for fair grading infrastructure, reform of relative evaluation, and sufficient preparation period to be carried out simultaneously</b>
Educational civic organizations have urged for a gradual transition from the current multiple-choice-based College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) and internal evaluations to a subjective evaluation method focusing on written and essay formats, in line with the 81st anniversary of Liberation Day.
Education Spring, No Worries about Private Education, and Good Teacher Movement jointly issued a statement on the 18th, stating that "We must move from a country that follows the correct answers to a country that asks questions," and demanded that the direction of transitioning to a subjective evaluation method encompassing CSAT and internal evaluations be specified in the national education development plan scheduled to be finalized in March 2027.
These organizations emphasized that in the AI era, the ability to define problems, ask questions, and verify the basis and logic of the given answers is more important than quickly finding predetermined answers.
They stated, "AI can generate plausible answers endlessly, but determining whether those answers are correct, what the basis is, and whether there are logical gaps remains the responsibility of humans," and added, "The ability to verify answers comes from the experience of creating answers based on one's own thoughts."
In particular, they highlighted that the evaluation method influences school lessons significantly.
They argued, "Evaluation is not the final step of education but the first button that determines what and how to teach," and claimed, "As long as the evaluation method demands choosing the correct answer, lessons will ultimately converge to selecting the correct answer."
They further pointed out, "In the world outside of schools, answers are not provided on a platter," and stated, "The ability to define problems, gather evidence, anticipate counterarguments, and persuade one's own conclusions cannot be cultivated merely by practicing to choose one answer from five options."
It was also mentioned that the multiple-choice evaluation method was not originally designed to measure deep thinking skills.
The organizations criticized that the objective test format evolved in the 1910s in the United States as a method to evaluate a large number of people quickly and reduce the burden of grading, stating, "The cheap, fast, and convenient evaluation method has been used as a crucial yardstick in our society for over half a century to determine students' futures."
They also noted the recent remarks from the President and the National Education Commission criticizing the limitations of the current objective-based CSAT.
Referring to the President's education ministry report speech on the 5th and Chairman Cha Jeong-in of the National Education Commission's speech at the National Assembly's Education Committee on the 12th, the organizations evaluated that "Discussions on the necessity of a shift to an evaluation system suitable for the AI era at the national level are actively taking place."
However, they emphasized the need to establish a system to ensure the fairness and reliability of grading before expanding the introduction of subjective evaluation methods.
Citing overseas examples such as France's Baccalauréat and Germany's Abitur, they stated, "The fairness of subjective evaluations depends not on the evaluation method itself but on the infrastructure the country builds, such as multiple grading, coordination among graders, clear grading criteria, and a system for filing objections."
They diagnosed that the reason for variations in subjective evaluation within schools and among teachers in South Korea was due to the lack of national-level support systems.
The organizations argued, "Until now, the quality of subjective grading has been left to individual teachers' dedication and schools' circumstances," and suggested, "Rather than burdening teachers more, the nation should establish evaluation management centers, grading professionals, multiple grading, and adjustment systems."
Regarding concerns that subjective evaluations may further expand private education, they countered that the high-stakes relative evaluation and university-specific essay exams have been the main reasons for the growth of private education, rather than the evaluation format itself.
They stated, "As long as the relative evaluation structure that does not allow most to get the correct answer is maintained, any evaluation method can lead to extreme discriminatory competition," and added, "The transition to subjective evaluations should be discussed in conjunction with the reform of the relative evaluation system."
Especially concerning the recent increase in private education costs for high school seniors' essay exams, they analyzed, "The significant influence comes from the separate university-specific essay exams conducted by universities, not from the subjective evaluations based on school curricula."
They argued, "If subjective evaluations based on school curricula stabilize in internal evaluations and CSAT, making school lessons themselves ready for college entrance preparation, the need for separate university-specific essay exams may actually decrease."
In line with this, the three organizations demanded the gradual transition to subjective evaluations to be specified in the national education development plan, and urged the establishment of public grading infrastructure such as evaluation management centers and multiple grading systems.
They also proposed that the reform of the relative evaluation system and measures against private education should be prepared together, along with enhancing teachers' evaluation professionalism, redesigning tasks, and reducing the number of students per class.
They emphasized the need for sufficient verification and notice periods through research schools and pilot regions before full implementation.
The organizations pointed out, "A transition without preparation is not reform but chaos," and criticized, "Without deciding on the direction due to difficulties, no preparation such as training graders, teacher training, budget allocation, etc., can begin."
They further stressed, "Declaring the direction clearly while not rushing without preparation is the role of the nation," and emphasized, "On the occasion of the 81st Liberation Day, it is time to return the right to think for themselves to students."
💬 댓글 (0)
댓글을 작성하려면 로그인이 필요합니다.
로그인첫 댓글을 작성해보세요!