This study examines whether the mutual substitutability of Common English and Basic English within the South Korean High School Credit System is defensible from a construct validity perspective. Drawing on curriculum-assessment alignment criteria and Depth of Knowledge (DOK) analysis, the study analyzes the 2022 Revised National English Curriculum and reveals a fundamental construct divergence between the two courses. Common English centers on DOK 3-4 processes (56.3%-62.5%), including critical reasoning and media evaluation, whereas Basic English concentrates on DOK 1- 2 (over 75%), with DOK 4 structurally absent. Analyzed through Messick’s integrative validity framework and Kane’s argument-based approach as the interpretive lens, this asymmetry is shown to weaken the validity argument at its scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and implication stages, thereby undermining the equivalence assumption that underlies credit recognition. Left unaddressed, the differentiation risks functioning as de facto tracking that constrains vulnerable populations’ access to higher-order tasks. To reconcile curricular diversity with assessment legitimacy, this study proposes a common core construct, multidimensional achievement profiles, scaffolded bridging modules, and quality-assurance protocols.

1. 서론
2. 이론적 배경
3. 연구 방법
4. 분석 결과 및 논의
    4.1. 목표, 내용, 평가의 구조적 비대칭
    4.2. DOK 일관성
    4.3. 표상의 범위와 심층 구조 분석
    4.4. 표현 영역의 구인 비교
    4.5. 과업 설계와 채점 기준의 비교
    4.6. 구인 개념화의 종합적 비교
    4.7. 결과적 타당도와 형평성
5. 결론 및 제언
REFERENCES

• 김설(Doctoral Candidate, Department of English Education, Chungbuk National University) | Sul Kim
• 한광택(Professor, Department of English Education, Chungbuk National University; 1 Chungdae-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju, Chungcheongbuk-do 28644, Korea) | Kwangtaek Han Corresponding author