한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제34권2호
  • /
  • Pages.183-193
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

초등 과학과 교육과정과 교사용지도서 목표 간의 비교 분석 - 2009 개정 교육과정 3~4학년을 중심으로 -

Analysis of the Alignment between Elementary Science Curriculum and Teacher Guidebook - Examining Learning Objectives in 2009 Grade 3~4 Science Curriculum -

  • 투고 : 2015.02.04
  • 심사 : 2015.05.25
  • 발행 : 2015.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Teacher guidebooks are practical and commonly used resources for teachers to deliver the goals and contents of science curriculum in classroom teaching. Thus, the alignment of teacher guidebooks and science curriculum could be critical to undertake the effectiveness of curriculum implication in science classrooms. This study is to investigate how the learning objectives of science curriculum are implicated in teacher guidebooks by analyzing the dimensions of knowledge and cognitive process in learning objectives in both documents. Grade 3~4 learning objectives (82 objectives in the curriculum, 459 in the teacher guidebook, 541 in total) in 2009 Revised science curriculum and teacher guidebooks were coded and analyzed based on the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. The analysis focused on how the knowledge dimensions and cognitive processes of the curriculum were emphasized and restructured in the teacher guidebooks to examine the coalition between the two important documents. The study found: 1) the learning objectives in Grade 3~4 in both documents were skewed to certain knowledge dimension (conceptual) and cognitive process (understand); 2) there was a high coalition between unit objectives and lesson objectives in the teacher guidebooks, however, relatively low coalition between the curriculum and the teacher guidebooks; and 3) learning objectives in the curriculum were delivered in teacher guidebooks in various patterns (similar, detailed, additional, in portion, and the same), and 'detailed' and 'additional' were frequently shown. There also appeared new objectives in the teacher guidebooks, which were not present in the curriculum. The findings in this study could provide some suggestions to the current project of developing 2015 Science Curriculum in regard to understanding the dimensions of knowledge and cognitive process of learning objectives and their alignments with textbooks and teacher guidebooks.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A reexamination. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_9
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Abridged edition. New York: Longman.
  3. Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009006
  4. Baratz-Snowden, J. C. (1993). Opportunity to learn: Implications for professional development. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 311-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295467
  5. Bloom (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. New York: Longmans.
  6. Collette, A. T. & Chiappetta, E. H. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (2nd ed.). Columbus: Merrill Pub. Co.
  7. Go, J. (2010). Understanding and development of curriculum by historical approach [역사적 접근의 교육과정 이해와 개발]. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
  8. Han, K. & Noh, S. (2003). An analysis on the utilization of teacher's guides for science in elementary school. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 22(1), 51-64.
  9. Hauenstein, A. D. (1998). A conceptual framework for educational objectives. Kim, Y., Park, Y., Lee, W., Choi, H., Kang, H., Choi, B., Park, C. Park, C. (transl.) (2004). [신 교육목표분류학]. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
  10. Jeon, Y. M. (2006). Understanding American teachers' use of teachers' manuals: Two case studies. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 23(3), 5-24.
  11. Kang, H.-S. (2011). Study of contemporary curriculum [현대 교육과정 탐구]. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  12. Kim, Y., Lee, H.-S. & Shin A.-K. (2007). Classifications of instructional objectives of elementary science based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 26(5), 570-579.
  13. Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation of learning in science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings & G. F. Madaus (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: MaGraw-Hill.
  14. Korea Ministry of Government Legislation (2014). Elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved Jan. 26, 2015, from http://law.go.kr
  15. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  16. Kweon, J., Chung, W. & Kim, Y. (2001). Teachers' perception and improvement on the elementary science teacher's guide. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 20(1), 75-90.
  17. Kwon, J.-S, (1984). Klopfer's classification of educational objectives for science education. Journal of Science and Science Education, 9, 67-72.
  18. Lee, E., Shin, M.-K. & Choi, C. I. (2012). Analyses of instructional objectives of 'Wise Life' based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(1), 1-12.
  19. Lee, H.-S. & Kim, Y. (2008). Analysis of primary and secondary biology instructional objectives on 7th science curriculum: Based on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of Korean Biology Education, 36(1), 52-62.
  20. Liu, X., Zhang, B., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G., Kim, B. & Yuan, H. (2009). Alignment between the physics content standard and the standardized test: A comparison among the United States New York State, Singapore, and China Jiangsu. Science Education, 93(5), 777-797. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20330
  21. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. California: Corwin Press, Inc.
  22. Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional design theories and models. Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  24. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007003
  25. Porter, A. C., Blank, R. & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340709336729
  26. Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  27. Posner, G. J. & Rudnitsky, A. N. (2006). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
  28. Ryle, G. (1971). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes.
  29. Seo, D. W. & Jeong, J. W. (1994). An analysis on completeness of educational objectives in elementary science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 14(3), 321-329.
  30. Wee, S.-M., Kim, B.-K., Cho, H., Sohn, J. & Oh, C. (2011). Comparison of instructional objectives of the 2007 revised elementary science curriculum with 7th elementary curriculum based on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(1), 10-21.
  31. Winfield, L. F. (1993). Investigating test content and curriculum content overlap to assess opportunity to learn. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 288-310. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295466
  32. Wolf, R. M. (1990). Evaluation in education: Foundations of competency assessment and program review. New York: Praeger.

피인용 문헌

  1. 2009 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 과학 교사용 지도서에 나타난 교과교육학 지식(PCK) 요소 분석 vol.62, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2018.62.5.386