Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparision of Verbs Used in the Learning Objectives in Physics Textbooks of Singapore, USA, & Korea

한국, 미국, 싱가포르 물리 교과서의 학습목표에 사용된 서술어 비교

  • Received : 2015.03.25
  • Accepted : 2015.06.24
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Textbooks corresponding to curriculum goals are necessary because they are specific products of curriculum and are the most important materials for teaching, learning, and evaluation. In particular, learning objectives written in textbooks should be clearly described because they play a role in promoting learning by showing learning goals to learners clearly. This study analyzed the characteristics of verbs used as predicate of learning objectives written in high school physics I and II textbooks of Korea and compared them with physics textbooks of Singapore and the United States. Results show that Korean textbooks have less kinds of verbs compared to those of Singapore and the United States, and the verbs with abstract and comprehensive meaning such as 'understand' and 'know' were mainly used. In American textbooks, it was noticeable that no verbs have been used by more than 10%. When classifying the learning objectives in the two Korean textbooks, cognitive domain accounted for 98 to 99%, and inquiry domain accounted for only 1% to 2%. With regard to physics textbooks of the United States, inquiry domain accounted for a large proportion of domains in learning objectives compared with physics textbooks of Korea and Singapore. Physics textbooks of Singapore were similar to those of Korea in that learning objectives were biased toward cognitive domain, but differed from those of Korea in that learning objectives were specifically described using action verbs.

교과서는 교육과정의 구체적 산물이며, 교수-학습-평가의 가장 중요한 자료이기 때문에 교육과정의 의도에 맞게 잘 만들어진 교과서가 필요하다. 특히 교과서에 기술된 학습목표는 학습자에게 학습의 대상을 명확하게 제시하여 학습을 촉진하는 역할을 하므로 명확하게 진술될 필요가 있다. 본 연구에서는 우리나라 고등학교 물리I, 물리II 교과서에 진술된 학습목표에 사용된 서술어의 특징을 정리하고, 미국과 싱가포르 물리 교과서의 경우와 비교하였다. 우리나라 물리 교과서 2종에 기술된 학습목표의 특징을 정리해 본 결과 서술어에 사용된 동사의 종류가 22종, 14종으로, 미국과 싱가포르 물리 교과서의 65종, 26종에 비해 적었으며, 주로 '이해하다', '알다'와 같은 추상적이고 포괄적인 뜻을 가진 동사가 사용되고 있다는 점이 문제점으로 드러났다. 미국 물리 교과서의 경우 65종이나 되는 다양한 동사를 서술어에 사용했을 뿐만 아니라, 10% 이상 사용된 것이 없고 소수로 사용된 동사가 대부분이라는 점이 두드러지게 나타났다. 학습목표를 영역별로 분류했을 때 우리나라의 경우 2종의 교과서에서 인지적 영역에 해당되는 학습목표가 98~99%를 차지하고 있으며, 탐구과정 영역에 해당되는 학습목표는 1~2%에 불과했다. 이는 학습목표의 진술 형태가 구체적이지 않을 뿐만 아니라 교과서의 탐구활동이나 읽기자료 등의 내용이 학습목표에 명시되지 않았기 때문에 학습목표의 대부분이 인지적 영역에 해당될 수밖에 없는 것으로 나타났다. 미국 물리 교과서의 경우 탐구 영역이 타 교과서에 비해 많은 비중을 차지하고 있었으며 이 영역의 학습목표 서술어 진술에 사용된 동사의 종류도 또한 많은 것으로 나타났다. 싱가포르의 경우 학습목표가 인지적 영역에 치우쳐있는 것은 우리나라의 경우와 비슷하나 학습목표의 서술어가 행동동사를 사용해 구체적인 형태로 진술되어 있다는 점에서 차이가 났다.

Keywords

References

  1. California Department of Education. (2004). Science framework for California public schools. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/scienceframework.pdf#search=Science%20frameworks%20for%20california%20Public%20Schools&view=FitH&pagemode=none)
  2. Chew, C., Foong, C. & Tiong, H. (2013). Physics matters. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Education.
  3. Choi, J. & Seol, K. (2014). A short discussion on social studies curriculum standards and structure. Social Studies Education, 53(2), 1-19.
  4. Eisenkraft, A. (2010). Active physics. NY: It's About Time Co.
  5. Gwak, S., Ryu, S., Kim, D., An, J., Lee, O., Kim, J., Nam, G. & Kim, I. (2012a). Physics II. Seoul: Chunjae Education.
  6. Gwak, S., Ryu, S., Kim, D., An, J., Yi, O., Kim, J., Nam, G. & Kim, I. (2012b). Physics I. Seoul: Chunjae Education.
  7. Jo, H. & Park, S. (1995). Science learning & teaching. Seoul: Kyoyookbook Publication Co.
  8. Jo, K. (2013). The characteristic verbs in physics achievement standards in the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction. 17(4), 1405-1420.
  9. Kang, N. & Park, Y. (2010). Identification of instructional components to increase students' interest and creativity in American science classrooms. Journal of Science Education. 34(2), 421-431.
  10. Kang, Y. (2009). Instructional method and technology. Seoul: Hakjisa Publication Co.
  11. Kim, M. & Cho, J. (2013). An analysis of the properties of affective achievement in science based on TIMSS and science teachers' perception. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 33(1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.046
  12. Kim. S., & Park, S. (1985). Analysis of middle school science textbook. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 5(1), 49-61.
  13. Kim, Y. (1990). Theories of measurement & evaluation. Seoul: Kyoyookbook Publication Co.
  14. Kim, Y., Kim, I., Kim, S., Park, B., Jeong, B., Park, J., Kim, J. & Gwon, G. (2012a). Physics I. Seoul: Kyohak Publication.
  15. Kim, Y., Kim, I., Kim, S., Park, B., Jeong, B., Park, J., Kim, J. & Gwon, G. (2012b). Physics II. Seoul: Kyohak Publication.
  16. KOFAC(The Korea Foundation for Advancement of Science and Creativity) (2011). Research of science curriculum for the 2009 revised science curriculum. KOFAC.
  17. Lee, M. & Hong, M. (2007). Trends and an international comparison of Korean middle school students' attitudes toward science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 27(3), 201-211.
  18. Lee, M. & Kim, J. (2004). An international comparative study of science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(6), 1082-1093.
  19. Lim, C. (2008). Classifications of instructional objectives of elementary science based on new revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Research of Science and Mathematics Education, 31, 25-42.
  20. MEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology) (2011). National science curriculum. MEST.
  21. NGSS(Next Generation Science Standards, 2014). Topical arrangements of standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/searchstandards.
  22. Paik, N. (2007). A comparative study on the form of presentation of educational contents in the subject curriculum: with focus on Korean and American science curriculum(life science). The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(1), 129-159. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.25.1.200703.006
  23. Paik, N. (2014). Review of statements of achievement standards in subject curriculum: Focusing on the national science curriculum of Republic of Korea and the US. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.32.2.201406.005
  24. Park, C., Hwang, J. & Gwak, D. (2011). A comparative analysis of instructional objectives of laboratory work in Korean and U. S. high school biology textbooks according to Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 15(1), 27-43.
  25. Waller, V. (2006). Why we need good instructional design. Retrieved from http://www.elearningnetwork.org/
  26. Yoon, Y. (2010). Comparative analysis of science textbooks of the 7th curriculums for the 3rd grade students in middle school by Klopfer's taxonomy of educational objectives (Doctoral dissertation). Korea National University of Education, Chungju.
  27. Young, L. & Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The power of language: How discourse influences society. Sheffield, Equinox Publishing Limited.
  28. Yu, J. (2009). Analysis of educational objectives of the 7th elementary science curriculum by Klopfer's taxonomy of educational objectives (Doctoral dissertation). Kongju National University, Kongju.
  29. Yun, E. & Park, Y. (2014). Analysis of problems of science textbook within the framework of learner-centered classroom. Paper Presented at of The Korean Physics Society Fall Meeting.

Cited by

  1. 2009 개정 과학과 교육과정의 성취기준에 사용된 서술어 분석 -TIMSS 인지적 영역 평가틀을 중심으로- vol.36, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0607