한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제35권4호
  • /
  • Pages.677-689
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학과 교육과정에 제시된 개념의 연계성에 대한 국제 비교 연구 - 달과 암석의 순환 개념을 중심으로

International Comparative Study on the Science Curriculum Concepts Continuity - Focus on the Concepts of Moon and Rock cycle -

  • 투고 : 2015.07.21
  • 심사 : 2015.08.20
  • 발행 : 2015.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구의 목적은 우리나라를 포함한 6개국(대만, 영국, 핀란드, 미국, 캐나다, 한국)의 과학과 교육과정에 대한 연계성에 초점을 둔 비교분석을 통해서 우리나라 과학과 교육과정의 연계성을 강화할 수 있는 방안과 그 시사점을 도출하는데 있다. 국가교육과정정보센터(NCIC)에서 수집한 각 나라의 교육과정 원문과 국문 번역본을 분석 대상으로 하였고, 교육과정 구성의 특징과 종적 횡적 연계성 요소를 기초로 한 과학과 내의 '달'과 '암석의 순환'에 대한 내용을 비교 분석하였다. 그 결과, 국제적으로 교육과정의 학년 간 그리고 교과 간 연계의 강화를 위해 빅 아이디어(Big Ideas)나 교차 개념(Crosscutting Concepts) 등과 같은 연결 고리의 역할을 하는 개념을 활용하고 있음을 알 수 있었고, 그 중에서도 시스템의 관점을 중요하게 다루고 있었다. 내용에 대해서는 비교 국가들 중 우리나라는 '달'과 '암석의 순환'에 대해 가장 높은 빈도로 다루고 있었으나, 달의 내용 중 일부를 초 중 고등학교에서 비슷한 수준으로 동일하게 다루고 있는 단순 반복 현상을 확인할 수 있었다. 반면, 암석의 순환에 대해서는 다른 나라들에 비해 다양한 관점과 수준에서 다루어 비교적 짜임새 있는 조직 구성을 보였다. 결론적으로, 우리나라 교육과정에도 교육과정의 연계성 강화를 위해 이러한 연결 고리 역할을 할 수 있는 적합한 도구가 요구되며, 그 방안으로 시스템적 접근을 활용할 수 있을 것이다. 더욱이 교육과정의 효과적인 적용을 위해 학년 수준에 따른 학습자의 학습 발달 과정에 대한 충분한 이해를 바탕으로 교육과정을 구성하는 것이 무엇보다 중요할 것이다.

The purpose of this study is to derive suggestions and implications to strengthen the science curriculum continuity of Korea through comparative analysis with focus on the continuity of science curriculum in six countries (Taiwan, the United Kingdom, Finland, the United States, Canada, Korea). Original and Korean translations of the national curriculums of each country gathered from NCIC comparatively analyzed the contents of the 'Moon' and 'Rock cycle' based on features of curriculum configuration, vertical, and lateral connectivity. As a result, it was found that the concepts of Big Ideas or Cross-cutting Concept was utilized internationally to strengthen the linkage between grades or subjects. In particular, dealing with the aspect of the system was important. In the comparison of countries for the content, Korea deals with the most frequency on the 'Moon' and 'Rock cycle'. The contents of the chapter about the moon were simply repeated from elementary to high school levels with some variation. Korean science curriculum holds different perspectives and contents about the Rock cycle compared to other countries. In conclusion, Korea's curriculum requires appropriate tools to strengthen curriculum linkage and by doing so, it will be able to take advantage of the systems approach. Moreover, it is important to constitute the curriculum based on a sufficient understanding of the learning development of students according to their grade levels for the effective application of the curriculum.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  2. Department for Education. (2011). The Framework for the National Curriculum. A report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review. London: Department for Education.
  3. Department for Education. (2013). The National Curriculum in England : Framework document for consultation. London: Department for Education.
  4. Department for National primary and secondary Education [敎育部國民及學前敎育署]. (2008a). Ordinary high school compulsory syllabuses [普通高級中學必修科目課程綱要]. Taipei: National Education Department for primary and secondary.
  5. Department for National primary and secondary Education [敎育部國民及學前敎育署]. (2008b). 9 years national basic curriculum for natural life and technology learning [國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域]. Taipei: National Education Department for primary and secondary.
  6. Finnish National Board of Education. (2003). National Core Curriculum For Upper Secondary Schools 2003. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
  7. Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
  8. Fogarty, R. (1991). How to integrate the curricula. NY: Skylight.
  9. Hwang, G.-H. (1999). Meanings and criteria of curriculum continuity. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 167-192.
  10. Hwang, Y., Kang, H.-S., & Yoo, J.-S. (2006). Research on the shared articulation of science and mathematics in early childhood and elementary school curricula. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 26(3), 33-57.
  11. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IAEEA]. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS.
  12. Kang, H., Lee, W., Huh, Y., Lee, J., Yoo, J., Park, Y., Choe, H., & Park, C. (2008). Understanding by design (G. Wiggins & J. McTighe, Trans.). Seoul: Hakjisa. (Original work published 2005).
  13. Kim, D. (2013). Present states and issues of curriculum continuity. In Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (Ed.), A strengthening plan for improvement of national curriculum continuity (Research report ORM 2013-35, pp.77-80). Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  14. Kim, D.-H., & Kim, H.-N. (2012). International comparison of contents about particle concept in national science curricula. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(2), 164-176.
  15. Kim, J.-S. (2006). An investigation on the concept of curriculum continuity. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(4), 83-108.
  16. Kim, J.-S., Park, S.-K., Choi, J., & Lee, H. (2013). International comparative studies on the sequence and integrity of elementary and secondary school curricula (Research report RRC 2013-3). Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  17. Kook, D.-S., & Kim, H.-M. (2004). An analysis on the conceptual connection of meteorology contents in science courses of elementary, middle and high school. Bulletin of Science Education, 20(1), 9-27.
  18. Kwon, C.-S., & Jang, M.-S. (2004). A comparative study on the connection between elementary and secondary science contents of DPRK and Republic of Korea. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 25(7), 558-564.
  19. Lee, H. (1987). Basic principle of curriculum and instruction (R. W. Tyler, Trans.). Seoul: Kyoyookbook. (Original work published 1949).
  20. Lee, Y., Yoon, H., Song, J.-Y., & Bang, D. (2014). Analysis of science educational contents of Singapore, Canada and US focused on the integrated concepts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.1.1.00021
  21. Lee, Y.-R. (2004). Analysis of curriculum development processes and the relationship between general statements of the curriculum and science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(3), 468-480.
  22. Lee, Y.-R., Kwak, Y., & Kim, D.-Y. (2005). Analysis and evaluation of the earth science content relevance in the 7th national science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 26(8), 759-770.
  23. Leem, Y., & Kim, Y.-S. (2013). A historical study on the Korean science curriculum for the elementary and secondary schools. Biology Education, 41(3), 483-503. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2013.41.3.483
  24. Maeng, S., Seong, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Present states, methodological features, and an exemplar study of the research on learning progressions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.161
  25. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007). A guide for science curriculum. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.
  26. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009). Elementary and secondary school curriculum : General statement (MEST Notification No. 2009-41). Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
  27. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2012). Science curriculum (MEST Notification No. 2011-361). Seoul: Ministry of Education Science and Technology.
  28. Nam, S.-K., Lee, K.-H., & Song, K.-O. (2010). Diagnosis of present situation for educational articulation in school system (MEST Notification No. 2009-11). Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
  29. National Research Council [NRC] (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  30. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8: Science and Technology. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
  31. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008a). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: Science. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
  32. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008b). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 11 and 12: Science. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
  33. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do, Vol. 1. Paris: OECD.
  34. Paik, N.-J. (2014). Review of statements of achievement standards in subject curriculum : Focusing on the national science curriculum of Republic of Korea and the U. S.. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.32.2.201406.005
  35. Paik, S.-H., Kim, H.-N., & Cho, B.-K. (2000). Development of a tool for K-12 science curriculum articulation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(2), 262-273.
  36. Park, C.-H. (2005). The transition of curriculum development and implementation system in liberated Korea. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(3), 35-55.
  37. Park, H., Kim, Y., Noh, S., Jeong, J.-S., Lee, E., Yu, E., Lee, D., Park, J., & Baek, Y. (2012). Developmental study of science education content standards. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 729-750. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.729
  38. Son, M. (2004). An appraisal of the sequential coherence between primary-secondary curriculum : A study on the organization and presentation of content knowledge in the primary science curriculum. Asian Journal of Education, 5(2), 159-181.
  39. Song, S.-H., Lee, Y.-H., Lee, J.-R., Kim, S.-W., Kang, S.-H., Park, J.-Y., Kang, S.-J., Kim, K.-H., & Yoo, K.-H. (1991). Development and application of an analysis taxonomy for curricular articulation in mathematics and science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 11(2), 119-131.
  40. Suh, Y. (2008). An analysis of sequence of earth science content in elementary school curriculum in Korea and the U. S.. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(4), 356-370.
  41. Woo, H., & Cha, H. (2013). A study on connectivity of the unit of evolution between secondary school biology textbooks reformed according to the 7th and 2009 revised Korea national science curriculum. Biology Education, 41(4), 618-637. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2013.41.4.618
  42. Yoo, Y.-E., & Kim, E.-J. (2013). Analysis of the continuity and sequence in the science education curriculums for kindergarten, elementary school, and middle school. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 33(4), 241-265. https://doi.org/10.18023/kjece.2013.33.4.011
  43. Yun, E., & Park, Y. (2014). Relationship of using science terminology between science curriculum and middle school science textbooks in the 2009 national curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(7), 667-675. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.7.0667

피인용 문헌

  1. A Comparative Study of Elementary Science Curriculum between Korea and USA - Focusing on Earth and Space Domain of Third and Fourth Grades - vol.35, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2016.35.3.362
  2. The Rock Cycle Composition Elements and Process of the Pre-service Earth Science Teachers' Understanding vol.9, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2016.9.2.186
  3. International Comparison Study on the Science Curriculum about Articulation of the ‘Light’ and ‘Electricity’ Concept vol.20, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2016.20.4.322