Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

International Comparison Study on Essential Concepts of Science Curriculum: Focus on the United States, Canada, Australia and England

과학과 교육과정의 핵심 개념 국제 비교 -미국, 캐나다, 호주, 영국을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2016.11.28
  • Accepted : 2017.02.13
  • Published : 2017.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to find an effective way to present essential science concepts in national science curriculum through international comparisons. Next Generation Science Standard (US), Ontario Science Curriculum (Canada), Australia Science Curriculum, and British/English Science Curriculum were selected for comparison. In science curriculum documents, these countries used terms such as 'Key ideas,' 'Big ideas,' 'Key concepts,' 'Disciplinary core ideas.' and 'Fundamental concepts' to present essential concepts of science. This study reviewed the characteristics of the meaning, the status, and the role of essential concepts country by country. The result shows essential concepts have been used with different meanings and statutes in each case. Furthermore, various roles were performed through essential concepts in order to organize their science curriculum. From these foreign nation's cases, this study proposes several ways to present essential science concepts based on results. First, interdisciplinary integrated concepts were needed to organize an integrated science curriculum. In science curriculum documents of the United States, Canada, Australia and England, two types of terms were used in order to structuralize an integrated science curriculum. Second, essential concepts should include concepts related with function and value as well as scientific knowledge. Third, essential concepts need to be presented in such a way as to show specific contexts. Therefore, selecting appropriate contents and structure are needed to be able to improve the way to present essential concepts in Korea's educational environment.

본 연구에서는 과학과 교육과정의 핵심 개념을 국가별로 비교하여 우리나라의 핵심 개념 제시 방안을 탐색하였다. 최근 개정된 미국, 캐나다, 호주, 영국의 교과별 교육과정 문서를 살펴보면 Key ideas, Big ideas, Key concepts, Disciplinary core ideas, Fundamental concepts 등과 같은 용어를 새롭게 도입하면서 해당 개념의 의미, 역할 등을 상세히 기술하며 이를 다양한 방식으로 사용하여 과학교과의 내용을 구조화하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 분석 대상국의 핵심 개념을 다루는 용어의 의미와 위상, 역할을 용례를 통해 분석하여 이를 통해 우리나라의 핵심 개념 제시 방안을 검토해보았다. 비교 대상국의 과학과 핵심 개념의 의미를 비교해본 결과 4개국 모두 교과의 내용을 다루는 개념뿐 아니라 간학문적 통합 개념을 설정하여 사용하고 있었고, 분석 대상 국가 모두에서 해당 개념들이 상당한 위상을 가지고 교육과정 문서에 사용되는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 분석 대상 국가인 미국, 캐나다, 호주, 영국에서 핵심개념은 그 내용과 의미가 유사한 경우에도 국가에 따라 역할로서 중시하는 면에는 차이가 있었으며, 과학과 교육과정을 구조화하는 방식은 다양하지만 이 구조화에서 핵심개념이 중요한 역할을 수행하는 공통점을 가지고 있었다. 핵심개념은 학문 및 학년을 연결하는 역할을 할 수도 있으며, 과학 지식 획득의 틀(framework)로 작용하기도 한다. 또한, 핵심 개념이 미국처럼 성취 기준을 제시하는 방식으로 구조화될 수도 있으며, 캐나다 온타리오의 경우와 같이 단원마다의 목표로 구조화될 수도 있다. 이를 통해 볼 때 우리 나라 또한 우리 과학교육의 맥락에 맞는 간학문적 통합 개념을 핵심 개념으로 지정하여 과학 교육과정에서 제시할 필요가 있을 것으로 생각된다. 또한, 핵심개념은 단순히 과학 교과의 지식 내용뿐 아니라 기능, 가치 등의 요소를 포함할 수 있으며, 표현 방식 또한 단어, 문장, 도식 등 다양한 방식으로 제시될 수 있을 것이다. 이를 위해 우리 교육 목표에 맞는 핵심 개념의 내용을 선정하고 적절한 방식으로 핵심 개념을 제시하는 방안을 채택하기 위한 논의가 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority(2015). The Australian Curriculum Science. Retrieved October 24, 2015, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/download/f10
  2. Cho, C-K. (2006). A Continuous Concern of Citizenship Education in British Geography Education. Journal of the Korean Association of Regional Geographers, 12(3), 421-435.
  3. Choi, J-H. (2008). A study on fixing and categorizing of curriculum terms for planning curriculum of literary education in secondary school(2) - curriculum terms in secondary school curriculum of literary education in USA and Canada. Journal of the Korean Society of Literary Education, 21, 199-294.
  4. Choi, J., & Paik, S. (2013). A Comparative Analysis of Achievement Standards of the 2007 & 2009 Revised Elementary Science Curriculum with Next Generation Science Standards in US based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 277-288. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2015.35.2.0277
  5. Department for Education(2014). The national curriculum in England Framework document. London: Department for education.
  6. Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage Publications.
  7. 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.
  8. Kim, S. & Choi, T. (2007). Research methodology in education. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  9. 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.
  10. Kwak, Y., Son, J,. Kim, M-Y,. & Ku, J. (2014). Research on Ways to Improve Science Curriculum Focused on Key Competencies and Creative Fusion Education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 321-330. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0321
  11. 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
  12. Lee, H., & Yeo, C,. (2015). International comparison study on the articulation of the science curriculum: Focus on the concept of photosynthesis., Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(5), 805-815. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.5.0805
  13. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2014). Main points of the general guidelines for 2015 liberal art and natural science integrated curriculum. Ministry of Education. Retrived from http://ncic.re.kr/mobile.revise.board.view.do
  14. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2015a). 2015 revised curriculum -Overview-. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  15. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2015b). 2015 revised curriculum -Science-. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  16. Marsh, C. (1992). Key Concept for Understanding Curriculum Development. Paris: UNESCO.
  17. NGSS Lead States(2013). Next generation science standards for states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
  18. Next Generation Science Standards. (2014, December 14). NGSS Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Final%20Release%20N GSS%20Front%20Matter%20-%206.17.13%20Update_0.pdf
  19. Ontario Ministry of Education(2007). The Ontario Curriculum Grade 1-8, Science and Technology. Retrieved November 6, 2015 from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/scientec18currb.pdf
  20. Ontario Ministry of Education(2008a). The Ontario Curriculum : Science Grades 9 and 10. Retrieved November 6, 2015 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science910_2008.pdf
  21. Ontario Ministry of Education(2008b). The Ontario Curriculum : Science Grades 11 and 12. Retrieved November 6, 2015 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/2009science11_
  22. Paik, N.-J. (2014a). 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
  23. Paik, N-J. (2014b). Review of subject-specific competency based standards : focusing on social studies curriculum of Australia, Canada, Singapore. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(4), 163-194.
  24. Paik, N-J., Ohn, J-D. (2015). Examination of How General Competency is Reflected and Presented in the Australian National Curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(2), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.33.2.201506.005
  25. So, K-H. (2015). Things intended and realized in the 2013 revision of the national curriculum in England: significance and limitation. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(3), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.33.3.201509.009
  26. So, K-H., Jang, J-K., Lee, S-Y. (2011). Review on the Australian Curriculum: Process of the Development and Features. Korean Journal of Comparative Education, 21(2), 51-73.
  27. 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

Cited by

  1. The Core concept of the Korean Language Arts vol.63, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.26589/jockle..63.201709.41
  2. 국어과 교육과정에서 ‘빅 아이디어’ 활용 방안 탐색 - 캐나다 BC주 자국어 교육과정에 대한 분석을 바탕으로 vol.54, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.20880/kler.2019.54.1.71