Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association (한국가정과교육학회지)

Korea Home Economics Education Association (한국가정과교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Knowledge and Competency for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Based on Anderson's Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: Focused on Achievement Standard in the 2015 revised Practical Arts(Technology·Home Economics)

Bloom의 신교육목표 분류체계에 기초한 4차 산업혁명 시대에 요구하는 지식과 역량 분석: 2015 개정 실과(기술·가정) 교육과정의 가정과 성취기준을 대상으로

  • 양지선 (이화여자대학교) ;
  • 이경숙 (경상대학교 사범대학 부설고등학교)
  • Received : 2018.09.04
  • Accepted : 2018.09.27
  • Published : 2018.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study has attempted to analyze the achievement standards in the 2015 revised curriculum, based on the revision of Bloom's Taxonomy and aims to identify the knowledge and required competencies in the fourth industrial era. The results of this study are as follows: First, the knowledge dimensions was the highest 'metacognitive knowledge' in middle school, while 'factual knowledge' was the highest in high school, and 'knowledge of specific details and elements' was the highest subtype of all of the knowledge dimensions. The dimensions of the cognitive process, such as the terms 'apply' and 'analyze' in middle school, as 'understand' and 'evaluate' in high school have been treated inattentively. Second, the knowledge dimension and the cognitive process dimension according to key concepts display the metacognitive knowledge and 'understand' in development, the conceptual knowledge and 'understand' in relationship. While the 'metacognitive knowledge' and 'apply' in life culture, the 'procedural knowledge' and 'evaluate' in safety, the 'factual knowledge' and 'apply' in management and the 'metacognitive knowledge' and 'understand' in life design were extremely high. Third, the verbs used in the achievement standards displayed as 'explore', 'understand', 'analyze', 'practice', 'suggest', 'recognize' and 'evaluate'. Since the statement of the action verb is the very basis for determining the performance process, specific competencies may be achieved by reflecting on the actual achievement standards. These standards should provide us with a effective cognitive process for to understand a learner's performance skills and support the direction of the education required, through a strategy that refines the connection between content elements and functions and develop their competences for the future.

본 연구는 4차 산업혁명 시대를 예고하는 사회 변화 속에서 Bloom의 신교육목표분류학에 기초하여 2015 개정 가정과 성취기준을 분석하고 핵심역량과 지식의 연관성을 찾는데 목적을 두었으며 본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 지식 차원은 중학교 성취기준에서는 메타인지적 지식이, 고등학교 성취기준에서는 사실적 지식이 가장 높게 나타났으며 지식 차원의 하위유형은 구체적 사실과 요소에 대한 지식이 가장 높게 나타났다. 인지과정 차원은 중학교 성취기준에서 '적용하다', '분석하다', '평가하다', '이해하다', '창안하다'의 순으로, 고등학교 성취기준에서는 '이해하다', '평가하다', '창안하다', '적용하다', '분석하다' 순으로 나타났다. 둘째, 핵심 개념별로 지식 차원과 인지과정 차원은 '발달'에서 메타인지 지식과 '이해하다', '관계'에서 개념적 지식, 메타인지적 지식과 '이해하다', '생활문화'에서 메타인지적 지식과 '적용하다', '안전'에서 절차적 지식과 '평가하다', '분석하다', '관리'에서 사실적 지식, 절차적 지식과 '적용하다', '생애설계'에서 메타인지적 지식, 사실적 지식과 '이해하다'가 높게 나타났다. 셋째, 성취기준에 사용된 동사의 진술은 '탐색하다', '이해하다', '분석하다', '실천하다', '제안하다', '인식하다', '평가하다'의 순으로 나타났다. 행동 동사의 진술은 수행과정을 판단할 수 있는 기준이 되므로 교과내용 지식과 다양한 인지과정을 나타내는 성취기준에 반영되어 구체적인 역량을 성취할 수 있다. 따라서 성취기준을 통해 학습자의 수행능력의 습득에 더욱 효과적인 인지과정을 제공하고 내용요소와 기능과의 연결을 정교화하는 전략을 통해 교육의 방향성을 높이고 학습자들이 미래를 대비하는 역량을 함양해나갈 수 있도록 지원해야할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.)(2001). A Taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing. Pearson Education. Kang, H. S., Kang, E. C., Kwon, D. H., Park, Y. M., Lee, W. H., Cho, Y. N., Ju, D. B., & Choe, H. S. (역)(2005). 교육과정 수업평가를 위한 새로운 분류학: Bloom 교육목표분류학의 개정. Seoul: Academypress.
  2. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.)(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain, NY: Davis McKay.
  3. Cho, K. C. (2012). Comparative analysis of attainment targets in geography national curriculum and evaluative objectives in national assessment of educational achievement of geography: based on revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Geographic and Environmental Education, 1(1), 19-31.
  4. Cho, N. S. (2017). 제 4차 산업혁명과 교육 [The fourth industrial revolution & education]. 교육비평, 39, 330-347.
  5. Cho, S. S. (2016). 제 4차 산업혁명과 미래 교육의 과제 [Challenges of the fourth industrial revolution and future education]. 미디어와 교육, 6(2), 152-185.
  6. Choi, J. I., & Paik, S. H. (2015). 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 Research in Science Education, 35(2), 277-288. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0277
  7. Drath, R. & Horch, A. (2014). Industries 4.0: hit or hype? IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, 8(2), 56-58. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2014.2312079
  8. Deno, S. L., & Jenkins, J. R. (1969). On the 'behaviorality' of behavioral objectives. Psychology in the Schools, 6(1), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(196901)6:1<18::AID-PITS2310060104>3.0.CO;2-P
  9. Ha, W. K., & Choi N. H. (2015). The 4th Industrial Revolution. Seoul: Contentshada.
  10. Jang, P. S. (2016). 2016 Davos Forum: 다가오는 4차 산업혁명에 대한 우리의 전략은? [What is our strategy for the fourth industrial revolution?]. 과학기술정책, 26(2), 12-15.
  11. Jo, K. H. (2013). The characteristic verbs in physics achievement standards in the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 17(4), 1405-1420. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2013.17.4.1405
  12. Kim, J. H. (2016). 제 4차 산업혁명 시대, 미래사회 변화에 대한 전략적 대응 방안 모색 [Strategic countermeasures for future social change in the fourth industrial revolution]. KISTEP Inside & Insight, 15, 45-58.
  13. Kim, M. O., & Kang, H. S. (2012). Analysis of instructional objectives of the elementary korean curriculum based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(1), 27-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202798183747
  14. Kim, Y. H., Yoon, K. S., & Kwon, D. K. (2010). Analysis of summative evaluation objectives in middle school biology based on bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 164-174. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2010.34.1.164
  15. Lee, G. S., & Yoo, T. M. (2011). Analysis of cognitive learning objectives in the 2007 home economics high school textbooks and achievement standards by the Anderson's revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association, 23(3), 53-68.
  16. Lee, M. J., Lee, G. S., & Yoo, T. M. (2011). Analysis of home economics textbooks of 2007 revised curriculum based on 'a revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives'. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 17(2), 149-176. https://doi.org/10.17055/jpaer.2011.17.2.149
  17. Lee, S. M., Chun, J. Y., & Hong, H. G. (2017). Comparative analysis of achievement standards of chemistry part in the 2009 and 2015 revised curriculums for science based on Bloom' revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 17(18), 261-289. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2017.17.18.261
  18. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Experts in Assessment. CA: Corwin Press.
  19. Min, C. G. (2018). Contents and methods of 4 dimentional education preparing for the industry 4.0 era. Korean Journal of General Education, 12(2), 35-64.
  20. Ministry of Education (2015). Framework of elementary and secondary curriculum. notification of Ministry of Education 2015-74. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  21. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, KISTEP & KAIST (2017). 10년 후 대한민국: 미래의 일자리의 길을 찾다 [Ten years later, Korea: Finding a Way to Work in the Future]. Goyang : Jisikgonggam.
  22. Mo, K. H., & Kang, D. H. (2012). Social studies curriculum and achievement standards: characteristics and problems of the social sciences area. Social studies education, 51(2), 61-76.
  23. Park, K. B. (2016). Analysis of social studies achieve standards through bloom's taxonomy. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 27(4), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.20972/kjee.27.4.201612.135
  24. Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. 송경진(역)(2016), 제4차 산업혁명. Seoul: New Present.
  25. Shin, J. G., & Cho, C. K. (2008). The statement of geography instruction objectives and the creation of evaluation questions based on revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Geographic and Environmental Education, 16(2), 129-144.
  26. Yuk, K. M., & Cho, H. J. (2011). Analysis of the lesson goals in technology-home economics textbooks according to the revised national curriculum of 2007. Secondary Education Research, 59(4), 913-938. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2011.59.4.913
  27. WEF (2016). The Future of Jobs. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Cited by

  1. Analysis of Knowledge in Nursing Management Educational Objectives based on Anderson's Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy vol.25, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2019.25.3.198
  2. Exploring the Conditions for Conversion of Competency Curriculum vol.31, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.13000/jfmse.2019.2.31.1.287
  3. 2015 개정 중학교 공통 교과와 가정과 교육과정에 제시된 '기능'과 '성취기준' 비교 분석 vol.33, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.19031/jkheea.2021.3.33.1.17
  4. 집단지성을 활용한 폴리매스(Polymath) 활동 사례 vol.37, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.7858/eamj.2021.032
  5. Analysis of Learning Objectives in AI Basic Textbooks Based on Anderson's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives vol.22, pp.10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2021.22.10.1597