Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Suggestions for the Analysis of Elementary Science Curriculum Achievement Standards in the 2015 Revised Curriculum: Focus on the 'Earth and Space' Domain

2015 개정 교육과정에서 초등과학과 교육과정 성취기준 분석 방법의 제안 -'지구와 우주' 영역을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2020.03.26
  • Accepted : 2020.04.14
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to propose a method for analyzing suitable achievement standards for the nature of science curriculum. This can be done by introducing various analysis methods, as well as using practical examples to analyze the achievement standards that are the starting point for teaching and learning in the 2015 revised curriculum. In this paper, three methods are shown: ① the method suggested by the Gyeonggido Office of Education, ② the method using understanding verbs of backward design, ③ the method using Bloom's revised taxonomy. In addition, we propose a method to analyze the achievement standards of science curriculum utilizing the characteristics of science curriculum. This method takes advantage of the above three analysis methods. After separating the content and performance verbs, subdividing the performance verbs into the performance verbs of six aspects of understanding and restatement of the achievement standards, the restatement of achievement standards enabled the analysis of in-depth achievement standards by linking to a process-focused assessment plan considering the level of thinking by utilizing the two-dimensional framework of Bloom's revised taxonomy. Through this study, I hope that elementary school teachers will develop meaningful teaching and learning methods that utilize the essence of the subject through in-depth analysis of the achievement standards of science as a subject.

이 연구는 2015 개정 교육과정에서 교수·학습 방향의 출발점이 되는 성취기준을 여러 가지로 분석하는 방법과 함께 실사례를 활용해 분석함으로써 과학 교과의 본질에 맞는 성취기준 분석 방법을 제안하고자 하였다. 이에 초등학교 과학과 중 '지구와 우주' 영역의 성취기준을 ① 경기도교육청이 제시한 성취기준 분석 방법, ② 백워드 설계의 이해 관련 수행 동사를 활용한 성취기준 분석, ③ 신교육목표분류 체계를 활용한 성취기준 분석 방법에 맞게 분석해 보고, 과학 교과의 특성을 살린 과학과 교육과정 성취기준 분석 방법을 제안하였다. 이 방법은 3가지 분석 방법의 장점을 살린 것으로, 내용과 수행 동사로 분리한 후, 수행 동사를 이해의 6가지 측면의 수행 동사로 세분화시킨 후, 성취기준을 재 진술하여 신교육목표분류체계의 이차원 틀에 의해 사고 수준을 고려한 과정 중심 평가 계획까지 연계짓는 심층적인 분석 방법이다. 이 연구를 통해 초등학교 교사들이 과학 교과의 성취기준에 대한 깊이 있는 분석을 통해 교과의 본질을 살린 유의미한 교수·학습 방법을 전개해 나가길 기대해 본다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
  2. Baik, N. (2014). Review of statements of achievement standards in subject curriculum: Focusing on the national science curriculum of Republic of Korea and the U. S. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.32.2.201406.005
  3. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman.
  4. Cho, N., Baek, S., So, K., & Kim, K. (1998). Development of national curriculum-based assessment standards for high school 10 common compulsory courses. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, CRC2012-1.
  5. Choi, J., & Paik, S. (2015). 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
  6. Chun, J., Lee, S., & Hong, H. (2017). Analysis of achievement standards of 2015 revised elementary science curriculum based on Bloom' revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 17(17), 551-573. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2017.17.17.551
  7. Dong, H., Ha, S., & Kim, Y. (2015). A comparative analysis of achievement standards of Korean science curriculum and performance expectation of next generation science standards (NGSS) in the United States. Educational Research, 64, 95-125. https://doi.org/10.17253/swueri.2015.64..004
  8. Gyeonggido Office of Education (2017). The materials for Curriculum literacy understanding(2017-15).
  9. Ha, S., & Kwak, D. (2008). Analysis of instructional objectives in a teachinglearning material for gifted elementary students in science by Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Gifted/ talented Education, 18(3), 591-612.
  10. Han, M. (2020). Perspectives and interpretation of achievement standards in elementary school teachers. Journal of Educational Research Institute, 22(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.15564/jeju.2020.02.22.1.1
  11. Hong, M., Park, S., Baek, K., Byun, H., Yang, Y., Yang, J., Lee, K., Lee, M., & Han, H., (2012). Research and development of achievement standards and achievement levels based on the national curriculum revised in 2009 - An analysis of the national curriculum and development of achievement standards. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, CRC2012-1.
  12. Jeong, K. (2012). Study on the teachers' curriculum literacy. Journal of Curriculum Integration, 6(2), 109-132.
  13. Kang, H., & Lee, J. (2016). Theory and practice of backward design for understanding by design: Classroom revolution. Seoul, Korea: Hakji Publication Co.
  14. Kang, H., Lee, D., Ryu, J., Lee, J., & Kim, M. (2006). Direction and task for slimming the national curriculum: Centered on revision of curriculum system. Secondary Education Research, 54(1), 221-251.
  15. Kim, E., Lee, J., Lee, X., Kim, D. (2016). Teachers' understanding and application by implementing 2009 revised curriculum elementary science achievement standards. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(6), 911-923. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.6.0911
  16. Kim, H. & Kang, K. (2019). Analysis on achievement standards of the 2015 revised national curriculum Life Science I and learning objectives of textbooks based on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Biology Education, 47(4), 438-447. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2019.47.4.438
  17. Kim, H., & Kang, K. (2019). Analysis on achievement standards of the 2015 revised national curriculum Life Science I and learning objectives of textbooks based on bloom's revised taxonomy. Biology Education, 47(4), 438-447. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2019.47.4.438
  18. Kim, K. & Shim, K. (2019). Comparison of achievement standards and inquiry activity of the structure and function of plants unit of elementary school science between the 2009 and 2015 revised national curriculum. Biology Education, 47(4), 552-560. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2019.47.4.552
  19. 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
  20. Kreitzer, A., & Madaus, G. (1994). "Empirical Investigations of the Hierarchical Structure of the Taxonony" In Anderson, L. and Sosniak, L.(Eds.) Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospective. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
  21. Lee, H. (2011). A suggestion of classroom-friendly Korean language arts curriculum; Comparative study of the documents system of language arts curriculum. Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 21(2), 275-290.
  22. Lee, H. (2018). A case study on the elementary school teachers' use of achievement standards in 2015 revised national curriculum (Master's thesis, Seoul National University).
  23. Lee, J., Lee, C., Shin, S., Jeon, Y., & Hong, H. (2018). Analysis of the ‘Integrated science' and ‘Science inquiry experiments' achievement standards of the 2015 revised science curriculum from the practices. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(14), 227-252. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2018.18.227
  24. Lee, K., & Yoo, T. (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.
  25. Lee, S., Chun, J., & Hong, H. (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
  26. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing & Assessing Educational Objectives: Applying the New Taxonomy, Kang, H. S., Lee, W. H., Jo, Y. N., Lu, J. S., & Lee, J. E.(Translation), 2015. Paju: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
  27. Ministry of Education (2015). Elementary school curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education.
  28. Ministry of Education (2015). Science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education.
  29. Ministry of Education (2017). Evaluation standards based on the national curriculum revised in 2015 (grade 5-6). Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education.
  30. Ohn, J., Byeon, Y., An, N., & Yu, S. (2018). Understanding by design that went into the classroom. Seoul, Korea: Salimteo.
  31. Ormell, C. P. (1994). Bloom's Taxonomy and the Objectives of Education. Educational Research, 17, 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188740170101
  32. Paik, N. (2014). Review of statements of achievement standards in subject curriculum: Focusing on the national science curriculum of Republic of Korea and the U. S. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.32.2.201406.005
  33. Park, J. (2017). An analysis on the changes of achievement standards and inquiry activities in the 2015 revised national elementary school science curriculum. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 36(1), 43-60. https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2017.36.1.043
  34. Park, J., & Hong, H. (2014). Reconsideration on the national subject curriculum standards as the bases of teachers' lesson plans. Journal of Korean, 31(4), 29-52.
  35. Perkins, D. (1998). What is understanding? In M. S. Wiske(Eds.). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. Sanfrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
  36. Seo, K. (2016). Curriculum Implementation, Adaptation, or Development?: Debate over Teachers' role in the Curriculum Process. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(3), 209-235.
  37. Son, J. (2018). The effect of backward design reflecting process-focused assessment on science learning achievement and science learning motivation of elementary school students. Journal of the Korean Society, 11(2), 90-106.
  38. Sung, A. & Park, J. (2019). Analysis on the alignment between elementary science curriculum and teacher's guidebooks lesson learning objectives and textbook questions : In 2015 grade 3⋅4 science curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 23(3), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2019.23.3.241
  39. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design (1st ed.). Alexandria: ASCD.
  40. Yun, D. & Choi, A. (2019). Analysis of achievement standards, activities, and assessment items in the 2015 revised science curriculum and grade 7 Science Textbooks: Focusing on science core competencies. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 63(3), 196-208. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2019.63.3.196

Cited by

  1. 백워드 설계 2.0을 활용한 '태양계와 별' 단원 수업이 과학 학업성취도와 수행평가 및 과학 수업 만족도에 미치는 효과 vol.13, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.15523/jksese.2020.13.2.147