디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제20권3호
  • /
  • Pages.105-115
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

교육정책에서의 교육전문가와 대중의 관점 비교 -의미연결망과 중첩맵 분석을 활용하여-

Comparative Study on the Perspectives of Educational Experts and the Public on the Educational Policy -Using the Semantic Network Analysis and Overlay Mapping-

  • 투고 : 2022.02.08
  • 심사 : 2022.03.20
  • 발행 : 2022.03.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 국가 교육과정 정책 대한 교육전문가와 대중의 관점에 대한 경향성을 비교 분석하기 위하여 2013년 10월부터 2020년 5월까지 실시된 2015 개정 교육관련 연구논문 1152편과 692편의 신문기사를 수집하여 의미연결망과 중첩맵 분석을 실시하였다. 연구의 결과, 전문가 집단에서는 추상적 개념을 중심으로 하여 교육과정 개발에 관련된 핵심적인 개념에 대한 관심이 크게 나타난 반면, 대중들에게선 교육과정의 개발 자체가 아니라 개정으로 인한 현실적인 문제와 결과적인 영향에 더 큰 관심을 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 전문가집단에서는 '학습경험의 질 개선을 위한 역량교육과정 개발'과 '문·이과 통합형 교육과정 총론 개발' 영역에 대한 연구가 활발하게 진행되는 경향을 보였으나, 대중은 '공교육 정상화를 위한 대학입시 개편 방안' 영역에 관심이 집중되는 경향을 보였다. 이러한 결과는 전문가 집단과 대중의 관점 간의 간극을 보여줌은 물론, 이를 해소하기 위한 효과적인 의사소통의 필요성을 제기한다.

This study compares the perspectives of experts and the public on the 2015 revised curriculum. To do this, research papers and newspaper articles were collected from October 2013 to May 2020. During this period, 1152 research papers and 692 newspaper articles were collected, and semantic network analysis was performed. As a result of the study, the educational expert group showed great interest in the core concept of the development of the revised curriculum focused on the abstract concept, while the public focused on the practical problems and consequences of the revision rather than the development of the revised curriculum itself. These results not only show the gap between the perspectives of the educational expert group and the public but also raise the need for effective communication to bridge the gap.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Lee, J. S. (2020). A Study on the Research Trends of Convergence Education in Elementary and Secondary Education -Using Semantic Network Analysis and Overlay Map-. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 25-50.
  2. Park, M. J., & Sung, Y. K. (2011). Trends of curriculum research: Research areas and methods analysis. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(4), 25-50. DOI : 10.15708/kscs.29.4.201112.002
  3. Jang, S. M., & Han, D. S. (2017). Meta-Synthesis of National Curriculum Studies: Focusing on Practical Implications for Policy. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 325-353.
  4. Oh, C. J., Shin, H. K., & Kim, E. K. (2015). A Review of Research trends in Special Education Curriculum. Journal of Special Education, 16(4), 337-362. DOI : 10.19049.JSPED.2015.16.4.14 https://doi.org/10.19049.JSPED.2015.16.4.14
  5. So, K. H., Hu, Y. J., Park, J., & Chang, Y. W. (2019). A Meta-analysis of International Trends in Curriculum Studies: Based on the Papers Presented in AERA since 2010. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.37.4.6
  6. Kang, J. Y., & So, K. H. (2016). Media Discourse Analysis of Korean Newspaper Articles on the 2015 Revised Curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(3), 1-27. UCI : G704-000671.2016.34.3.005
  7. Kang, H. S., & Lee, Y. B. (2015). Analysis of the Press Report of the 2015 Revised National Curriculum and Exploration of the Suggestion for Future Revision. Secondary Education Research, 63(4), 435-464. DOI : 10.25152/ser.2015.63.4.435
  8. Kim, S. Y., & Kang, S. W. (2015). 2015 "Integrated Curriculum between Humanities and Sciences and Engineering Tracks" in Korea: on the Based Media News reports. Journal of Educational Innovation Research, 25(2), 91-112. UCI : G704-SER000004221.2015.25.2.002
  9. Yu, Y., & Baek, S. G. (2016). Issue Analysis of the Related Mass Media's News Articles on the 2015 Revised National Curriculum Using Automated Text Analysis. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 19(3), 127-156. UCI : G704-001275.2016.19.3.003 https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2016.19.3.127
  10. Lewicki, R. J., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Island Press, Washington D. C. USA.
  11. Wynne, B. (1995). "Public understanding of science." Handbook of science and technology studies, 1, 361-388.
  12. Dietz, Thomas, R. Scott Frey, and Eugene, A. Rosa. (2002). "Risk, Technology, and Society." In Riley E. Dunlap & William Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 329-369). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  13. Hong, S. T. (2015). The Collapse of Sampoong Department Store and Corruption-Accident Society. Economy and Society, 108, 231-253. DOI : 10.18207/criso.2015..108.231
  14. Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2002). Dimensions of social welfare policy. Allyn & Bacon.
  15. Han, B., Kim, H., & Kim, Y. (2020). An In-depth Interview Study of Risk Perception, Psychological Distance and Public Behaviors on Climate Change : Focusing on the Comparison between People at Large and Experts. Korean Journal of Communication & Information 101, 465-505. DOI : 10.46407/kjci.2020.06.101.465
  16. Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Read, D. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 959-970. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00066.x
  17. Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of risk. London, UK: Earthscan.
  18. Fischhoff, B. (1990). Psychology and public policy: Tool or tool maker?. American Psychologist, 45, 57-63. DOI: 10.1037/h0091626
  19. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atmans, C. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  21. Waltman, L., N. J. Van Eck, N., & Noyons, C. M. (2010). "A Unified Approach to Mapping and Clustering of Bibliometric Networks," Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629-635. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
  22. Rafols, I., Porter, A. L. & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science Overlay Maps : A New Tool for Research Polocy and Livrary Management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1871-1887. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21368
  23. Carley, S., Porter, A. L., Rafols, I., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Visualization of disciplinary profiles: Enhanced science overlay maps. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(3), 68-111. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0015
  24. Park, S. Y., Lee, J. R., & Kang, H. S. (2015). An Analysis of Professional Recognition on 2015 Curriculum Revision. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education, 27(4), 1172-1183. UCI : G704-001373.2015.27.4.002 https://doi.org/10.13000/JFMSE.2015.27.4.1172
  25. Park, H. K. (2016). Analysis of Problems Related to the Process of Subject Curriculum Development. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(3), 185-208. UCI : G704-000671.2016.34.3.010
  26. Kim, D. H. (2017). The Limits of Governance System for Development of 2015 National Curriculum. The Korean Society for Curriculum Studies, 35(2), 95-118.
  27. Bak, H. J. (2013). An Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of BSE between Experts and Lay People. The Journal of Rural Society, 23(2), 301-341. UCI : G704-000099.2013.23.2.002