Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Educational Implications through Analysis of the School Biology Curriculum of the Royal Society of Biology for School Biology Education in the United Kingdom

영국 왕립생물학회의 학교 생명과학교육을 위한 교육과정 분석 연구를 통한 교육적 시사점

  • Received : 2022.12.26
  • Accepted : 2023.02.27
  • Published : 2023.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the school biology curriculum of the Royal Society of Biology (RSB) for school biology education in the United Kingdom (UK), and to examine the implications for Korean school biology education. The RSB school biology curriculum consists of three dimensions (the practices of biology, the concepts of biology, and the application of biology) and seven big questions. The contents of RSB school biology curriculum are structured according to age, 5-11, 11-16, and 16-19. The practices of biology of the UK RSB school biology curriculum emphasize biology activities should be linked to other communities and communicated and shared through evidence-based discussions. The concepts of biology dimension of the UK RSB school biology curriculum systematized the contents to be detailed considering school-level and ages with 5-7, 7-11, 11-14, 14-16, and 16-19 years old. The UK RSB biology curriculum is composed of human health, biological structure and function, biological growth and reproduction, and biological coexistence, showing a significant difference from Korean national curriculum when comparing the content elements with the core concepts of biology. In terms of the application of biology of the RSB school biology curriculum, three themes were commonly applied to all students, regardless of school level or age, such as development of application methods to promote health and environmental welfare, evaluation of the impact and application of biology knowledge. However, the content elements of the three themes were systematized according to the ages of 5-11, 11-16, and 16-19 years old. It is necessary to reorganize the contents of biology curriculum in Korea by referring to the content system of the UK RSB biology curriculum and to research ways to strengthen connectivity according to age or school level as well as dimensions and big questions.

본 연구는 영국의 학교 생명과학 교육을 위한 왕립생물학회(RSB)의 생명과학 교육과정을 분석하고, 한국의 생명과학 교육에 대한 시사점을 살펴보고자 하였다. 영국 RSB 학교 생명과학 교육과정은 3개의 차원(생명과학의 실천, 생명과학의 개념 및 생명과학의 응용)과 7개의 대질문(big questions)으로 구성된다. 영국 RSB 학교 생명과학교육과정은 5-11세, 11-16세, 16-19세의 연령별로 구성되어 체계화되어 있었다. 생명과학의 실천 차원에서 영국 RSB 학교 생명과학 교육과정은 생명과학 활동이 다른 공동체와 연계, 증거 기반 토론 등을 통해 소통하고 공유되어야 한다고 강조한다. 영국 RSB 학교 생명과학 교육과정의 개념 차원은 5-7세, 7-11세, 11-14세, 14-16세, 16-19세의 학교 수준과 연령을 고려하여 내용을 구체적으로 체계화되어 있었다. 우리나라 국가교육과정 생명과학의 핵심 개념과 비교할 때, 영국 RSB 생명과학 교육과정은 인간의 건강, 생물학적 구조와 기능, 생물학적 성장과 재생산, 생물학적 공존 등의 내용 요소들은 상당한 차이를 보였다. 영국 RSB 학교 생명과학 교육과정의 응용 차원에서는 보건 및 환경복지 증진을 위한 응용 방법 개발, 생명과학 지식의 영향평가 및 응용 등 3가지 주제가 학교 수준이나 연령에 상관없이 모든 학생에게 공통적으로 적용되고 있었다. 영국 RSB 생명과학 교육과정의 내용 체계를 고려하여 볼 때, 우리나라 생명과학 교육과정의 내용 체계를 연령이나 학교 수준은 물론 차원과 대질문을 고려한 연계성 강화를 위한 재구성 방안 연구의 필요성을 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: a tool for curriculum reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Australian Curriculum Assessment, and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2022). Science: F-10 version 9.0 about the learning area. Retrieved Aug 31 2022 from https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/learning-areas/science/
  3. California Department of Education (CDoE) (2018). 2016 Science framework for california public schools - kindergarten through grade twelve. The California Department of Education, Sacramento, U.S.A.
  4. Choi, S. H., Park, H. Y., & Kim, Y. S. (2015). Changes in the gifted middle school students' cognitive structures related to the scientific inquiry process as a result of explicit instruction. Biology Education, 43(3), 276-288. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2015.43.3.276
  5. Department for Education, UK. (DfE, UK) (2015). National curriculum in England: science programmes of study. Department for Education, UK.
  6. Department for Education, UK. (DfE, UK) (2016). DfE strategy 2015-2020: World class education and care. Department for Education, UK.
  7. Department of Education, U.S. (DoE, U.S.) (2015). Every student succeeds act(ESSA). Department of Education, U.S.A.
  8. Helin, J. (2021). Transformative competencies - how to define and implement competencies for SDG target 4.7. Helsingki, Finland: Bridge 47.
  9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2022). Climate Change 2022. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Portner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegria, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Loschke, V. Moller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Jung, U., & Lee, Y. (2018). Content analysis on the curriculum achievement standards in the software⋅mathematics⋅science convergence teaching and learning material. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 21(5), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.32431/kace.2018.21.5.002
  11. Korea Employment Information Service (KEIS) (2020). Prospects of mid-to long-term manpower supply and demand: 2018-2028 overview[중장기 인력수급 전망: 2018-2028 overview]. Sejong, Korea: Korea Employment Information Service and Ministry of Employment and Labor.
  12. Kim, D., & Kim, S. (2017). Understanding and issues on core competency and competency-based curriculum in higher education. The Journal of Core Competency Education Research, 2(1), 23-45. https://doi.org/10.52616/JCCER.2017.2.1.23
  13. Kim, H., Kang, N., Kim, M., Maeng, S., Park, J., Baek, Y., Son, J., Shim, K., Oh, P., Lee, K., Jeong, E., & Han, I. (2017). Basic Research for Next Generation Science Education Standards (Research Rep.). Seoul: Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity.
  14. Kim, S., & Jun, Y. (2020). Development and application of experiential learning program for high school STEAM convergence class. Journal of Field-based Lesson Studies, 1(1), 119-143. https://doi.org/10.22768/JFLS.2020.1.1.119
  15. Kwak, Y. (2012). Research on ways to improve science teaching methods to develop students' key competencies. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 855-865. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2012.32.5.855
  16. Kwak, Y., Son, J, Kim, M., & 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
  17. Lim, Y. (2016). A study on the ways of presenting key competencies in the 2015 revised national curriculum and the implications from the scotland's 'Curriculum for ex-cellence'. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(5), 143-167.
  18. Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., Smit, S., Ellingrud, K., Meaney, M., & Robinson, O. (2021). The future of work after COVID-19 (Research Rep.). McKinsey Global Institute.
  19. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2015). 2015 revised national curriculum - Science [2015 개정 교육과정 -과학]. MOE Notice No. 2015-74 [A separate volume 9].
  20. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2020). After COVID-19, for the future education transformation, Top 10 Policy Tasks (Draft) [코로나 이후, 미래교육 전환을 위한 10대 정책과제(안)]. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  21. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2021). Key point of a general guideline of 2022 revised national curriculum [2022 개정 교육과정 총론 주요 사항]. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  22. Ministry of Education (MOE) (2022). 2022 revised national curriculum [2022 개정 교육과정]. Sejong: Ministry of Education.
  23. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MOSIFP) (2017). Mid - to long-term comprehensive measures for the intelligence society in response to the fourth industrial revolution (Research Rep.). Gwacheon, Gyeonggi: Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning.
  24. National Research Council, U.S. (NRC, U.S.) (2012). A Framework for K12 Science Education - Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D.C., USA: The National Academies Press.
  25. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  26. OECD (2016). E2030 conceptual framework: key competencies for 2030 (DeSeCo 2.0). OECD.
  27. OECD (2018) The future we want. the future of education and skills: education 2030. OECD.
  28. OECD (2019a). OECD future of education and skills 2030 : learning compass 2030. OECD.
  29. OECD (2019b). OECD future of education and skills 2030 : transformative competencies 2030. OECD.
  30. Pratt, H. (2013). The NSTA Reader's Guide to the Next Generation Science Standards. Arlingtion, USA: NSTA Press.
  31. Royal Society, UK (2008). A 'state of the nation' report 2008: Science and mathematics education, 14-19. London, UK: The Royal Society.
  32. Royal Society of Biology, UK (RSB, UK) (2019). Biology changing the world: Royal Society of Biology strategic plan 2019-2021. London, UK: The Royal Society of Biology.
  33. Royal Society of Biology, UK (RSB, UK) (2021). Evolving 5-19 biology: recommendations and framework for 5-19 biology curricula. London, UK: The Royal Society of Biology.
  34. Royal Society Science Policy Centre, UK (RSSPC, UK) (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education. London, UK: The Royal Society.
  35. School of Science and Technology, Singapore (SST, Singapore) (2017). Shaping future innovations, the SST way. School of Science and Technology, Singapore.
  36. Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Colony/ Geneva: World Economic Forum.
  37. Seol, Y. (2020). Transformational competency-based education according to future-oriented educational design plans. Korean Journal of General Education, 14(3), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.46392/kjge.2020.14.3.25
  38. Shim, K. C., Han, H. J., & Kim, N. H. (2018). Trends in international researches of biology/science education focused on science competency research. Biology Education, 46(1), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2018.46.1.111
  39. Shim, K. C., Kang, Y. S., Shin, J. B., & Kim, H. S. (2004). An analysis of learning contents in the life science textbooks under the 7th curriculum: on the unit of stimuli and response. Biology Education, 32(2), 114-123.
  40. Shim, K. C., Son, J., Lee, B. W., Lee, Y. J., and Han, H. J. (2021). A study on the mid to long Term development plan for gifted science academies and science high school [영재학교⋅과학고 중장기 발전방안 연구]. (Research Rep.). Ministry of Education and Korea Education Development Institute.
  41. Smit, S., Tache, T., Lund, S., Manyika, J., & Thiel, L. (2020). The future of work in Europe - Automation, workforce transitions, and the shifting geography of employment. McKinsey Global Institute.
  42. Song, J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., Do, J., Min, B., Park, S., Bae, S., Son, Y., Son, J., Oh, P., Lee, J., Im, H., Jeong, D., Joung, Y., & Jeong, J. (2018). Development of Science Education Standards for Next Generation [미래세대를 위한 과학교육표준 개발] (Research Rep.). Seoul: Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity.
  43. Song, S. C., & Shim, K. C. (2018). Analysis of science key competencies in inquiry activity of integrated science textbooks. Biology Education, 46(2), 222-236. https://doi.org/10.15717/BIOEDU.2018.46.2.222
  44. UBS (2016). Extreme automation and connectivity: The global, regional, and investment implications of the fourth industrial revolution. UBS White Paper for the World Economic Forum, Annual Meeting 2016.
  45. UNESCO (2016). Global monitoring of target 4.7, themes in national curriculum frameworks, background paper prepared for the 2016 global education monitoring report. IBE-UNESCO.
  46. UNESCO (2020). Education in a post-COVID world: Nine ideas for public action. UNESCO.
  47. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2022). State of the global climate 2021. (Report WMO-No. 1290) Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.
  48. WPP, & Kantar (2019). BrandZTM Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands 2019. (Report) WPP and Kantar.