Communications of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈E:수학교육논문집)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of the linkage between the three categories of content system according to the 2022 revised mathematics curriculum and the lesson titles of mathematics textbooks for the first and second-grade elementary school

2022 개정 수학과 교육과정에 따른 내용 체계의 세 범주와 초등학교 1~2학년 수학 교과서 차시명의 연계성 분석

  • Kim, Sung Joon (Busan National University of Education) ;
  • Kim, Eun kyung (Daejeon Bongmyeong Elementary School) ;
  • Kwon, Mi sun (Shinpoong Elementary School)
  • 김성준 (부산교육대학교) ;
  • 김은경 (대전봉명초등학교) ;
  • 권미선 (신풍초등학교)
  • Received : 2024.05.24
  • Accepted : 2024.06.24
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Since the 5th mathematics curriculum, the goals of mathematics education have been presented in three categories: cognitive, process, and affective goals. In the 2022 revised mathematics curriculum, the content system was also presented as knowledge-understanding, process-skill, and value-attitude. Therefore, in order to present lesson goals to students, it is necessary to present all three aspects that are the goals of mathematics education. Currently, the lesson titles presented in mathematics textbooks are directly linked to lesson goals and are the first source of information for students during class. Accordingly, this study analyzed how the three categories of lesson titles and content system presented in the 2015 revised 1st and 2nd grade mathematics textbook are connected. As a result, most lesson titles presented two of the three categories, but the reflected elements showed a tendency to focus on the categories of knowledge-understanding and process-skill. Some cases of lesson titles reflected content elements of the value-attitude category, but this showed significant differences depending on the mathematics content area. Considering the goals of mathematics lessons, it will be necessary to look at ways to present lesson titles that reflect the content elements of the value-attitude categories and also explore ways to present them in a balanced way. In particular, considering the fact that students can accurately understand the goals of the knowledge-understanding categories even without presenting them, descriptions that specifically reflect the content elements of the process-skill and value-attitude categories seem necessary. Through this, we attempted to suggest the method of presenting the lesson titles needed when developing the 2022 revised mathematics textbook and help present effective lesson goals using this.

제5차 수학과 교육과정부터 수학과 교육 목표는 인지적, 과정적, 정의적 목표의 세 범주로 제시되어 왔으며, 2022 개정 수학과 교육과정에서는 내용 체계 역시 지식·이해, 과정·기능, 가치·태도로 구분하여 제시하고 있다. 따라서 학생들에게 수업 목표를 제시하기 위해서는 수학과 교육 목표인 세 가지 측면을 모두 제시할 필요가 있다. 현재 수학 교과서에 제시되는 차시명은 수업 목표와 직접적으로 연결되어 있으며, 학생들이 수업 중 가장 먼저 정보를 얻을 수 있는 부분이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 2015 개정 1~2학년 수학 교과서에 제시된 차시명과 내용 체계의 세 범주가 어떻게 연결되어 있는지를 분석하였다. 분석 결과 대부분의 차시명은 세 범주 중 2가지를 제시하고 있었으나 반영된 요소는 지식·이해와 과정·기능 범주에 편중된 양상을 보였다. 일부 차시명의 경우 가치·태도 범주의 내용 요소를 반영하고 있었으나, 이는 수학 내용 영역에 따라 제시된 내용 요소 수에 많은 차이를 보였다. 세 범주의 균형있는 학습을 위해 가치·태도 범주의 내용 요소를 반영한 차시명을 제시할 수 있는 방안을 살펴보고, 영역별로 차이를 보이지 않도록 균형있게 제시하는 방안도 함께 탐색해 볼 필요가 있을 것이다. 특히 지식·이해 범주는 제시하지 않아도 학생들이 그 목표를 정확히 이해할 수 있다는 점을 고려하여, 지식·이해 범주에 맞춰진 초점에서 벗어나 과정·기능과 가치·태도 범주의 내용 요소를 구체적으로 반영하는 진술도 필요해 보인다. 이를 통해 2022 개정 수학 교과서 개발 시 필요한 차시명 제시 방식을 제안하고 이를 활용한 효과적인 수업 목표를 제시하는 데 도움을 주고자 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics curriculum. Notification of Ministry of Education No. 2015-74 [Vol 8]. 
  2. Ministry of Education (2022). Mathematics curriculum. Notification of Ministry of Education No. 2022-33 [Vol 8]. 
  3. Kwon, J. R. (2017). Elementary school teachers' perceptions and demands on the 2015 revised mathematics curriculum. The Mathematical Education, 56(2), 213-234.
  4. Kwon, J. R. & Kwon, M. S. (2023). Exploring factors influencing affective characteristics in elementary school students: Focusing on school mathematics education and social environment. Education of Primary School Mathematics, 26(3), 199-217. 
  5. Kim, Y. S. (2021). A longitudinal study on the effect of teacher characteristics perceived by students on mathematics academic achievement: Targeting middle and high school students. Communications of Mathematical Education, 35(1), 97-118. 
  6. Kim, J. H. (2019). Analysis of teachers' perceptions on elementary mathematics textbooks according to the 2015 revised curriculum. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 23(4), 507-527. 
  7. Kim, P. S., Lim, M. I. & Chang, H. W. (2017). A Comparative study on unit and lesson frameworks of elementary mathematics textbooks and research on teachers' preference. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 21(2), 263-289. 
  8. The Ministry of Education and Culture (1981). Elementary school curriculum. Notification of Ministry of Education and Culture No. 442 [Vol 2]. 
  9. The Ministry of Education and Culture (1987). Elementary school curriculum. Notification of Ministry of Education and Culture No. 87-9. 
  10. Park, H. J., Bea, J. J. & Jo, K. S. (2012). Analysis of instructional and evaluational objectives in chemistry I textbooks. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 56(4), 491-499. 
  11. Yoon, P. H. & Leem, J. H. (2020). Impact of learning objectives ambiguity on the academic achievement: The mediating effect of learning attitude & the mediated moderating effect of study crafting. The Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 20(7), 255-282. 
  12. Lee, J. C., Kim, S. Y. & Kang, H, J. (2009). A comparative study of elementary school mathematics textbooks between Korea and Japan - Focused on the 4th grade -. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 13(1), 1-15. 
  13. Lim, S. J. & Song, S. H. (2015). Analysis on the perception discrepancy between teacher's teaching goal and students' learning goal in the elementary school mathematics class for the gifted. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 19(1), 1-16.
  14. Clements, D. H. & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81-89.
  15. Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 271-305.
  16. Hattie, John A. C. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
  17. Haystead, M. W. & Marzano, R. J. (2009). Meta-analytic synthesis of studies conducted at marzano research laboratory on instructional strategies. Marzano Research Laboratory.
  18. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  19. Marzano, R. J. (2009). Designing and teaching learning goals and objectives: Classroom strategies that work. Marzano Research Laboratory.
  20. NCTM (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  21. NCTM (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  22. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom teacher expectation and pupils' intellectural development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  23. Suh, J. M. & Seshaiyer, P. (2016). Modeling mathematical ideas: Developing strategic competence in elementary and middle school. Rowman & Littlefeld.