Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15267/keses.2015.34.2.183

Analysis of the Alignment between Elementary Science Curriculum and Teacher Guidebook - Examining Learning Objectives in 2009 Grade 3~4 Science Curriculum -  

Na, Jiyeon (Chuncheon National University of Education)
Yoon, Hye-Gyoung (Chuncheon National University of Education)
Kim, Mijung (University of Alberta)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education / v.34, no.2, 2015 , pp. 183-193 More about this Journal
Abstract
Teacher guidebooks are practical and commonly used resources for teachers to deliver the goals and contents of science curriculum in classroom teaching. Thus, the alignment of teacher guidebooks and science curriculum could be critical to undertake the effectiveness of curriculum implication in science classrooms. This study is to investigate how the learning objectives of science curriculum are implicated in teacher guidebooks by analyzing the dimensions of knowledge and cognitive process in learning objectives in both documents. Grade 3~4 learning objectives (82 objectives in the curriculum, 459 in the teacher guidebook, 541 in total) in 2009 Revised science curriculum and teacher guidebooks were coded and analyzed based on the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. The analysis focused on how the knowledge dimensions and cognitive processes of the curriculum were emphasized and restructured in the teacher guidebooks to examine the coalition between the two important documents. The study found: 1) the learning objectives in Grade 3~4 in both documents were skewed to certain knowledge dimension (conceptual) and cognitive process (understand); 2) there was a high coalition between unit objectives and lesson objectives in the teacher guidebooks, however, relatively low coalition between the curriculum and the teacher guidebooks; and 3) learning objectives in the curriculum were delivered in teacher guidebooks in various patterns (similar, detailed, additional, in portion, and the same), and 'detailed' and 'additional' were frequently shown. There also appeared new objectives in the teacher guidebooks, which were not present in the curriculum. The findings in this study could provide some suggestions to the current project of developing 2015 Science Curriculum in regard to understanding the dimensions of knowledge and cognitive process of learning objectives and their alignments with textbooks and teacher guidebooks.
Keywords
curricular alignment; Revised Bloom's Taxonomy; 2009 Revised science curriculum;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional design theories and models. Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2 Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3 Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.   DOI
4 Porter, A. C., Blank, R. & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27-51.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
6 Posner, G. J. & Rudnitsky, A. N. (2006). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
7 Ryle, G. (1971). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes.
8 Seo, D. W. & Jeong, J. W. (1994). An analysis on completeness of educational objectives in elementary science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 14(3), 321-329.
9 Wee, S.-M., Kim, B.-K., Cho, H., Sohn, J. & Oh, C. (2011). Comparison of instructional objectives of the 2007 revised elementary science curriculum with 7th elementary curriculum based on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(1), 10-21.
10 Winfield, L. F. (1993). Investigating test content and curriculum content overlap to assess opportunity to learn. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 288-310.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Wolf, R. M. (1990). Evaluation in education: Foundations of competency assessment and program review. New York: Praeger.
12 Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A reexamination. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255-260.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Abridged edition. New York: Longman.
14 Collette, A. T. & Chiappetta, E. H. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (2nd ed.). Columbus: Merrill Pub. Co.
15 Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.   DOI
16 Baratz-Snowden, J. C. (1993). Opportunity to learn: Implications for professional development. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 311-323.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Bloom (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. New York: Longmans.
18 Go, J. (2010). Understanding and development of curriculum by historical approach [역사적 접근의 교육과정 이해와 개발]. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
19 Han, K. & Noh, S. (2003). An analysis on the utilization of teacher's guides for science in elementary school. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 22(1), 51-64.
20 Hauenstein, A. D. (1998). A conceptual framework for educational objectives. Kim, Y., Park, Y., Lee, W., Choi, H., Kang, H., Choi, B., Park, C. Park, C. (transl.) (2004). [신 교육목표분류학]. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
21 Jeon, Y. M. (2006). Understanding American teachers' use of teachers' manuals: Two case studies. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 23(3), 5-24.
22 Kang, H.-S. (2011). Study of contemporary curriculum [현대 교육과정 탐구]. Seoul: Hakjisa.
23 Kim, Y., Lee, H.-S. & Shin A.-K. (2007). Classifications of instructional objectives of elementary science based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 26(5), 570-579.
24 Kweon, J., Chung, W. & Kim, Y. (2001). Teachers' perception and improvement on the elementary science teacher's guide. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 20(1), 75-90.
25 Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation of learning in science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings & G. F. Madaus (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: MaGraw-Hill.
26 Korea Ministry of Government Legislation (2014). Elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved Jan. 26, 2015, from http://law.go.kr
27 Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Kwon, J.-S, (1984). Klopfer's classification of educational objectives for science education. Journal of Science and Science Education, 9, 67-72.
29 Lee, E., Shin, M.-K. & Choi, C. I. (2012). Analyses of instructional objectives of 'Wise Life' based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(1), 1-12.
30 Lee, H.-S. & Kim, Y. (2008). Analysis of primary and secondary biology instructional objectives on 7th science curriculum: Based on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of Korean Biology Education, 36(1), 52-62.
31 Liu, X., Zhang, B., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G., Kim, B. & Yuan, H. (2009). Alignment between the physics content standard and the standardized test: A comparison among the United States New York State, Singapore, and China Jiangsu. Science Education, 93(5), 777-797.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. California: Corwin Press, Inc.