Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2010.30.1.140

Science Teachers' Perception on Major Features of the 2007 Revised Science Curriculum for Class Implementation  

Sim, Jae-Ho (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation)
Shin, Myeong-Kyeong (GyeongIn National University of Education)
Lee, Sun-Kyung (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.30, no.1, 2010 , pp. 140-156 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate how science teachers perceived major features of the 2007 revised science curriculum and implementing them in classes. The 2007 revised science curriculum included critical features such as creativity, open inquiry, science writing, discussion and STS. In terms of necessity, clarity and complexity of those features for curriculum implementation, teacher perceptions were examined. Particularly with regard to open inquiry assigned 6 class periods per semester as one of the critical features of 2007 revised science curriculum, we asked teachers how they would prepare and implement the technique in their teaching. In results of this study, science teachers agreed on the necessity and importance of those major features of the 2007 revised science curriculum, including creativity, open inquiry, science writing, discussion, and STS. However, they were not clear on how those would work in their classrooms and expected various impediments. Open inquiry was specifically perceived as most negative in its implementation with the mention of various complex reasons. Based on findings in this study, we proposed the 'Dual Action Research Model' for curriculum implementation. It tries to explain how curriculum is implemented in classrooms and diminish the gaps between curriculum developers and teacher users by means of leading teachers to understand the curriculum meaningfully and implement their teaching based on this understanding.
Keywords
science curriculum implementation; teaching practice; science teacher;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 이명제 (2004). 과학 교육과정 개혁 연구의 쟁점들. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(5), 916-929.   과학기술학회마을
2 이화진, 허숙, 김경자, 김신영, 박영숙, 소경희 (1999). 제7차 교육과정 실행 대비 점검.평가 연구. 한국교육과정평가원. '99년 교육정책 연구과제.
3 천일석, 박선형(2007). 선택중심 교육과정: 실행 영향 변인과 교사의 인식 분석, 교육과정연구, 25(1), 213-246.
4 노태희, 권혁순, 김혜경, 박승재 (2000). 제6차 고등학교 과학 교육과정과 실천에 대한 과학 교사의 인식 조사. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(1), 20-28.
5 이경진, 김경자 (2005). 실행을 중심으로 본 교육과정의 의미와 교사의 역할. 교육과정연구, 23(3), 64-67.
6 Saylor, J. G. & Alexandre, W. M. (1974). Planning curriculum for schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
7 곽영순 (2004). 제7차 초등 과학과 교육과정 운영실태 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(5), 1028-1038.   과학기술학회마을
8 김대현, 황춘숙(2002). 제7차 초등학교 수학과 교육과정 실행 수준에 관한 연구. 교육연구, 12, 1-22.
9 Parke, H. M. & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers desining curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 773-389.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Rogan, J. M. & Grayso, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171-1204.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Fullan M.(2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. N.Y & London: Teachers College, Columbia Unisity Press.
12 Powell, J., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers'practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107-135.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Rogan, J. (2007). How much curriculum change is appropriate? Defining a zone of feasible innovation. Science Education, 91, 439-460.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Mills, G. (2005). 교사를 위한 실행 연구 (강성우, 부경순, 심영택, 양갑렬, 오세규, 이경화, 이혁규, 임진영, 허영식 역). 서울: 우리교육. (원서 2003년 발행)
15 Parke, H. M. & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 773-789.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Gross, N., Giacquinta, J., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Basic Books.
17 Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.
18 Marsh, Colin J. & Willis, George(2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ,ongoing issues, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
19 Fullan, M. G. & Pomfet, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction. Review of Educational Research, Winter 47(1), 335-397.   DOI
20 Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M.. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 7. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
22 홍후조, 박순경, 김성숙, 소경희, 김진숙(1999b). 제7차 교육과정에 따른 중학교 교육과정 실행 방안연구. 한국교육과정평가원. 연구보고 RRC 99-7-2
23 Fullan M.(2000). The return of large scale reform. The Joural of Educational Change, 1(1), 1-23.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 홍후조, 박순경, 김성숙, 소경희, 김진숙(1999c). 제7차 교육과정에 따른 고등학교 교육과정 실행 방안연구. 한국교육과정평가원. 연구보고 RRC 99-7-3.
25 Bencze, L. & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 521-539.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Berman, P. (1980). Thinking about programmed and adaptive implementation: Matching strategies to situations. In H. Ingram & D. Mann(Eds.), Why policies succeed or fail(pp. 205-227). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27 최홍재, 한인섭(2001). 제7차 중학교 과학 교육과정 실행 여건 조사.분석. 한국생물교육학회지, 29(1). 65-77.
28 홍후조, 박순경, 김성숙, 소경희, 김진숙(1999a). 제7차 교육과정에 따른 초등학교 교육과정 실행 방안연구. 한국교육과정평가원. 연구보고 RRC 99-7-1.