Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.729

Developmental Study of Science Education Content Standards  

Park, Hyun-Ju (Chosun University)
Kim, Young-Min (Pusan National University)
Noh, Suk-Goo (Gyeongin National University of Education)
Jeong, Jin-Su (Daegu University)
Lee, Eun-Ah (Seoul National University)
Yu, Eun-Jeong (Sinsa Middle School)
Lee, Dong-Wook (Seoul National University)
Park, Jong-Won (Chonnam National University)
Baek, Yoon-Su (Yonsei University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.32, no.4, 2012 , pp. 729-750 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop science education content standards, to guide in developing k-12 national science curriculum, and to provide guidance for local districts and schools to effectively apply the national science curriculum to their school curriculum. We suggest ideas for science education content standards, describing how science education content standards would look through reviews of literature for background research, surveys, and interviews to set the frame, developing standards for each sub-component, and examining and revising. The science education content standards consist of situation, components, and performance. Situation refers to when, where, and how science was needed. Components refers to what kind of knowledge and what kind of process and understanding should be taught in school science, like Nature of Science, Scientific Creativity, Scientific Inquiry, & Disciplinary Core Ideas. Performance refers to what we would like to achieve through science education.
Keywords
science education standards; content standards; situations; components; performance;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 교육과학기술부(2009). 2009 개정 교육과정: 초.중등 교육과정 총론. 서울: 교육과학기술부.
2 권재술(1991). 학문 중심 과학교육의 문제점과 생활 소재의 과학 교재화 방안. 한국과학교육학회지. 11(1). 117-126.
3 노태희, 노석구, 유준희, 오필석(2010). 현행 과학 교육과정의 실행 실태와 문제점 및 차기 교육과정 개정의 방향 제안.
4 류성철(2004). 생활 속 경험과 생활 주변의 소재를 이용한 물리 교육. 물리학과 첨단기술, 13(4), 21-25.
5 박동섭(2009) 상황학습론에 기초한 학습전이론의 비판적 고찰: 무시된 상황과 행위자의 능동성의 복원, 초등교육연구 제22권 제1호, 459-489.
6 박정은, 유은정, 이선경, 김찬종(2009). 논증구조 교육을 통한 고등학교 학생들의 과학 글쓰기 분석: 과학 글쓰기 장르에 따른 글쓰기 과제를 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 29*8), 824-847.
7 박종원(2011). 과학적 창의성의 이해와 지도. 새물리, 61, 947-961.
8 송숙희(2008). 성공하는 사람들의 7가지 관찰 습관. 서울: 위즈덤하우스
9 송희성, 문광순, 박승재, 이규석, 유준희, 정선양, 정완호, 한효순(2005). 초.중.고등학교 과학교과 교육과정 개선 방안, 한국과학기술한림원 보고서.
10 심재호, 신명경, 박선화(2009). 학교 교육 경쟁력 강화를 위한 교육과정 실행 방안 연구. 한국교육과정평가원 연구보고 RRC 2009-4-2.
11 한국교육과정평가원(2006). 국어과 교육과정개정시안 수정.보안 연구, 한국교육과정평가원 보고서. 위탁과제답신보고.
12 한국교육과정평가원(2010). 초중등학교 교육과정 선진화 방안 연구 연구보고 ORM2010-27.
13 AAAS(1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Project 2061. OUP: New York. (http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/bolintro.htm)
14 Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G.(2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.   DOI
15 Ajzen, I.(1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
16 Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duiguid, P.(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
17 Cavemi, J. P., Fabre, J. M., & Gonzalez, M.(1990). Cognitive biases: their contribution for understanding human cognitive processes. In G. E. Stelmach, & P. A. Vroon(eds.), Advances in psychology 68, Elselvier Science Publishing Company. INC.
18 CMEC(1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Toronto: CMEC Secretariat.
19 Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P.(1996). Young people's image of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
20 Freudenthal, H.(1991). Revising mathematics education: China Lectures. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21 Gardner, H.(1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
22 Greeno, J. G., & The Middle School Mathematics Through Application Project Group(1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Hodson, D.(1998). Is this really what scientist do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical Work in School Science (pp.93-108). NY: Routledge.
24 Mechling, K. R., & Oliver, D. L.(1983). Activities, not textbooks: What research says about science programs. Principal, 62(4), 41-43.
25 Lester, F.(2007). Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Information Age Publishing Inc.
26 Marzano, R. J.(2001) Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives by Robert J. Marzano, Corwin Press
27 Matthews, M. R.(1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161-174.   DOI
28 NCTM(2000). Principles & standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
29 Nicholls, J. G.(1972). Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original and useful: the concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait, American Psychologist, 27, 717-727.   DOI
30 NLNAC(2002). Curriculum development and evaluation. Hamilton: NLNAC
31 Noller, R. B., Parens, S. J., & Biondi, A. M.(1976). Creative action book. NY: Scribner's.
32 NRC(1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
33 NRC(2011). A framework for k-12 science education: practices, cross cutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academics Press (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165)
34 NSTA(2004). NSTA position statement: Scientific Inquiry (http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/e-learning.aspx)
35 Osborn, A.(1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. NY: Scribner's.
36 Parens, S. J., Noller, R. B., & Biondi, A. M.(1977). Guide to creative action. NYC: Charles Scribner's Sons.
37 Park, Jongwon (2012). Developing the format and samples of teaching materials for scientific creativity in the ordinary science curriculum -including teachers' practice and reflection-. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(3), 446-466.   DOI
38 Rogoff, B., Goodman Turkanis, D., & Bartlett, L.(2001). Learning together: children and adults in a school. Community. New York: Oxford University Press.
39 Richards, R.(2007). Everyday creativity in encyclopedia of creativity, Edited by M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (pp. 683-688). London: Academic Press.
40 Richards, R., Kinney, D. K., Bennet, M., & Merzel, A. P. C.(1988). Assessing everyday creativity: Characteristics of the lifetime creativity scales and validation with three large sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 476-485.   DOI
41 Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. T.(1984). The meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11-22.   DOI
42 Roth, W. M., Hwang, S., Gourlart, M. I. M., & Lee, Y. J.(2005). Participation, learning and identity: Dialectical perspectives. Berlin: Lehmann.
43 Ruth, W.(1992). Teaching for transfer of learning. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352-469.
44 Sternberg, R. J.(1977) Intelligence, information processing and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45 Sund, R., & Trowbridge, L.(1973). Teaching science by inquiry in the secondary school, Columbus, OH: Merrill
46 Torrance, E. P.(1987). Teaching for creativity, In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 190-215). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Press.
47 Van den Brink, F. J.(1989). Realistisch rekenonderwijsaan Jonge Kinderen. OW & OC, no. 10, Universiteit Utrecht.
48 Weisberg, R. W.(2006). Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts. NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
49 Whitelegg, E., & Parry, M.(1999). Real-life contexts for learning physics: meaning, issues and practice. Physics Education, 34(2), 68-72.   DOI   ScienceOn
50 Wilson, A. L.(1993). The promise of situated cognition. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 57. 71-79.