Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0277

A Comparative Analysis of Achievement Standards of the 2007 & 2009 Revised Elementary Science Curriculum with Next Generation Science Standards in US based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy  

Choi, Jung In (Korea National University of Education)
Paik, Seoung Hye (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.35, no.2, 2015 , pp. 277-288 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to find the point for improvement through the comparative analysis of the 2007 & 2009 revised science curriculum, and the NGSS of the United States with Bloom's revised taxonomy. The results of the analysis confirmed that the revised curriculum in 2009 compared to the revised curriculum in 2007 has expanded the type of cognitive process and knowledge, which promote a higher level thinking. However, the revised curriculum in 2009 has been biased to the type of specific cognitive process and knowledge in cognitive process dimension and knowledge dimension as compared to the NGSS of the United States. In the revised curriculum in 2009, the type of cognitive process such as 'analyze,' 'evaluate,' 'create,' and the type of knowledge such as 'meta-cognitive knowledge' have been treated inattentively. In addition, through comparative analysis, it was identified that the type of cognitive process and knowledge that were neglected in achievement standards were not dealt with in the learning objective of teachers' guides, either. The revised curriculum should consist of achievement standards in comparison to the previous curriculum to reflect better the goals of science education. Therefore, it is necessary to create an achievement standards including various types of cognitive processes and knowledge by improving the method of statement of achievement standards of science curriculum.
Keywords
science curriculum; achievement standards; Bloom's revised taxonomy;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Cho, Y., Seong, J., Chae, J., & Koo, S. (2000). Development and Application of Elementary Science Curriculum to Enhance Creative Problem Solving Abilities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(2), 307-328.
2 Choi, K., Cho, Y., & Cho, D. (1998). A Study for the Middle School Science Curriculum to Enhance Creative Problem Solving Abilities - Focusing on the 6th National Curriculum and Classroom Observations. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 18(2), pp. 149-160.
3 Deno, S. L., & Jenkins, J. R. (1969). On the behaviorality of behavioral objectives. Psychology in the Schools, 6(1), 18-24.   DOI
4 Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grade K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
5 Ha, S., & Kwack, D. (2008). Analysis of Instructional Objectives in a Teaching-Learning Material for Gifted Elementary Students in Science by Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 18(3), 591-612.
6 Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.
7 Kang, K., & Lim, S. (2010). Analysis of the cognitive domain in the science textbooks' questions. - Focused on “Materials” in the 7th grade of the 2007 revised national curriculum. Journal of the Society for the International Gifted in Science, 4(2), 125-132.
8 Kim, E. C., & Kellough, R. D. (1991). A Resource Guide for Secondary School Teaching. New York: Macmillan.
9 Kim, H. (2002). The Review of Educational Objective Theory, Analysis of Unit Objective and Proposal of Objective Statement Method. Journal of Korean practical arts education, 15(1), 1-21.
10 Kim, N. (2008). The Development and Application of Elementary Practical Art Evaluation Instrument Based on the National Achievement Standards and Evaluation Criteria - Focused in life science contents. (Master's thesis). Seoul National University of Education.
11 Kim, S. (2013). The Study on the Changing Possibility of National Curriculum based on the Core Knowledge Sequence. Journal of Curriculum Integration, 7(1), 69-95.
12 Kim, S., Baek, S., & Chae, S. (1998). A review of the development of 'achievement standards and evaluation criteria' in national level. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 11(1), 47-73.
13 Kim, Y., Lee, H., & Shin. A. (2007). Classification 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.
14 Kim, Y., Yoon, K., & Kwon, D. (2010). Analysis of Summative Evaluation Objectives in Middle School Biology based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 164-174.
15 Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 41(4), 212-218.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Kreitzer, A., & Madaus, G. (1994). "Empirical Investigations of the Hierarchical Structure of the Taxonony" In Anderson, L. and Sosniak, L.(Eds.) Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospective. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
17 Lee, S. & Paik, S. (2013). Suggestion for Science Education through the Analysis of Archimedes' Creative Problem Solving Process. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 30-45.   DOI
18 Lee, E., Shin, M., & Choi, C. (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.
19 Lee, G., & Yoo, T. (2011). Analysis of Cognitive Learning Objectives in the 2007 Home Economics High School Textbooks and Achievement Standards by the Anderson's 'Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives'. Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association, 23(3), 53-68.
20 Lee, H. (2007). Classifications of Instructional Objectives of Biology based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. (Master's thesis). Kyungpook National University.
21 Marsh, C. (1992). Key Concept for Understanding Curriculum Development. Paris: UNESCO.
22 Matthews, M. R. (2014). Science teaching : the role of history and philosophy of science (Kwon, S., Song, J., & Park, J. Trans.). London: Routledge. (original work published 1994).
23 Marzano, R. J. (2005). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives (Kang, H., Kang, Y., Kwon, D., Park, Y., Lee, W., Cho, Y., Joo, D., & Choi, H. Trans.). CA: Corwin Press. (original work published 2001).
24 Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007a). A Guide for Science Curriculum. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.
25 Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007b). Science Curriculum. Notification No. 2007-79 of the MEHRD. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.
26 Park, I., & Kang, S. (2011). Science Teachers' Perceptions on Scientific and Creative Problem Solving. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(2), 314-327.
27 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009). Elementary and Secondary School Curriculum : General Statement. Notification No. 2009-41 of the MEST. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
28 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2012). Science Curriculum. Notification No. 2011-361 of the MEST. Seoul: Ministry of Education Science and Technology.
29 Ormell, C. P.(1994). Bloom's Taxonomy and the Objectives of Education. Educational Research, 17, 3-18.
30 Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 41(4), 219-225.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Seo, Y. (2013). A Critical Review on Statement Form of Content Achievement Standards in the Korean Language Curriculum. Korean language education research, 46, 417-450.
32 Shin, J., & Cho, C. (2008). The Statement of Geography Instruction Objectives and the Creation of Evaluation Questions Based on Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The journal of the Korean association of geographic and environmental education, 16(2), 129-144.   DOI
33 Wang, S., Baek, S., & Choi, S. (1999). Research for Development of Evaluation Criteria and tools on the National Curriculum. RRE 1999-4-1. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
34 Wee, S., Kim, B., 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.
35 Cho, H., Kim, H., Yoon, H., & Lee, K. (2014). Science Education. Seoul: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
36 Ministry of Education. (2014, September 24). Announcement for main respect of 2015 integrated curriculum of liberal art and natural science. Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.moe.go.kr/web/100026/ko/board/ view.do?bbsId=294&pageSize=10¤tPage=3&encodeYn=Y&boardSeq= 56874&mode=view.
37 Next Generation Science Standards. (2014, December 14). NGSS Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/iles/Final%20Release%20NGSS%20Front%20Matter%20-%206.17.13%20Update_0.pdf
38 Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Rath, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2005). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. (Kang, H., Kang, Y., Kwon, D., Park, Y., Lee, W., Cho, Y., Joo, D., & Choi, H. Trans.) Boston: Pearson. (original work published 2000).
39 Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Congnitive domain, New york: David Mckay.
40 Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L. W. (2008). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for development scientific literacy, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.