Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.5.799

Comparison of the Science Curricula of Korea, the United States, England, and Singapore: Focus on the Concept of Energy  

Yoon, Hye-Gyoung (Chuncheon National University of Education)
Cheong, Yong Wook (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.37, no.5, 2017 , pp. 799-812 More about this Journal
Abstract
Energy as a powerful and unifying concept to understand natural world has been regarded as one of the key concepts of the science curricula in many countries. However, concerning learning and teaching of energy, various difficulties have been reported widely. This study aimed at analyzing and comparing science curricula of Korea, the U.S., England, and Singapore regarding energy to identify the potential issues for energy curriculum in the future. 2015 revised Korean science curriculum, Next Generation Science Standards of the U.S., Science programmes of study of England, and the Science syllabus of Singapore were compared based on six basic elements of the concept of energy: energy form, energy resource, energy transfer, energy transformation, energy conservation, and energy dissipation. Achievement criteria that include energy were extracted from all curricula and categorized into the six elements. The frequency and distribution of the six elements in the four curricula were compared in terms of school levels and disciplinary areas. Contents of six energy elements were also compared. Though all curricula emphasized energy as a key science concept, we found many differences in the degree of emphasis of basic ideas and specific contents and approaches. Korean curriculum is characterized by 1) high frequency concerning energy form among the elements of the concept of energy, 2) introducing energy forms of unclear meaning, which are not linked with other physical quantities, 3) emphasis on energy conversion in comparison of energy transfer, 4) focusing on mechanical energy conservation instead of more general energy conservation, and 5) absence of the concept of 'system' concerning energy. Issues for energy curriculum development were discussed.
Keywords
energy; science curriculum; energy form; energy resource; energy transfer; energy transformation; energy conservation; energy dissipation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Arons, A. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. New York: Wiley.
2 Arons, A. (1999). Development of energy concepts in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 67(12), 1063.1067.   DOI
3 Brewe, E. (2011). Energy as a substancelike quantity that flows: Theoretical considerations and pedagogical consequences. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 7(2), 020106.   DOI
4 Cheong, Y. W., & Song, J. (2011). Ontological analysis of the concepts of energy and energy conservation and its educational implications. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 61(9), 850-861.   DOI
5 Coopersmith, J. (2015). Energy, the subtle concept: the discovery of Feynman's blocks from Leibniz to Einstein. Oxford University Press, USA.
6 CPDD [Curriculum Planning & Development Division]. (2013). Science syllabus primary 2014. Singapore: CPDD Ministry of Education.
7 CPDD [Curriculum Planning & Development Division]. (2012). Science syllabus lower secondary Express course Normal (Academic) Course. Singapore: CPDD Ministry of Education.
8 CPDD [Curriculum Planning & Development Division]. (2013). Science syllabus lower and upper secondary Normal (technical) course. Singapore: CPDD Ministry of Education.
9 CPDD [Curriculum Planning & Development Division]. (2016). Biology syllabus pre-university higher 2 syllabus 9744. Singapore: CPDD Ministry of Education.
10 CPDD [Curriculum Planning & Development Division]. (2016). Chemistry syllabus pre-university higher 2 syllabus 9729. Singapore: CPDD Ministry of Education.
11 CPDD [Curriculum Planning & Development Division]. (2016). Physics syllabus pre-university higher 2 syllabus 9749. Singapore: CPDD Ministry of Education.
12 Department for Education (2013) National curriculum in England.: Science programmes of study - key stages 1 and 2. England: Department for education.
13 Department for Education (2013) National curriculum in England.: Science programmes of study - key stage 3. England: Department for education.
14 Department for Education (2014) National curriculum in England.: Science programmes of study - key stage 4. England: Department for education.
15 Driver, R., & Millar, R. (Eds.). (1986). Energy matters. Leeds: University of Leeds.
16 Jewett Jr, J. W. (2008b). Energy and the confused student IV: A global approach to energy. The Physics Teacher, 46(4), 210-217.   DOI
17 Duit, R. (1986). In search of an energy concept. In R. Driver & R. Millar (Eds.), Energy matters (pp. 67-102). Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
18 Harrer, B. W., Flood, V. J., & Wittmann, M. C. (2013). Productive resources in students' ideas about energy: An alternative analysis of Watts' original interview transcripts. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9(2), 023101.   DOI
19 Jewett Jr, J. W. (2008a). Energy and the confused student II: Systems. The Physics Teacher, 46(2), 81-86.   DOI
20 Kaper, W. H., & Goedhart, M. J. (2002). 'Forms of Energy', an intermediary language on the road to thermodynamics? Part I. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 81-95.   DOI
21 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
22 Lancor, R. (2014). Using metaphor theory to examine conceptions of energy in biology, chemistry, and physics. Science & Education, 23(6), 1245-1267.   DOI
23 Lee, M.-H., Son, Y.-A., Pottenger III F. M., Choi, D.-H. (2001). The strategies for integrated science teaching of "energy" applying knowledge, social problem, and individual interest centered approaches. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 21(2), 342-356.
24 Lee, H. S., & Liu, O. L. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94(4), 665-688.   DOI
25 Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O'Sullivan, C. Y., & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands.
26 Manzon, M. (2014). Comparing places. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 97-137). Hong Kong: Springer & Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
27 Millar, R. (2014). Towards a research-informed teaching sequence for energy. In Teaching and Learning of Energy in K-12 Education (pp. 187-206). Springer International Publishing.
28 Ministry of Education, Korea. (2015). Science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education.
29 National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
30 National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through eighth grade (R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse, Eds.). Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
31 Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162-188.   DOI
32 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
33 Papadouris, N., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Distinctive features and underlying rationale of a philosophically-informed approach for energy teaching. In Teaching and Learning of Energy in K-12 Education (pp. 207-221). Springer International Publishing.
34 Smith, C. (1998). The science of energy: A cultural history of energy physics in Victorian Britain. University of Chicago Press.
35 Papadouris, N., Constantinou, C. P., & Kyratsi, T. (2008). Students' use of the energy model to account for changes in physical systems. Journal of Research in science teaching, 45(4), 444-469.   DOI
36 Scherr, R. E., Close, H. G., McKagan, S. B., & Vokos, S. (2012). Representing energy. I. Representing a substance ontology for energy. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020114.   DOI
37 Schleicher, A., Zimmer, K., Evans, J., & Clements, N. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. OECD Publishing (NJ1).
38 Solomon, J. (1992). Getting to know about energy: In school and in society. London: Falmer Press.
39 Watts, M. (1983). Some alternative views of energy. Physics Education, 18(5), 213-217.   DOI
40 Warren, J. W. (1982). The nature of energy. European Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 295-297.   DOI