Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.21796/jse.2018.42.1.27

International Comparison Study on the Science & Practical Arts (Technology·Home Economics) Curricula about Continuity of the 'System' and 'Energy' as a Big Concepts  

Park, Kyungsuk (Kyungpook National University)
Jeong, Hyeondo (Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Science Education / v.42, no.1, 2018 , pp. 27-48 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purposes of this study are to derive suggestions and implications to improve the continuity of Korean Science & Practical Arts (Technology Home Economics) curricula through international comparative analysis with focus on the science curricula or standards in five countries (Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States, Korea). Original documents of the national curriculums or standards of each country collected from NCIC comparatively analyzed the big concepts of the 'system' and 'energy' based on features of related components of curriculum contents, vertical, and lateral connectivity. The results indicated that the big concepts of systems and energy were used internationally to consider the curriculum continuity. In most countries, the big concept of system was used as a framework to integrate science with technology or other contents. In particular, it was also utilized to strengthen vertical and lateral connectivity in earth science and space science contents area. In the comparison of countries for the system as the big concept, New Zealand focused interrelationship between system and human activities, systems' interaction, levels and features of system concept for the linkage between grades and subjects on the basis of level. In the case of Canada and Singapore, science and technology are combined to strengthen contents' connection. However, the revised 2015 curriculum has a lack of continuity and sequence because the concepts of system and energy were concentrated on a specific grade and contents' area. The curriculum was not developed systematically for multiple grades according to their levels. In conclusion, Korean science curriculum requires sufficient understanding of students' learning and research on learning progressions and curriculum continuity. In addition, it is very important to constitute the curriculum based on the vertical and lateral connectivity in order to improve science education and to foster students' key competencies and abilities.
Keywords
2015 revised curriculum; curriculum continuity; vertical connectivity; lateral connectivity; big concept; system; energy; Canada; New Zealand; Singapore; the United Kingdom; the United States;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005a). A study of junior high students' perceptions of the water cycle. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 366-373.   DOI
2 Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005b). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540-563.   DOI
3 Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010a). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540-563.   DOI
4 Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010b). Four case studies, six years later: Developing system thinking skills in junior high school and sustaining them over time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1253-1280.   DOI
5 Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24.   DOI
6 Breslyn, W., McGinnis, R., McDonald, R., & Hestness, E. (2016). Developing a learning progression for sea level rise: A major impact of climate change. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 53(10), 1471-1499.   DOI
7 Cho, J., Dong, H., Ok, H., Rim, H., Jung, H., Son, S., & Bae, J. (2012). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2012): Main survey technical report. Seoul, Korea: Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation.
8 Choi, J. & Lee, S-Y. (2013). A comparison of the 2009 revised social studies curriculum in South Korea and the 2010 revised NCSS social studies curriculum in the United States. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 21(2), 233-258.
9 Department for Education. (2011). The framework for the national curriculum. A report by the expert panel for the national curriculum review. London, England: Author.
10 Department for Education. (2013). The national curriculum in England: Framework document for consultation. London, England: Author.
11 Erickson, H. L. (2001). Stirring the head, heart, and soul: Refining curriculum and instruction (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
12 Fogarty, R. (1991). How to integrate the curricula. New York, NY: Skylight.
13 International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
14 Jeong, J., & Kim, Y. J. (2008). The Earth systems perceptions about water cycle of the elementary pre-service teachers. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(4), 319-327.
15 Kim, Y. J., & Jeong, J. (2014). Understandings on the cycle as a substance and ESE. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(1), 21-32.   DOI
16 Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B. S. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the Earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 545-556.   DOI
17 Kim, J. (2006). An investigation on the concept of curriculum continuity. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(4), 83-108.
18 Kim, J., Park, S., Choi, J., & Lee, H. (2013). International comparative studies on the sequence and integrity of elementary and secondary school curricula (Research report RRC 2013-3). Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
19 Kim, S. (2010). Systems thinking and scenario planning. Cheongju: CBNU Press.
20 Kwon, Y., Kim, W., Lee, H., Byun, J., & Lee, I. (2011). Analysis of biology teachers' systems thinking about ecosystem. Biology Education, 39(4), 529-543.   DOI
21 Lee, H. (2011a). Analysis on the theoretical models related to the integration of science and mathematics education: Focus on four exemplary models. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(3), 475-489.   DOI
22 Lee, H. (2011b). Middle School Students’ Understanding about Earth systems to Implement the 2009 revised National Science Curriculum Effectively. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 32(7), 798-808.   DOI
23 Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2017). Analysis and Effects of High School Students' Systems Thinking Using Iceberg(IB) Model. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 611-624.   DOI
24 Lee, H., & Yeo, C. (2015). International comparison study on the articulation of the science curriculum: Focus on the concept of photosynthesis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(5), 805-815.   DOI
25 Lee, H., Oh, Y., Kwon, H., Park, K., Han, I., Jeong, H., Lee, S., Oh, H., Nam, J., Seo, B., & An, H. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ perceptions on integrated education and integrative STEM education. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 27(4), 117-139.
26 Lee, H., Park, K., Kwon, H., & Seo, B. (2013). Development and implementation of engineering design and scientific inquiry-based STEM education program. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 301-326.
27 Lee, H., Park, B., Jeon, J., & Lee, H. (2016). International comparison study on the science curriculum about articulation of the ‘light’ and ‘electricity’ concept. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 20(4), 1-14.   DOI
28 Lee, Y. (2004). Analysis of curriculum development processes and the relationship between general statements of the curriculum and science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(3), 468-480.
29 Lee, Y., Yoon, H., Song, J., & Bang, D. (2014). Analysis of science educational contents of Singapore, Canada and US focused on the integrated concepts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(1), 21-32.   DOI
30 Hogan, K. (2000). Assessing students’ systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 22-18.   DOI
31 Hung, W. (2008). Enhancing system thinking skills with modelling. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1099-1120.   DOI
32 Mayer, V. J. (Ed.). (2002). Global science literacy. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33 Jeong, E. (2012). Analysis of related contents on science and Technology & Home Economics subjects and application plan of subject cluster in middle school according to the 2009 Revised Curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 141-152.
34 Maeng, S., Seong, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Present states, methodological features, and an exemplar study of the research on learning progressions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 161-180.   DOI
35 Mayer, V. J. (1995). Using the Earth system for integrating the science curriculum. Science Education, 79, 375-391.   DOI
36 Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2014). 2014 STEAM performance presentation report. Sejong, Korea: Author.
37 Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015a). Practical Arts(Technology.Home Economics) curriculum [vol. 10]. Sejong, Korea: Author.
38 Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015b). Science curriculum [vol. 9]. Sejong, Korea: Author.
39 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2012a). Practical Arts (Technology.Home Economics) curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
40 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2012b). Science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
41 Ison, R. (1999). Applying systems thinking to higher education. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16, 107-112.   DOI
42 National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43 Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698.   DOI
44 Moon, B., Jeong, J., Kyung, J., Koh, Y., Youn, S., Kim, H., & Oh, K. (2004). Related conception s to earth system and applying of systems thinking about carbon cycle of the preservice teachers. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 25, 684-696.
45 Moon, B., & Kim, H. (2007). A Study on the Abilities and Characteristics of the Systems Thinking for Pre-service Elementary Teachers. Korean System Dynamics Review, 8(2), 235-252.
46 National Research Council [NRC] (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
47 New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007a). New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
48 New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007b). Primary and secondary Level(1-8) curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
49 O'Connor, J. & McDermmot, I. (1997). The art of systems thinking: Essential skills for creativity and problem solving. London, England: Thorsons Publishers.
50 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do (Vol. 1). Paris, France: Author.
51 Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-81.   DOI
52 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2014). PISA 2012 results: what student know and can do: Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014). Paris, France: Author.
53 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1-8: Science and Technology. Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
54 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Science. Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
55 Park, J. (2014). Analysis for the duplication of achievement standards between science and other subjects in the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 231-243.   DOI
56 Sanders, M., Kwon, H., Park, K., & Lee, H. (2011). Integrative STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education: Contemporary trends and issues. Secondary Education Research, 59(3), 729-762.   DOI
57 Senge, P. M. (1996). The fifth discipline: Fieldbook. New York, NY: Broadway Business.
58 Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Crown Business.
59 Sim, W., Lee, H., & Park, K. (2017). The analysis of duplicated contents and sequence between Science and Technology.Home Economics curricular and textbooks in middle school about 'digestion' and 'energy'. Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 1-15.   DOI
60 Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a Hypothetical Multi-Dimensional Learning Progression for the Nature of Matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 47(6), 687-715.   DOI
61 Suh, Y., (2008). An analysis of sequence of Earth Science content in elementary school curriculum in Korea and the U.S. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(4), 356-370.
62 Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.