Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.32431/kace.2019.22.3.003

A Compare of 'Understanding' in Backward design and Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in Informatics  

Kim, JaMee (고려대학교 교육대학원 컴퓨터교육전공)
Lee, WonGyu (고려대학교 정보대학 컴퓨터학과)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education / v.22, no.3, 2019 , pp. 25-35 More about this Journal
Abstract
The backward design suggested in the 2015 revised curriculum takes into consideration the consistency between a goal and its evaluation, and emphasizes the essence of knowledge. However, the method for designing lesson plans is different from those of the past and, as a result, teachers in the field have experienced some difficulty in applying the design. Accordingly, this study was aimed at examining the differences between the taxonomy of educational objectives with which teachers are familiar and the viewpoint of informatics. The result of the analysis indicated no difference when applying the hierarchy of the six-sided view of the concept of understanding, of which teachers felt some difficulty in terms of applying the backward design. However, the analysis did show some similarity to the hierarchy of the six levels suggested in the taxonomy of the educational objectives. In general, when a new theory is suggested, it is very difficult for it to be accepted and applied. This study holds significance in that it suggests that a new theory must be accepted on the basis of sufficient analysis along with the necessity of efforts to be dedicated in order to increase its applicability.
Keywords
Understanding; taxonomy of educational objectives; Backward design;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Porter, A. C.(1989). A curriculum out of balance : The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher 18 (5), 9-15.   DOI
2 강현석.유제순(2010). Backward Design을 통한 교육과정 설계: 교과의 진정한 이해를 위한 한 구상. 교육철학, 40(-), 1-37.
3 Bruner, J. S.(1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
4 Tyler, R.(1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
5 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of education objectives, handbook I : cognitive domain. Longman.
6 Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., and Pintrich, P. R., (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing : A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
7 Krathwohl, D. R.(2002). A revision Bloom's taxonomy : An overview. Theory into practice, 41 (4), 212-218.   DOI
8 Marzano, R. J. & Kendall, J. S.,(2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives, CA: Sage.
9 최현종(2014). Anderson의 교육목표분류법을 이용한 중학교 정보 교과서의 수업목표 분석에 관한 연구, 한국컴퓨터교육학회 논문지, 17(1), 51-63.
10 김자미(2011). 교과교육과정 조정의 관점에서 본 중학교 '정보'교과서의 목표와 평가의 일치도 분석. 교육과정평가연구, 14(3), 129-155.
11 최현종(2014). Anderson과 Fuller의 교육목표 분류법을 이용한 고등학교 정보 교과서의 수업 목표 분석. 한국컴퓨터정보학회 논문지, 19(9), 185-196.
12 Wiggins, Grant & McTighe, J. (2005), Understanding by Design, Expanded 2nd Edition. ASCD books. Alexandria, VA.
13 고려대학교민족문화연구원(2009). 고려대 한국어대사전 세트. 고려대학교민족문화연구원.
14 국립국어원(2017). 표준국어대사전. 국립국어원.
15 Morocco, C. C.(2001). Teaching for understanding with students with disabilities: New directions for research on access to the general education curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24 (1), 5-13.   DOI
16 강현석.이지은(2008). 백워드 설계를 통한 역량기반 교육과 이해중심 교육과정의 통합 방안. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 8 (1), 329-339.
17 Wiggins, Grant & McTighe, J. (2011). The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating high-Quality units. ASCD books. Alexandria, VA.
18 박일수(2014). 이해중심 교육과정 통합의 가능성 모색 : 백워드 설계 모형(backward design)을 중심으로. 통합교육과정 연구, 8(2), 1-23.
19 Harriet Isecke(2011). Backwards Planning : Building Enduring Understanding Through Instructional Design. shell education.
20 McTighe, J. & Thomas, R.(2003). Backward design for forward action. Educational Leadership, 60 (5), 52-55.
21 강현석.이지은 (2013). 백워드 교육과정 설계 2.0 버전의 적용 가능성 탐색. 교육과정연구, 31(3), 153-172.
22 강현석.이지은(2018). 이해중심 교육과정을 위한 백워드 설계의 이론과 실천. 학지사.
23 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. & National Research Council(2000). How People learn Brain, Mind, Experience, and school. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
24 Tileston, D. W.(2004). What every teacher should know about instructional planning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
25 양일호.나종철.임성만.임재근.최현동 (2008). Klopfer의 교육목표분류 체계에 의한 초등학교 과학과 지필 평가 문항 분석: 5학년 1학기를 중심으로. 초등과학교육, 27(3), 221-232.
26 서울대학교 교육연구소(1995). 교육학 용어사전. 서울대학교 교육연구소.
27 Lahtinen, E.(2007). A Categorization of Novice Programmers: A Cluster Analysis Study. Proceedings of the 19th annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Joensuu, Finland, 32-41.
28 Fuller, U., Johnson, C. G., Ahoniemi, T., Cukierman, D., et al. (2007). Developing a Computer science-specific learning taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39 (4), 152-170.   DOI
29 김현수(2018). 이해중심 교육과정 이론에 근거한 도덕과 교육과정의 재구성 방법. 도덕윤리과교육연구, -(60), 349-378.
30 Gadamer, H.(1994). Truth and method. New York: Continuum.
31 Polany, M.(1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. The University of Chicago press. 표재명, 김봉미 역(2001). 개인적 지식: 후기 비판적 철학을 향하여. 서울: 아카넷.
32 Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D(2009). A review of taxonomy, The Gale Group. http://www.education.com/reference/article/blooms-taxonomy/#A