Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2020.23.1.27

A Comparative Study on the Similar Learning Contents between Elementary and Middle Schools in Geometry  

Suh, Bo Euk (Department of Mathematics Education, Chungnam National University)
Publication Information
Education of Primary School Mathematics / v.23, no.1, 2020 , pp. 27-44 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, we extracted geometrical learning content that is treated similarly in elementary and middle schools, and analyzed the differences between how this study is handled in elementary and middle schools. The analysis tools used in this study were developed by referring to the research results presented by Merrill. Merrill classified the study results into two dimensions: 'performance level' and 'content type', and 'teach station' and 'proposal type' by presenting the contents in the textbook. Based on this classification, this study was conducted. According to the results of the study, nine achievement criteria were extracted as learning factors that were treated similarly in elementary and middle schools. The extracted learning elements were systematically analyzed through analysis tools. The results of this study are expected to provide significant implications for the improvement of mathematics learning and for the improvement of new curricula.
Keywords
common math learning contents of elementary and middle school; geometry area; mathematics textbook; types of learning outcomes;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2011). 2009 Reformed Mathematics Curriculum, Seoul: MEST.
2 Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics Curriculum. Seoul: ME.
3 Ministry of Education (2019a). Mathematics 3-1. Seoul: Chunjae Education..
4 Ministry of Education (2019b). Mathematics 3-2. Seoul: Chunjae Education..
5 Ministry of Education (2019c). Mathematics 4-1. Seoul: Chunjae Education..
6 Ministry of Education (2019d). Mathematics 4-2. Seoul: Chunjae Education..
7 Ministry of Education (2019e). Mathematics 5-1. Seoul: Chunjae Education..
8 Ministry of Education (2019f). Mathematics 5-2. Seoul: Chunjae Education..
9 Ministry of Education (2019g). Mathematics 6-1. Seoul: Chunjae Education..
10 Ministry of Education (2019h). Mathematics 6-2. Seoul: Chunjae Education..
11 Kim, W. K., Joe, M. S., Bang, K. S., Lim, S. H., Kim, D. H., Kang, S. J., Bae, S. K. Jee, E. J., & Kim, Y. H. (2019) Mathematics 1, Seoul: Bisang.
12 Kim, W. K., Joe, M. S., Bang, K. S., Lim, S. H., Kim, D. H., Kang, S. J., Bae, S. K. Jee, E. J., & Kim, Y. H. (2019) Mathematics 2, Seoul: Bisang.
13 Kim, T. E., Oh, S. C., Park, T. J., Woo, Y., K, Kwon, S. K., Kim, Y. B., & Seo, D. H. (2017). A Study on the Growth Process of Elementary and Middle School Underachievers, Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation RRI 2017-6.
14 Park, K. M. et al. (2015). Development of revised mathematics course curriculum. Seoul: Korea Foundation for the advancement of science and reativity.
15 Park, K. M. et al. (2014). Study on the restructuring of integrated mathematics curriculum. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
16 Park. H. S. (1991). Korea Mathematical Education History, Chungbuk: Korea Textbook Corporation.
17 Baek, S. H., Kim, S. H., Hong, S. I., Yang, I. H., & Lee, J. C. (1993). An Analysis of Current Science Instruction Consistency by Micro Instructional Design Theory, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 13(3), 366-376.
18 Suh, B. E. (2019). The Study on the Movement of Mathematics Contents among School Levels, East Asian mathematical journal, 35(4), 365-386.   DOI
19 Kim, J. H. (2011). Awareness and Steps of the Mathematical Justification of Elementary and Middle School Students, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 15(2), 417-435.
20 Song, J. S. (2009). An analysis of the presentation form of the contents on the textbooks by instructional quality profile. Unpublished master dissertation, Korea National University of Education.
21 Shin, H. Y., You, E. S., Han, I. K., Suh, B. E,, Jeon, Y. B., Na, J. Y., & Shin, K. C. (2019). Jumping in School Mathematics, Chungbuk: Maedesign.
22 Woo, J. H. (2006). Learning Mathematics-Teaching Principles and Methods, Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
23 Lee, B. J., Han, I. K., & Suh, B. E. (2018b). An Evaluation on the Instruction Quality of Elective Courses Based on Instructional Quality Profile for Mathematics, The journal of educational research in mathematics, 28(4), 541-570.
24 Woo, J. H. (2007). Educational Foundations of School Mathematics, Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
25 Yoon, H. B. (1999). The Correlation Between Elementary School And Middle School Mathematics Record, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics, 1(2), 145-156.
26 Lee, B. J., Han, I. K., & Suh, B. E. (2018a). An evaluation on the quality of mathematics instruction for 8th grade based on the instructional quality profile, East Asian mathematical journal, 34(2), 103-126.   DOI
27 Choi, S. Y. (1993). A study on teaching profiles utilization for qualitative evaluation of textbooks. Development of curriculum evaluation tool(2). Eduational research institute of Korea National University of Education.
28 KOFAC(2018). On-site support team for mathematics education, KOFAC Research Report.
29 Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2019). Curriculum Improvement Measures for Underachievers in Mathematics, KICE Research Report(In Press).
30 Bloom, B. S.(1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Noston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
31 Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction(1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32 Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). The principles of instructional design(1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
33 Krutetskii, V. A.(1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34 Merrill, M. D. (1983). The component display theory. In Reigeluth, C. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: an overview of their current status. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 279-333.
35 McHolland, J. D. (1971). Human Potential Seminars: An Approach to Turning on the Gifted Underachiever. ED 047349.
36 Menchinskaya, N. A.(1979). Intellectual activity in solving arithmetic problems. In Kilpatrick, J and Wirszup, I.(Eds.) Soviet Studies in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching Mathematics, University of Chicago Press: 7-53.
37 Merrill, M. D. & Boutwell, R. C. (1973). Instructional development: methodology and research. Review of Research in Education 1, 95-131.   DOI
38 Merrill, M. D., Leston Drake, Mark J. Lacy, Jean A. Pratt & the ID2 Research Group at Utah State University(1997). Reclaiming Instructional Design. Educational Technology 36(5), 5-7.
39 Merrill, M. D. , Richards, R. E., Schmidt, R. V., & Wood, N. D. (1977). The instructional strategy diagnostic profile training manual. SD: Courseware, Inc.
40 Merrill, M. D., & Wood, N. D. (1974). An instructional strategy taxonomy: Theory and applications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 6, 195-201.   DOI
41 Merrill, M. D., Reigeluth, C., & Faust, G. (1979). The instructional quality profile: a curriculum evaluation and design tool. In H. A. O'Neil, Jr. (Ed.), Procedures for instructional systems development. NY: Academic Press.
42 Shoff, H. G. (1984). The gifted underachiever: definition and identification. ED 252029.
43 Suh, B., Lee, B., & Han, I. (2017). Development of IQP-based mathematics instructional quality profile. Advanced Studies in Contemporary Mathematics 27(4), 539-560.
44 Vygotsky, L. S.(2000). Spirit in Vygotsky society. Seoul: Yangseowon.
45 Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education, Harvard University Press.