• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.1172-1183
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this research is to analyze the recognition of the curriculum experts on 2015 integrated liberal arts and natural sciences curriculum revision. Research method is a delphi survey and the subjects are curriculum experts. The research results are as follows. Firstly, experts suggested common education for all students and students' opportunities to choose subjects. Secondly, the direction of curriculum revision was different by school level. The elementary school needs to foster convergence thinking. The middle school needs to educate common basic literacy education and the high school needs both the common education and the free choice of subjects by students. Thirdly, the separation of the liberal arts and natural sciences was caused by the separate thinking of custom, tradition and study and the separate exam application on liberal arts and natural science of college scholastic ability test. The solution about separation problem of liberal arts and natural sciences have been proposed to improve mathematics education and teachers' convergence education competency. Lastly, for the establishment of an 2015, integrated curriculum the reduction of the CSAT test area and the introduction of qualifying examination for English were required.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.237-243
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to analyze the contents related to a subject 'Earth and Mooon' from elementary science textbooks of the 2009 revised curriculum and elementary science textbooks of the 2015 revised curriculum. For the research, the team selected and analyzed the contents of the 'Earth and Moon' unit in the elementary science textbooks of the 2009 revised curriculum and 2015 revised curriculum. As a result of the research, first, there has been no significant change in achievement standards of the curriculum as the science textbook revised from 2009 curriculum to 2015 curriculum. Second, the two curriculum did not differ much in specific textbook contents statement or development, but they showed much change in presentation of exploration activities in curriculum as well as the specific exploration activities presented in the textbooks. Third, compared to science textbooks of the 2009 revision the 2015 revision used more pictures and illustrations. Forth, there have been few changes related to experimental observation, but the activities to organize the unit in 2015 revision have been strengthened compared to the 2009 revision.

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.15-30
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to examine the relational components of parent education curriculum for college students and home economics curriculum for middle and high school students in Korea. The continuity and hierarchy of the parent education curriculum for college students and the 'human development and family' domain of home economics curriculum for middle and high school students were examined. The major findings were as follows. First, the components of 'human development and family' domain of middle school home economics curriculum in 2015 revision were considerably related with the components of parent education curriculum for college students. Second, the components of 'human development and family' domain of high school home economics curriculum in 2015 revision were considerably related with the components of parent education curriculum for college students. Third, the components of 'human development and family' domain in middle and high school home economics curriculum in 2015 revision and parent education curriculum for college students showed a hierarchical pattern in range and depth of contents. On the basis of these findings, the effectiveness of teaching parent education in middle and high school curriculum was discussed.

• Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.219-245
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to provide basic data for the next curriculum revision, as well as to foster improvements to the quality of the Korean elementary school math classes by analyzing and comparing the Korean 2015 revised curriculum with the current Japanese curriculum of math. To accomplish this purpose, the research questions were set as follows. 1. What are the directions for revising Korean 2015 revised curriculum and the Japanese curriculum for elementary school mathematics? 2. What is the difference between the elements of learning content offered in the respective Korean and Japanese curriculums for elementary school mathematics? The conclusions of this study are as follows. Firstly, although Korea and Japan share common core statistical education objectives, they approach their goals with different methods. Korea focuses on academic competency, while Japan focuses on fostering the "power to live". For the learning process, Korea emphasized process-focused evaluation, while Japan emphasized fostering mathematical thought and thinking through mathematical activities. For class improvement, Korea focused on reducing the learning burden through appropriating the amount of learning by shifting or removing some elements of the learning content. Japan, on the other hand, refocused their attention on improving active learning within the classroom, and also increased the hours of math class within their curriculum. Secondly, there was a difference in the content composition of the curriculums of Korea and Japan. By comparing the elements of learning content, I got the conclusions for the next curriculum revision in Korea.

• Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.19-41
• /
• 2019

In this study, we present an analysis framework based on the 2015 revised curriculum to analyze how mathematical contents and achievement standards for domains of numbers and computations have changed in the curriculum of elementary mathematics in Korea. Based on this, we classified the achievement standards by type and investigated their characteristics. The achievement standards for numbers and computations can be divided into the successive, the extinctive, and the additive achievement standards depending on their characteristics. The successive achievement standards are the ones that have consistently existed without being removed from the 1-st curriculum to the latest revision in 2015. The extinctive achievement standards are the ones that have been removed at some point during the revisions of nine times and do not remain in the current revision in 2015. The characteristics of the extinctive achievement standards were analyzed to be different before and after the 4-th curriculum. The additive achievement standards refer to the ones that have been newly added to the curriculum or that have been removed at a certain moment but added back in later and thus exist in the current revision in 2015. The characteristics of each type according to the changes of the achievement standards can be thought to be the results that the revision for the mathematics curriculum in Korea has been faithfully conducted. Based on the results of this study, we suggest some implications for organizing the achievement standards in the future curricular development.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.58 no.2
• /
• pp.187-223
• /
• 2019

This study aims to investigate the aspects of revision in the external and internal structure of curriculum and documentation in Korea and Japan and to propose the direction and task to enhance the current framework of the national curriculum. Japan has been selected for comparison in that it explicitly prepared social changes such as the dramatic evolution of artificial intelligence and population aging in its new curriculum. Therefore, various aspects of revision were analyzed the 2009 & 2015 revised mathematics curriculum of Korea and the 2008 & 2017 mathematics curriculum of Japan respectively in the elementary, middle, and high school grade bands. Then, the differences between the two countries were identified through comparison. First, the structure of the mathematics curriculum in Japan was connected with the general guidelines more tightly than Korea, and the external structure of the mathematics curriculum stayed consistently after the revision. Second, contrary to Korea, which pursued the appropriateness and reduction of mathematical content, Japanese mathematics curriculum has been pursuing detailed contents both quantitatively and qualitatively. Lastly, Japan emphasized statistical problem-solving ability. Based on this, we suggested considering of consistency in the structure curriculum documentation, detailing contents of the curriculum, and strengthening of statistical education.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.217-235
• /
• 2022

This study aimed to analyze the changes in the physics curriculum of elementary schools over the past years and to discuss the issues faced by the science curriculum for elementary education prior to the next curriculum revision. We analyzed changes in the elements of the contents from the 7th curriculum to the 2015 revised curriculum and reviewed studies conducted after the revision in 2015. Additionally, three professors majoring in physics education discussed the results of the curriculum analysis. The result indicates that content of the physics curriculum for elementary education was generally reduced after the 7th curriculum. Specifically, difficult concepts were omitted or designated to a higher school level. Concerns related to the science curriculum pertain to the content adequacy and difficulty of the current curriculum, its relationship with mathematics, connection between the Nuri curriculum and the integrated curriculum for the 1st and 2nd grades, and the achievement standard predicate problem.

• Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.279-295
• /
• 2014

The Korean national curriculum will be revised in 2015. Before revisions are to be made, we must discuss the direction the curriculum changes will take. In this study, we compare the contents of the current 2011 elementary school mathematics curriculum in Korea with the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) in the United States. The results from this comparative analysis may be helpful in the revision of the Korean mathematical curriculum. We find that the CCSSM introduces certain mathematical concepts earlier and in greater detail than the Korean curriculum does. The CCSSM also covers a broader range of mathematical concepts. These results indicate that the Korean curriculum needs to emphasize conceptual understanding, as well as procedural skill and fluency, in the early grades. Moreover, the 'grade band' is unnecessary in the mathematics curriculum. The Korean curriculum revision process must be debated more intensely, must be made public, and must take into consideration the key points of CCSSM.

• Journal of Korea Multimedia Society
• /
• v.21 no.10
• /
• pp.1221-1235
• /
• 2018

This study aims to analyze the multicultural content of the Korean Elementary School Textbook revised in 2015. This study abstracted the framework of multicultural factors for analysis of multicultural contents from the research on "Revision Guidelines by Analysis of Multicultural Factors in Secondary Curriculum and Textbook". The analyzed textbook is the integrated winter textbooks for both the first and second grades revised curriculum in 2015. Several findings were represented as follows: first, the frequency of multicultural content displayed five times in first grade and nineteen times in second grade respectively. Second, the analyzed textbooks did not include contents directly associated with multiculturalism. Activities and experience is important in the acceptance of unfamiliar cultures Thus, multicultural contents' frequency of within textbooks is very crucial. Finally, the revised curriculum focused on activities and experiences about the theme and content in the textbook and was developed around block chassis. For teaching the textbook content, teachers must perfectly understand textbooks through teacher training. The textbooks of reflecting right values on multiculturalismIn. this respect, elementary school curriculum and textbook content should be improved by supplementary revision fitting for the growth of humanity in the multicultural era.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.44 no.3
• /
• pp.249-262
• /
• 2024

The purpose of this study is to analyze the achievement standards of the 2015 revision and 2022 revision of the science curriculum using the TIMSS 2023 science cognitive domain analysis framework. The subject of the study is the achievement standards for all elementary school areas in the 2015 and 2022 revised science curriculum. Three field teachers and one elementary science education expert who majored in elementary science education participated in the research analysis. The results of this study are as follows. First, in the 2022 revised movement and energy field, the ratio of the 'knowing' area was about 16% higher than the 2015 revision, and the ratio of the 'reasoning' area also increased by about 5.8%. Second, in the material field, the proportion of TIMSS 2023 cognitive domains was in the order of 'knowing', 'applying', and 'reasoning' regardless of grade group and curriculum revision period. Third, in the field of life sciences, the proportion of TIMSS 2023 cognitive domains differed depending on grade group and curriculum revision period. Fourth, in the Earth and Space field of the 2022 revision, similar to the other three fields, the proportion of the 'Knowing' field increased and while the 'Applying' field decreased. However, in the 2022 revision, the 'reasoning' area in all three other fields increased, but decreased only in the earth and space fields. Fifth, the 2015 revised integrated unit and the 2022 revised science and society field only covered the elements of 'recognizing' and 'presenting examples' in the 'knowing' area, 'making relationships' and 'explaining' in the 'applying' area and 'Synthesize' in the 'reasoning' area. In the 2022 revised elementary school science field, the proportion of the 'knowing' section was 52.5%, the proportion of the 'applying' section was 33.8%, and the proportion of the 'reasoning' section was 13.7%. In conclusion, in the 2022 revised elementary science achievement standards, the ratio of the 'applying' and 'reasoning' areas was low because the reliance on the 'knowing' area was too high.