Relationship of Using Science Terminology between Science Curriculum and Middle School Science Textbooks in the 2009 National Curriculum

2009 개정 과학과 교육과정과 중학교 과학 교과서의 과학 용어 사용 연계성 분석

  • Received : 2014.08.26
  • Accepted : 2014.10.31
  • Published : 2014.10.31


It is important to know science terminology when learning science. In terms of linguistic and psychological perspectives, the context of encountering a terminology for the first time is critical. If a student has not learned the terminology properly the first time, it might cause misconceptions or be a barrier in following learning. This study aims to identify how careful science terminology are used in science textbooks, and the relationship of using science terminology between science curriculum and middle school science textbooks in the 2009 National Curriculum. In addition, the educational need, the importance of science learning, proper time for teaching, & difficulty of the terminologies have been surveyed among teachers and students. As results of study show, only 25% of terminologies in science textbooks have appeared in the curriculum, and about 10% have been used in middle school science textbooks prior to science curriculum. The survey results suggested that many of those terminologies could cause problems in teaching and learning situation. The solution for them have been divided into the following: avoiding usage in textbook prior to curriculum, using earlier in textbooks, using earlier in curriculum, and reflecting curriculum precisely in the textbook. In general, the curriculum needs to state performing objectives concretely. And it is needed to examine science terminology advertently when writing textbooks.


Supported by : 한국과학창의재단


  1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  2. Allington, R. L., & Strange, M. S. (1977). Effects of grapheme substitutions in connected text on reading behaviours. Visible Language, 11, 285-297.
  3. Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
  4. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  5. Daneman, M. (1991). Individual differences in reading skills. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research. New York, NY: Longman.
  6. Gardner, D. (2007). Children's immediate understanding of vocabulary: Contexts and dictionary definitions. Reading Psychology, 28, 331-373.
  7. Hwang, G. (1999). Meanings and criteria of curriculum continuity. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 167-192.
  8. Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research. New York, NY: Longman.
  9. Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
  10. 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.
  11. Lovett, M. W., Warren-Chaplin, P. M., Ransby, M. J., & Borden, S. L. (1990). Training the word recognition skills of reading disabled children: Treatment and transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 769-780.
  12. Miller, G. A. (1996). The science of words. New York, NY: WHFreeman.
  13. Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconception. Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 30-35.
  14. Nagy, W. E. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  15. Nam, G. (2011). Conceptualizing and categorizing the text for grammar education. Korean Language Education, 136, 139-173.
  16. Park, G. (2011). A discussion on suitability of registering terms in elementary school mathematics curriculum and using terms in elementary school mathematics textbooks in Korea. The journal of educational research in mathematics, 21(4), 361-378.
  17. Park, S. (2004). The case study of geography classes taught by non-majored teacher in the middle school. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society, 39(4), 620-632.
  18. Roitman, D., & Mayer, J. P. (1982). Fidelity and reinvention in the implementation of innovations. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
  19. Stannovich, K. E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspective, In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research. New York, NY: Longman.
  20. Yun, E. (2012). A study of rating the science words in physics sections of elementary and secondary science textbooks. (Doctoral dissertation). Kyungpook National University.
  21. Yun, E., & Park, Y. (2013a). Analysis of physics terminology in science textbooks for teaching science words. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(4), 735-750.
  22. Yun, E., & Park, Y. (2013b). Analysis of physics terminology used in science textbook 'Force and Motion' unit in 7th, 2007 & 2009 national curriculum-A method to select science terminology for teaching, Journal of Korealex, 22, 193-210.
  23. Yun, E., & Park, Y. (2013c). Research on science teacher's perception of teaching science terminology. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1343-1353.

Cited by

  1. Analysis of the Science Words Used by Science Teachers in Teaching the Unit of 'Force and Motion' vol.35, pp.2, 2015,
  2. International Comparative Study on the Science Curriculum Concepts Continuity - Focus on the Concepts of Moon and Rock cycle - vol.35, pp.4, 2015,