DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparision of Verbs Used in the Learning Objectives in Physics Textbooks of Singapore, USA, & Korea

한국, 미국, 싱가포르 물리 교과서의 학습목표에 사용된 서술어 비교

  • Received : 2015.03.25
  • Accepted : 2015.06.24
  • Published : 2015.06.30

Abstract

Textbooks corresponding to curriculum goals are necessary because they are specific products of curriculum and are the most important materials for teaching, learning, and evaluation. In particular, learning objectives written in textbooks should be clearly described because they play a role in promoting learning by showing learning goals to learners clearly. This study analyzed the characteristics of verbs used as predicate of learning objectives written in high school physics I and II textbooks of Korea and compared them with physics textbooks of Singapore and the United States. Results show that Korean textbooks have less kinds of verbs compared to those of Singapore and the United States, and the verbs with abstract and comprehensive meaning such as 'understand' and 'know' were mainly used. In American textbooks, it was noticeable that no verbs have been used by more than 10%. When classifying the learning objectives in the two Korean textbooks, cognitive domain accounted for 98 to 99%, and inquiry domain accounted for only 1% to 2%. With regard to physics textbooks of the United States, inquiry domain accounted for a large proportion of domains in learning objectives compared with physics textbooks of Korea and Singapore. Physics textbooks of Singapore were similar to those of Korea in that learning objectives were biased toward cognitive domain, but differed from those of Korea in that learning objectives were specifically described using action verbs.

Keywords

science textbook;learning objectives;physics textbooks;taxonomy of educational objectives

References

  1. Park, C., Hwang, J. & Gwak, D. (2011). A comparative analysis of instructional objectives of laboratory work in Korean and U. S. high school biology textbooks according to Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 15(1), 27-43.
  2. Waller, V. (2006). Why we need good instructional design. Retrieved from http://www.elearningnetwork.org/
  3. Yoon, Y. (2010). Comparative analysis of science textbooks of the 7th curriculums for the 3rd grade students in middle school by Klopfer's taxonomy of educational objectives (Doctoral dissertation). Korea National University of Education, Chungju.
  4. Young, L. & Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The power of language: How discourse influences society. Sheffield, Equinox Publishing Limited.
  5. Yu, J. (2009). Analysis of educational objectives of the 7th elementary science curriculum by Klopfer's taxonomy of educational objectives (Doctoral dissertation). Kongju National University, Kongju.
  6. Yun, E. & Park, Y. (2014). Analysis of problems of science textbook within the framework of learner-centered classroom. Paper Presented at of The Korean Physics Society Fall Meeting.
  7. Jo, H. & Park, S. (1995). Science learning & teaching. Seoul: Kyoyookbook Publication Co.
  8. Jo, K. (2013). The characteristic verbs in physics achievement standards in the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction. 17(4), 1405-1420.
  9. Kang, N. & Park, Y. (2010). Identification of instructional components to increase students' interest and creativity in American science classrooms. Journal of Science Education. 34(2), 421-431.
  10. Kang, Y. (2009). Instructional method and technology. Seoul: Hakjisa Publication Co.
  11. Kim, M. & Cho, J. (2013). An analysis of the properties of affective achievement in science based on TIMSS and science teachers' perception. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 33(1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.046
  12. Kim. S., & Park, S. (1985). Analysis of middle school science textbook. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 5(1), 49-61.
  13. Kim, Y. (1990). Theories of measurement & evaluation. Seoul: Kyoyookbook Publication Co.
  14. Kim, Y., Kim, I., Kim, S., Park, B., Jeong, B., Park, J., Kim, J. & Gwon, G. (2012a). Physics I. Seoul: Kyohak Publication.
  15. Kim, Y., Kim, I., Kim, S., Park, B., Jeong, B., Park, J., Kim, J. & Gwon, G. (2012b). Physics II. Seoul: Kyohak Publication.
  16. KOFAC(The Korea Foundation for Advancement of Science and Creativity) (2011). Research of science curriculum for the 2009 revised science curriculum. KOFAC.
  17. Lee, M. & Hong, M. (2007). Trends and an international comparison of Korean middle school students' attitudes toward science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 27(3), 201-211.
  18. Lee, M. & Kim, J. (2004). An international comparative study of science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(6), 1082-1093.
  19. Lim, C. (2008). Classifications of instructional objectives of elementary science based on new revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Research of Science and Mathematics Education, 31, 25-42.
  20. MEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology) (2011). National science curriculum. MEST.
  21. NGSS(Next Generation Science Standards, 2014). Topical arrangements of standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/searchstandards.
  22. Paik, N. (2007). A comparative study on the form of presentation of educational contents in the subject curriculum: with focus on Korean and American science curriculum(life science). The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(1), 129-159. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.25.1.200703.006
  23. Paik, N. (2014). Review of statements of achievement standards in subject curriculum: Focusing on the national science curriculum of Republic of Korea and the US. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.32.2.201406.005
  24. California Department of Education. (2004). Science framework for California public schools. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/scienceframework.pdf#search=Science%20frameworks%20for%20california%20Public%20Schools&view=FitH&pagemode=none)
  25. Chew, C., Foong, C. & Tiong, H. (2013). Physics matters. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Education.
  26. Choi, J. & Seol, K. (2014). A short discussion on social studies curriculum standards and structure. Social Studies Education, 53(2), 1-19.
  27. Eisenkraft, A. (2010). Active physics. NY: It's About Time Co.
  28. Gwak, S., Ryu, S., Kim, D., An, J., Lee, O., Kim, J., Nam, G. & Kim, I. (2012a). Physics II. Seoul: Chunjae Education.
  29. Gwak, S., Ryu, S., Kim, D., An, J., Yi, O., Kim, J., Nam, G. & Kim, I. (2012b). Physics I. Seoul: Chunjae Education.