Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis on Congruency between Educational Objectives of Curriculum and Learning Objectives of Textbooks using Semantic Network Analysis - Focus on Earth Science I in the 2009 revised Curriculum -

언어네트워크분석을 이용한 교육과정 목표와 교과서 학습 목표와의 일치성 분석 - 2009 개정 교육과정의 지구과학 I을 중심으로 -

  • Chung, Duk Ho (Division of Science Education/Science Education Institute/Institution of Fusion Science, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Lee, Jun-Ki (Division of Science Education/Science Education Institute/Institution of Fusion Science, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Kim, Seon Eun (Division of Science Education/Science Education Institute/Institution of Fusion Science, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Park, Kyeong Jin (Division of Science Education/Science Education Institute/Institution of Fusion Science, Chonbuk National University)
  • 정덕호 (전북대학교 과학교육학부/과학교육연구소/융합과학연구소) ;
  • 이준기 (전북대학교 과학교육학부/과학교육연구소/융합과학연구소) ;
  • 김선은 (전북대학교 과학교육학부/과학교육연구소/융합과학연구소) ;
  • 박경진 (전북대학교 과학교육학부/과학교육연구소/융합과학연구소)
  • Received : 2013.07.24
  • Accepted : 2013.10.24
  • Published : 2013.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate how congruently the learning objectives of Earth Science I textbooks match the 2009 revised Earth Science curriculum. For this purpose, we classified the learning objectives of curriculum and textbooks were into three factors including ability, cross-cutting concepts, and behavioral verbs. The text data were analyzed using the semantic network analysis method. The results are as follows. The learning objectives of textbooks with regard to ability factors mainly emphasized the cognitive and affective domain. In addition, the ability of inquiry performance was emphasized in the learning objective of the curriculum. The textbooks used various sub-frame of cross-cutting concepts in comparison with the curriculum. Both textbooks and curriculum used the term 'comprehension' the most as behavioral verbs. However, most behavioral verbs just remained at the level of cognitive system.

본 연구의 목적은 2009 개정 과학 교육과정의 지구과학 I 목표와 교과서의 학습 목표와의 일치성을 알아보기 위한 것이다. 이를 위하여 교육과정의 목표와 교과서의 학습 목표를 능력, 공통 개념, 행위 동사로 구분하였으며, 이 자료를 언어네트워크분석을 이용하여 분석하였다. 분석 결과 능력 요소와 관련하여 교과서는 인지적, 정의적 영역을 주로 강조하였다면 교육과정은 이외에도 탐구능력을 함께 강조하였다. 공통 개념은 교과서가 교육과정보다 더 다양한 요소가 사용되었다. 행위 동사 요소는 '이해'를 가장 많이 사용하였으나 대부분 인지 체제 수준으로 제시한 것에 그치고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, L.W., 2002, A revised Bloom's taxonomy. Theory into Practice, 41, 210-261. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_1
  2. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., and Bloom, B.S., 2001, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York, USA, 352 p.
  3. Austin, J.T. and Vancouver, J.B., 1996, Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338
  4. Bandura, A., 1997, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers, New York, USA, 604 p.
  5. Bonacich, P., 1987, Power and centrality: A family measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1170-1182. https://doi.org/10.1086/228631
  6. Cho, N.S., 1997, A study on the organization and implementation of the level-divided curriculum in the 7th curriculum. Korean Educational Development Institute, CR 97-34, 114 p. (in Korean)
  7. Cho, T.H., 1996, The analysis on the objectives in the 6th elementary science education by Klopfer's classification scheme for science education. The Research of Science Education, 22, 1-22. (in Korean)
  8. Choi, B.G., Lee, H.S., Choo, B.S., Moon, B.K., Soh, Y.M., Lee, J.E., and Cho, M.A., 2011, Earth Science I textbook. Chunjae Education, Seoul, Korea, 319 p. (in Korean)
  9. Collett, A.T. and Chiappetta, E.L., 1984, Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Westline Industrial Drive, Saint Louis, USA, 632 p.
  10. DeVito. B. and Grotzer, T.A., 2005, Characterizing discourse in two science classrooms by the cognitive process demonstrated by students and teachers. Presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference, Dallas, USA, 42 p.
  11. Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R.J., Aarts, N., and Bouwen, R., 2009, Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A metaparadigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62, 155-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708100356
  12. Doerfel, M.L. and Barnett, G.A., 1999, A semantic network analysis of the interactional communication association. Human Communication Research, 25, 589-603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00463.x
  13. Hirsh, E.D. Jr., 1996, The schools we need: Why we don't have them. Double day, New York, USA, 303 p.
  14. Jung, S.H., 2012, Tradition content analysis and semantic network analysis comparative research in issue framing analysis. Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea, 105 p. (in Korean)
  15. Kang, H.S., Chong, C.I., and Choi, Y.G., 2005, An alternative exploration of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: On the basis of the teacher's interview. Secondary Education Research, 53, 51-84. (in Korean)
  16. Kim, H.P. and Kim, P.W., 2001, An analysis of the technology subject test items in middle schools according to Bloom's taxonomy in the cognitive domain. Journal of the Korean Technology Education Association, 1, 87-97. (in Korean)
  17. Kim, J.S., 2010, A study on learning task analysis for establishment of instructional objective in elementary moral education. Korean Elementary Moral Education Society. 32, 127-150. (in Korean)
  18. Kim, K.S., 2002, Analysis of the objectives of the elementary science education of Korea according to the Klopfer's science education objective classification scheme. Korean National University of Education, Chungbuk, Korea, 123 p. (in Korean)
  19. Kim, M.O. and Kang, H.S., 2012, Analysis of instructional objectives of the elementary Korean curriculum based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30, 27-58. (in Korean)
  20. Kim, M.O., 2013, Analysis of curriculum objectives of elementary Korean curriculum based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Unpublished Ed.D dissertation, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, 254 p. (in Korean)
  21. Kim, S.D., Lee, Y.S., and Choi, S.B., 2005, An analysis of 7th middle school science curriculum by Klopfer's taxonomy of education objectives: Focusing on 7th grade. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 26, 640-651. (in Korean)
  22. Kim, S.Y., 2009, Classifications of instructional objectives of earth science based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, 77 p. (in Korean)
  23. Kim, Y.H., 2007, Social Network Theory. Parkyoungsa, Seoul, Korea, 289 p. (in Korean)
  24. Kim, Y.S., Lee, H.S., and Shin, A.K., 2007, Classifications of instructional objectives of elementary science based on Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Elementary Science Education, 26, 570-579. (in Korean)
  25. Kook, D.S., 2004, Conceptions of secondary school science teachers on some concepts of atmosphere and ocean. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 25, 402-408. (in Korean)
  26. Lee, J.K. and Ha, M.S., 2012, Semantic network analysis of science gifted middle school students' understanding of fact, hypothesis, theory, law and scientificness. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 32, 823-840. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.5.823
  27. Lee, T.W., Park, S.I., Kim, W.S., Kang, S.C., Lee, Y.J., Lee, H.K., Jang, H.Y., and Kim, B.N., 2011, Earth Science I textbook. Kyohak Printing, Seoul, 303 p. (in Korean)
  28. Lewicki, R.J, Gray, B., and Elliott, M., 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases, Island Press, Washington D.C., USA, 457 p.
  29. Lim, C.H., 2008, Classifications of instructional objectives of elementary science based on new revised taxonomy of educational objectives. The Research of Science Mathematics Education. 31, 25-42. (in Korean)
  30. Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., and Latham, G.P., 1981, Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bullentin, 90, 125-152. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125
  31. Marzano, R.J., 2001, Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives, Experts in assessment. Corwin Press, CA, USA, 163 p.
  32. Marzano, R.J. and Kendall, J.S., 2006, The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press, CA, USA, 315 p.
  33. McNeil, J.D., 1967, Concomitant of using behavioral objective in the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Education, 35, 69-74.
  34. Miller, A.D., 2004, Applying Bloom's revised taxonomy within the framework of teaching for understanding to enhance the frequency and quality of students' opportunities to develop and practice higher-level cognitive processes. Kalamazoo College, Michigan, USA, 60 p.
  35. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2011, Science Curriculum, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Seoul, Korea, 269 p. (in Korean)
  36. National Research Council, 2012, A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 385 p.
  37. National Research Council, 2000, Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 272 p.
  38. Oh, S.H., 2013, Analysis of cognitive less goal of practical course based on Bloom's new taxonomy of educational objectives. Gyeongin National University of Education. Incheon, Korea, 74 p. (in Korean)
  39. Park, C.K., Hwang, J.S., and Kwack, D.O., 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. Research of Curriculum Instruction, 15, 27-43. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2011.15.1.27
  40. Park, H.J., Kim, Y.M., Noh, S.G., Jeong, J.S., Lee, E.A., Yu, E.J., Lee, D.W, Park, J.W., and Back, Y.S., 2012, Developmental stduy of science education contents standards. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 32, 729-750. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.729
  41. Park, K.J., Chung, D.H., and Cho, K.S., 2013, An analysis of the changes of high school students' conceptual structure about sedimentary rocks before and after the field trip using the semantic network analysis. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 34, 173-186. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2013.34.2.173
  42. Shin, D.H., 1999, A textbook analysis on the basis of goals in the high school 'earth science' curriculum. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 20, 605-612. (in Korean)
  43. Shin, J.H., Cho, E.B., and Lee, Y.K., 2012, Teacher's roles and professional viewed through research on goal in educational psychology. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 26, 103-122. (in Korean)
  44. Son, D.W., 2008, Social network analysis. Kyungmoon Publishers, Seoul, Korea, 253 p. (in Korean)
  45. Suh, Y.W., 2008, Exploring the meaning and the structure of national science education standards: What are the insights for science curriculum reform in Korea? Ewha Journal of Educational Research, 39, 211-238. (in Korean)
  46. Tannen, D., 1993, Framing in discourse. Oxford University Press, New York, USA, 263 p.
  47. Wang, M.C, Haertel, G.D., and Walberg, H.J., 1993, Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249-294. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063003249

Cited by

  1. Characteristics of High School Students’ and Science Teachers’ Cognitive Frame about Effective Teaching Method for High School Science Subject vol.36, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2015.36.4.404
  2. A Content Analysis of Public Information using Language Network Analysis: Focused on Contents of Twitters of Metropolitans vol.27, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2016.27.3.151
  3. An Comparative Study of Articulation on Science Textbook Concepts and Extracted Concepts in Learning Objectives Using Semantic Network Analysis - Focus on Life Science Domain - vol.35, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2016.35.3.377
  4. A Comparison of the Freshmen’s Cognitive Frame about the ‘Crisis of Earth’ vol.37, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2016.37.2.117
  5. Study on Design Research using Semantic Network Analysis vol.34, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2015.34.6.563