Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of the Verbs in the 2009 Revised National Science Curriculum-from the Viewpoint of Cognitive Domain of TIMSS Assessment Framework

2009 개정 과학과 교육과정의 성취기준에 사용된 서술어 분석 -TIMSS 인지적 영역 평가틀을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2016.07.24
  • Accepted : 2016.08.12
  • Published : 2016.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the 2009 revised science curriculum, comprehensive verbs such as 'know (38%)' and 'understand (46%)' are used in more than 80% of the achievement standard. Many readers, such as teachers, textbook makers, etc. have difficulties in interpreting the meaning of achievement standard sentences with these comprehensive verbs. On the other hand, 'Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)' uses more various and specific verbs to express the cognitive domain. In this study, we analyzed the 2009 revised science curriculum achievement standard focusing on the TIMSS cognitive domain assessment framework. We divided achievement standard to 228 sentences and three teachers analyzed the meaning of verbs in achievement standard. There were two main results of this study. First, the verb 'Know' was analyzed into different kinds of meanings, such as 'Describe (27%)', 'Recall/Recognize (25%)' and 'Relate (17%)', etc; and the verb 'Understand' was analyzed into 'Explain (37%)', 'Relate (27%)' and 'Describe (21%)', etc. Second, there appeared to have a disagreement among the three analysts during the process of interpreting the achievement standards when the level and scope of the contents of each grade is not clear. This study concludes that there's a need for continuous discussion on the use of verbs in achievement standard to promote clearer expressions for better understanding.

2009 개정 과학과 교육과정의 성취기준에서 사용되고 있는 서술어는 '안다(38%)'와 '이해한다(46%)'가 80% 이상을 차지하고 있다. 많은 독자들은 '안다', '이해한다'와 같이 포괄적 의미의 서술어로 진술된 문장의 의미를 해석하는 데 어려움을 가진다. 한편 수학 과학 성취도 추이변화 국제비교 연구(TIMSS)에서는 인지적 영역을 다양하고 구체적인 수준의 동사를 사용하여 서술하고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 2009 개정 과학과 교육과정의 성취기준을 TIMSS 인지적 영역 평가틀을 중심으로 분석하였다. 3인의 교사가 분석에 참여하였으며, 분석자별 해석 차이가 발생한 경우에는 연구자와의 면담을 통해 그 이유를 알아보았다. 교사 3인의 분석 결과 구체적 의미의 서술어를 사용할수록 공통된 해석을 얻었고, 포괄적 의미의 서술어를 사용한 경우 각기 다양한 인지적 영역으로 해석되었다. 특히 '안다'라는 서술어로 진술된 성취기준은 '기술하기(Describe)(27%)', '회상하기/인식하기(Recall/Recognize)(25%)', '관련짓기(Relate)(17%)' 등으로 해석되었고, '이해한다'라는 서술어로 진술된 성취기준은 '설명하기(Explain)(37%)', '관련짓기(Relate)(27%)', '기술하기(Describe) (21%)'등으로 해석되었다. 교사들이 성취기준을 해석하는 과정에서 의견이 불일치한 경우는 '안다', '이해한다'와 같이 포괄적인 서술어가 사용된 동시에 해당 학년에서 가르칠 개념의 수준과 범위를 모호하게 진술한 경우로 해석된다. 성취기준이 뜻하는 바를 명확하게 표현하기 위해서 성취기준 문장의 서술어 진술 방식에 대한 논의가 지속적으로 이루어질 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Choi, J., & Paik, S. (2015). A comparative Analysis of Achievement Standards of the 2007 & 2009 Revised Elementary Science Curriculum with Next Generation Science Standards in US based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 277-288. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.2.0277
  2. Jo, K. (2013). The Characteristic Verbs in Physics Achievement Standards in the 2009 Revised National Curriculum. Journal of the Research Institute of Curriculum Instruction, 17(4), 1405-1420. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2013.17.4.1405
  3. Jo, K. (2014). Analysis of Verbs in Achievement Standards and Levels of the 2009 Revised Science National Curriculum in Middle Schools. New Physics: Sae mulli, 64(4), 447-457. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.64.447
  4. Kim, S., Lee, J., Park, J., & Lee, M. (2015). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study: TIMSS 2015 Main Survey. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Report of Research, RRE 2015-11-2.
  5. Kim, M., & Kim, K. (2011). A Content Analysis of Biology Domain of Korean and Singaporean Textbooks Based on the TIMSS Framework. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 39(2), 217-234.
  6. Kim, D. (2013). An Alternative on History Education Achievement Standards in Elementary School Social Studies. Studies on History Education, 17(5), 47-84
  7. Ko, Y. (2011). A Comparative Study of Korea and Singapore Elementary Science Textbooks According to TIMSS : Focused on the Revised 2007 Curriculum in 3rd and 4th Grade. Graduate School of Education Seoul National University of Education, Master's thesis. :
  8. Koh, Y., & Kim, H. (2016). Content Analysis of Life Science Area in Science Textbooks According to Korean Elementary Curriculum Change. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(2), 203-219. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0203
  9. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  10. Lee, H., & Kang, H. (2013). Analysis of Achievement Standards of the Korean language based on Bloom' Revised Taxanomy of Educational Objectives. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 13(4), 305-325.
  11. Lee, M., & Yang, Y. (2004). The Effects of Concurrent Presentation of Content Objectives and Thinking Skills Objectives on The Development of Students' Thinking Skills and Academic Achievements. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 453-474.
  12. MEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology). (2011). 2009 Revised National science curriculum. No 2011-361. MEST.
  13. MEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology). (2012). Achievement standards and achievement levels based on the national curriculum revised in 2009 revised national curriculum : Middle school science. No 11-1341000-002308-01. MEST. www.ncic.go.kr
  14. MEST(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology). (2012). Achievement standards and achievement levels based on the national curriculum revised in 2009 revised national curriculum : High school science. No 11-1341000-002327-01. MEST. www.ncic.go.kr
  15. Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.). (2013). TIMSS 2015 Assessment Frameworks. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education. Boston College. ISBN: 978-1-889938-19-6.
  16. Paik, N. (2014). Review of statements of achievement standards in subject curriculum : Focusing on the national science curriculum of Republic of Korea and the U.S. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.32.2.201406.005
  17. Shin, S. (2002). Analysis of Contents of Elementary School Science Curriculum by TIMSS. Graduate School of Education, Seoul National University of Education, Master's thesis.
  18. Tae, J., Yun, E., & Park, Y. (2015). Comparision of Verbs Used in the Learning Objectives in Physics Textbooks of Singapore, USA, & Korea. Journal of Korean Associaion for Science Education, 35(3), 375-382. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0375

Cited by

  1. TIMSS 2015 중학교 2학년 지구과학 영역에 대한 우리나라 학생들의 성취 특성 및 교육과정 연계성 탐색 vol.37, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.1.0009
  2. 2015 개정 초등 과학과 교육과정의 성취 기준과 탐구 활동 변화 분석 vol.36, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2017.36.1.043
  3. Analysis of the Achievement Standards of the Economic Area in the 2015 Revised Social Studies Curriculum vol.49, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.35557/trce.49.1.201703.004
  4. 과학과 교육과정 성취기준의 인지적 영역에 대한 국어교육전공자와 과학교육전공자의 해석 차이:설명하기를 중심으로 vol.37, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0371
  5. 교육과정 변화에 따른 우리나라 초등학교 4학년 학생들의 TIMSS 과학 내용영역별 성취 특성 분석 vol.37, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.4.599