과학교육연구지 (Journal of Science Education)

  • 제42권1호
  • /
  • Pages.27-48
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1225-3944(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-4074(eISSN)
경북대학교 과학교육연구소 (Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학과 실과(기술·가정) 교육과정에 제시된 '시스템'과 '에너지' 핵심 개념의 연계성에 대한 국제 비교 연구

International Comparison Study on the Science & Practical Arts (Technology·Home Economics) Curricula about Continuity of the 'System' and 'Energy' as a Big Concepts

  • 투고 : 2018.02.22
  • 심사 : 2018.04.05
  • 발행 : 2018.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구의 목적은 우리나라를 포함한 5개국(캐나다, 뉴질랜드, 싱가포르, 미국, 한국)의 과학과 교육과정에 대한 연계성의 비교 분석을 통해서 우리나라 2015 개정 교육과정의 연계성에 대한 시사점과 제안을 도출하는데 있다. 국가교육과정정보센터(NCIC)에서 수집한 각 나라의 교육과정 문서를 분석 대상으로 핵심 개념인 '시스템'과 '에너지'의 내용 요소와 종적 횡적 연계성을 비교 분석하였다. 연구 결과에 따르면 핵심 개념인 시스템과 에너지는 국제적으로 교육과정 연계성을 위해 적용되고 있다. 대부분의 국가에서 시스템은 과학과 기술 또는 다른 내용과 통합하기 위한 틀로 사용되고 있다. 특히, 지구와 우주과학 내용 영역의 횡적과 종적인 연계성을 강화하는데 적용되고 있다. 핵심 개념인 시스템에 대한 비교 결과는 뉴질랜드의 경우 수준을 토대로 학년과 교과 사이의 연계성을 위해 시스템과 인간 활동 간의 상호관련성, 시스템의 상호작용, 시스템의 특성에 초점을 두고 있다. 캐나다나 싱가포르의 경우, 과학과 기술 내용에 대한 연계성을 강화하기 위해 통합적으로 구성되어 있다. 그러나 2015 개정 교육과정은 시스템과 에너지 개념이 특정 학년과 내용 영역에만 한정되어 있어서 연계성의 부족한 것으로 나타났다. 교육과정은 그 수준에 따라 다양한 학년을 위해 체계적으로 개발되어 있지 않다. 결론적으로 한국의 과학과 교육과정은 충분한 학생의 학습에 대한 충분한 이해와 학습발달과정과 연계성에 대한 연구가 필요하다. 아울러, 학생들의 핵심역량과 능력을 배양하고 과학 교육을 향상시키기 위해 횡적과 종적인 연계성을 기초로 교육과정을 구성하는 것이 중요하다.

The purposes of this study are to derive suggestions and implications to improve the continuity of Korean Science & Practical Arts (Technology Home Economics) curricula through international comparative analysis with focus on the science curricula or standards in five countries (Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States, Korea). Original documents of the national curriculums or standards of each country collected from NCIC comparatively analyzed the big concepts of the 'system' and 'energy' based on features of related components of curriculum contents, vertical, and lateral connectivity. The results indicated that the big concepts of systems and energy were used internationally to consider the curriculum continuity. In most countries, the big concept of system was used as a framework to integrate science with technology or other contents. In particular, it was also utilized to strengthen vertical and lateral connectivity in earth science and space science contents area. In the comparison of countries for the system as the big concept, New Zealand focused interrelationship between system and human activities, systems' interaction, levels and features of system concept for the linkage between grades and subjects on the basis of level. In the case of Canada and Singapore, science and technology are combined to strengthen contents' connection. However, the revised 2015 curriculum has a lack of continuity and sequence because the concepts of system and energy were concentrated on a specific grade and contents' area. The curriculum was not developed systematically for multiple grades according to their levels. In conclusion, Korean science curriculum requires sufficient understanding of students' learning and research on learning progressions and curriculum continuity. In addition, it is very important to constitute the curriculum based on the vertical and lateral connectivity in order to improve science education and to foster students' key competencies and abilities.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005a). A study of junior high students' perceptions of the water cycle. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 366-373. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.366
  2. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005b). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540-563. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351
  3. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010a). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540-563. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351
  4. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010b). Four case studies, six years later: Developing system thinking skills in junior high school and sustaining them over time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1253-1280. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20383
  5. Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18032.x
  6. Breslyn, W., McGinnis, R., McDonald, R., & Hestness, E. (2016). Developing a learning progression for sea level rise: A major impact of climate change. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 53(10), 1471-1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21333
  7. Cho, J., Dong, H., Ok, H., Rim, H., Jung, H., Son, S., & Bae, J. (2012). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2012): Main survey technical report. Seoul, Korea: Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation.
  8. Choi, J. & Lee, S-Y. (2013). A comparison of the 2009 revised social studies curriculum in South Korea and the 2010 revised NCSS social studies curriculum in the United States. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 21(2), 233-258.
  9. Department for Education. (2011). The framework for the national curriculum. A report by the expert panel for the national curriculum review. London, England: Author.
  10. Department for Education. (2013). The national curriculum in England: Framework document for consultation. London, England: Author.
  11. Erickson, H. L. (2001). Stirring the head, heart, and soul: Refining curriculum and instruction (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  12. Fogarty, R. (1991). How to integrate the curricula. New York, NY: Skylight.
  13. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  14. Jeong, J., & Kim, Y. J. (2008). The Earth systems perceptions about water cycle of the elementary pre-service teachers. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(4), 319-327.
  15. Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B. S. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the Earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 545-556. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10096
  16. Kim, J. (2006). An investigation on the concept of curriculum continuity. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(4), 83-108.
  17. Kim, J., Park, S., Choi, J., & Lee, H. (2013). International comparative studies on the sequence and integrity of elementary and secondary school curricula (Research report RRC 2013-3). Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  18. Kim, Y. J., & Jeong, J. (2014). Understandings on the cycle as a substance and ESE. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.1.1.00021
  19. Kim, S. (2010). Systems thinking and scenario planning. Cheongju: CBNU Press.
  20. Kwon, Y., Kim, W., Lee, H., Byun, J., & Lee, I. (2011). Analysis of biology teachers' systems thinking about ecosystem. Biology Education, 39(4), 529-543. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2011.39.4.529
  21. Lee, H. (2011a). Analysis on the theoretical models related to the integration of science and mathematics education: Focus on four exemplary models. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(3), 475-489. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2011.31.3.475
  22. Lee, H. (2011b). Middle School Students’ Understanding about Earth systems to Implement the 2009 revised National Science Curriculum Effectively. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 32(7), 798-808. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2011.32.7.798
  23. Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2017). Analysis and Effects of High School Students' Systems Thinking Using Iceberg(IB) Model. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 611-624. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.4.611
  24. Lee, H., Oh, Y., Kwon, H., Park, K., Han, I., Jeong, H., Lee, S., Oh, H., Nam, J., Seo, B., & An, H. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ perceptions on integrated education and integrative STEM education. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 27(4), 117-139.
  25. Lee, H., Park, K., Kwon, H., & Seo, B. (2013). Development and implementation of engineering design and scientific inquiry-based STEM education program. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 301-326.
  26. Lee, H., Park, B., Jeon, J., & Lee, H. (2016). International comparison study on the science curriculum about articulation of the ‘light’ and ‘electricity’ concept. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 20(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2016.20.1.1
  27. Lee, H., & Yeo, C. (2015). International comparison study on the articulation of the science curriculum: Focus on the concept of photosynthesis. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(5), 805-815. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.5.0805
  28. 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.
  29. Lee, Y., Yoon, H., Song, J., & Bang, D. (2014). Analysis of science educational contents of Singapore, Canada and US focused on the integrated concepts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.1.1.00021
  30. Hogan, K. (2000). Assessing students’ systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 22-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655731
  31. Hung, W. (2008). Enhancing system thinking skills with modelling. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1099-1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00791.x
  32. Ison, R. (1999). Applying systems thinking to higher education. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16, 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199903/04)16:2<107::AID-SRES278>3.0.CO;2-E
  33. Jeong, E. (2012). Analysis of related contents on science and Technology & Home Economics subjects and application plan of subject cluster in middle school according to the 2009 Revised Curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 141-152.
  34. Maeng, S., Seong, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Present states, methodological features, and an exemplar study of the research on learning progressions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.161
  35. Mayer, V. J. (1995). Using the Earth system for integrating the science curriculum. Science Education, 79, 375-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790403
  36. Mayer, V. J. (Ed.). (2002). Global science literacy. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  37. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2014). 2014 STEAM performance presentation report. Sejong, Korea: Author.
  38. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015a). Practical Arts(Technology.Home Economics) curriculum [vol. 10]. Sejong, Korea: Author.
  39. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2015b). Science curriculum [vol. 9]. Sejong, Korea: Author.
  40. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2012a). Practical Arts (Technology.Home Economics) curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  41. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST]. (2012b). Science curriculum. Seoul, Korea: Author.
  42. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20314
  43. Moon, B., Jeong, J., Kyung, J., Koh, Y., Youn, S., Kim, H., & Oh, K. (2004). Related conception s to earth system and applying of systems thinking about carbon cycle of the preservice teachers. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 25, 684-696.
  44. Moon, B., & Kim, H. (2007). A Study on the Abilities and Characteristics of the Systems Thinking for Pre-service Elementary Teachers. Korean System Dynamics Review, 8(2), 235-252.
  45. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  46. National Research Council [NRC] (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  47. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007a). New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
  48. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007b). Primary and secondary Level(1-8) curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
  49. O'Connor, J. & McDermmot, I. (1997). The art of systems thinking: Essential skills for creativity and problem solving. London, England: Thorsons Publishers.
  50. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do (Vol. 1). Paris, France: Author.
  51. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2014). PISA 2012 results: what student know and can do: Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014). Paris, France: Author.
  52. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1-8: Science and Technology. Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
  53. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Science. Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
  54. Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17239.x
  55. Park, J. (2014). Analysis for the duplication of achievement standards between science and other subjects in the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 231-243. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2014.38.2.231
  56. Sanders, M., Kwon, H., Park, K., & Lee, H. (2011). Integrative STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education: Contemporary trends and issues. Secondary Education Research, 59(3), 729-762. https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2011.59.3.729
  57. Senge, P. M. (1996). The fifth discipline: Fieldbook. New York, NY: Broadway Business.
  58. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Crown Business.
  59. Sim, W., Lee, H., & Park, K. (2017). The analysis of duplicated contents and sequence between Science and Technology.Home Economics curricular and textbooks in middle school about 'digestion' and 'energy'. Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.1.1
  60. Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a Hypothetical Multi-Dimensional Learning Progression for the Nature of Matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 47(6), 687-715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20324
  61. Suh, Y., (2008). An analysis of sequence of Earth Science content in elementary school curriculum in Korea and the U.S. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 27(4), 356-370.
  62. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.