정보교육학회논문지 (Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education)

  • 제24권3호
  • /
  • Pages.215-223
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1229-3245(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8428(eISSN)
한국정보교육학회 (Korea Association of Information Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

2015 개정 교육과정 초등 실과 교과서 소프트웨어와 로봇 단원 발문 분석 및 CT마중발문 개발

Study of Types of Questions Presented in Software and Robot Units of 2015 Revised Elementary School Practical Curriculum and Development of CT Trigger Questioning

  • Received : 2020.04.13
  • Accepted : 2020.06.15
  • Published : 2020.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

Abstract

2015 개정 교육과정 초등학교 6종 실과 교과서 소프트웨어 단원과 로봇 차시에 제시된 523개 발문 유형을 분석한 결과, SW 단원에서는 폐쇄적 발문이 77.1%, 개방적 발문이 22.9%로 나타났고 로봇 단원에서는 폐쇄적 발문이 74.8%, 개방적 발문이 25.2%로 나타났다. 폐쇄적 발문 중심인 SW 교과서 발문의 한계를 보완하고 교사들이 교육 목적과 활동 내용에 따라 컴퓨팅 사고력 신장을 위한 다양한 컴퓨터 교육에 활용할 수 있는 CT마중발문을 개발하였다.

The results of the analysis of the 523 questions presented in the six textbooks and SW and robot units in the Blosser four-step classification categories are as follows. First, in the software unit, the analysis results showed that 77.1% were closed questions and 22.9% were open questions. Second, in the robot unit, the analysis results showed that 74.8% were closed questions and 25.2% were open questions. The CT Trigger Question was developed to overcome the limitations of the textbook questions, which were mainly closed questions, and to directly or indirectly induce computational thinking that teachers can utilize according to their educational content and activities.

Keywords

References

  1. Bloom, B. S.(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives : cognitive domain. New York : Longman.
  2. Blosser, P. E.(1973). Handbook of effective questioning techniques. Worthington, Ohio : Education Associates.
  3. CSTA & ISTE(2011), Computational Thinking teacher resources second edition
  4. Daesoo Kim(2016), Software and computing thinking, Life and Power publisher
  5. Dahyun Kim(2007). A Study on the Questioning of the 'Inquiry Activities' in Highschool 'Law and Society' Textbook, M.S., Ewha Womans University of Education
  6. Dewey, j.(1933) How we think. Chicago: Regnery
  7. Eunju Ko (2018). The comparative Analysis on Patterns of Questions in Elementary Science Textbooks between the Revised curriculum year 2007 and 2009. M.S., Gwangju National University of Education Graduate School
  8. Flanders, N.(1970) Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, M.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
  9. Google for Education(2014). Computational Thinking Concepts Guide.
  10. G. Polya(2002). How to solve it ?. JeongHo Woo translation. Seoul: Kyo Woo Publishing Co.
  11. Harrop, A., & Swinson, J. (2003). Teachers' questions in the infant, unior and secondary school, Educational Studies, 29(1), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690303265
  12. Hyangsook Kim (2006), The Realization of Questions for Developing Mathematics and Creativity, Kyung Moon publisher
  13. Jeongok Kim(2015). A comparative Study of Teacher Questions and the Feedback given to students by the teacher when analyzing advanced and general classes in an Elementary School. M.S., Busan National University of Education
  14. Jinsook Kim (2015). SW Education Professors and Learning Model Development, Korea Educational Development Institute
  15. Korean Educational Psychology Association (2010), Terminology of Educational Psychology, hakjisa
  16. BBC, Introduction to computational thinking
  17. Korean Dictionary, https://ko.dict.naver.com/
  18. Jeongcheol Oh, Jaehyung Kim, Jonghoon Kim(2014). Development and Application of Elementary Puzzle-Based Learning Program for Computer Science Education, The Journal of the Korean Association of Computer Education, 17(3), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.32431/KACE.2014.17.3.002
  19. Jeongcheol Oh, Jonghoon Kim(2014), Development and Application of Puzzle-Based Computer Science Learning Contents for Pre-service Teachers, The Journal of the Korean Association Information Education, 18(3), 391-400. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2014.18.3.391
  20. Jeongcheol Oh, Jonghoon Kim(2016), A Development of a Puzzle-Based Computer Science Instruction Model and Learning Program to improve Computational Thinking for Elementary School Students, The Korean Society for Fisheries and Marrine Sciences Education, 28(5), 1183-1197. https://doi.org/10.13000/JFMSE.2016.28.5.1183
  21. Sojeong Ha(2010). A Study on the Publication of Social and Cultural Textbooks and the Interest of Learner's Publication. M.S., Ewha Womans University of Education
  22. Soohwan Kang, Jinhyung Cho, Yonghyun Shin, Hwanil Kang(2019), Computer Overview in Software-Oriented Society, Infinity Book publisher
  23. Sungik Park, Yeonkyung Kim(2004). A Review on the learning outcomes according to the types of questioning. Seoul National University College of Education, Journal of the College of Education 68, 59-79
  24. The Ministry of Education (2019), Practical (technical assumptions) / Information courses, Education Ministry Notice 2015-74 Annex 10
  25. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communication of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  26. Yeomi Kim(2019), Analysis on Patterns of Questions in Elementary School Science Textbooks under 2015 Revised Curriculum, M.S., Seoul National University of Education
  27. Yongju Jeon(2017). The Development and Application of a CT-CPS(Computational Thinking-based Creative Problem Solving) Instructional Model for the Software Education of New Curriculum. Ph.D., Korea National University