• International journal of advanced smart convergence
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.147-156
• /
• 2020

ACM's CSTA has drafted standards for computing curricula and recommended them to schools in the United States. The five core concepts of the US elementary school computing curriculum are computing systems, network and the Internet, data and analysis, algorithms and programming, and impacts of computing. In 2005, Korea prepared ICT education guidelines, including five fields, their subfields, and achievement criteria for each subfield. In the 2015 revised curriculum, software education was introduced and five achievement standards were set. The ACM CSTA has 18 achievement criteria up to K-2 and 21 achievement criteria up to K-5. If we compare the 39 achievement standards of the US to Korea, Korea's 2005 ICT education guidelines include 25 of these, and the 2015 revised curriculum includes 5 of them. In this study, we aim to study the CSTA achievement criteria that second graders should know and the achievement criteria that fifth graders should know. This is compared and analyzed with Korea's 2005 ICT Guidelines and 2015 Software Curriculum. In comparison with the number of achievement standards, the US elementary school's computing achievement standards are much higher than in Korea. Comparing with each standard, there are many areas that are not covered in Korean curriculum, and we can see that the 2015 curriculum has rather receded from 2005.

• Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.437-457
• /
• 2019

In this study, we analyzed how the content and achievement criteria of the Geometry domain of Korean elementary school mathematics curriculum have changed. To this end, based on the analysis framework based on the 2015 revised curriculum, the achievement standards for each period were classified into continuous, extinct, and additional types, and their characteristics were examined. In the domain of Geometry, continuous achievement standards accounted for 51% of the total, and there were many achievement standards that remained unchanged in grade and domain. The extinctive achievement standard is 20.4% of the total, and the mathematics contents that were rapidly introduced due to the modernization of mathematics in the 3rd curriculum were eliminated the most from the 4th curriculum, and after the 7th curriculum, With the introduction of staged curriculum and the system of school year group, the contents of learning were either integrated or moved to middle school. The additional achievement standard was 28.6% of the total, and the achievement standard was added the most with the introduction of spatial sensory development in the 7th curriculum. The GAct that the additivel achievement standard is more than the extinction achievement standard in the Geometry domain is the result of the efforts to actively introduce the geometric contents appropriate to the times despite the great flow of curriculum revision of the curriculum reduction. It is hoped that the results of these studies will be used as basic data in the formation of new achievement standards in future curriculum development.

• Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.19-41
• /
• 2019

In this study, we present an analysis framework based on the 2015 revised curriculum to analyze how mathematical contents and achievement standards for domains of numbers and computations have changed in the curriculum of elementary mathematics in Korea. Based on this, we classified the achievement standards by type and investigated their characteristics. The achievement standards for numbers and computations can be divided into the successive, the extinctive, and the additive achievement standards depending on their characteristics. The successive achievement standards are the ones that have consistently existed without being removed from the 1-st curriculum to the latest revision in 2015. The extinctive achievement standards are the ones that have been removed at some point during the revisions of nine times and do not remain in the current revision in 2015. The characteristics of the extinctive achievement standards were analyzed to be different before and after the 4-th curriculum. The additive achievement standards refer to the ones that have been newly added to the curriculum or that have been removed at a certain moment but added back in later and thus exist in the current revision in 2015. The characteristics of each type according to the changes of the achievement standards can be thought to be the results that the revision for the mathematics curriculum in Korea has been faithfully conducted. Based on the results of this study, we suggest some implications for organizing the achievement standards in the future curricular development.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.40 no.5
• /
• pp.473-483
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of students' academic achievement of middle school science curriculum achievement standards in the 2009 revised national curriculum and to generate implications for curriculum improvement. Based on the results of the 2015-2018 National Assessment of Educational Achievement (NAEA), we analyzed middle school students' mastery of 84 curriculum achievement standards. In the analysis, we used representative item information by achievement level and correct answer rate and checked the validity of the determination of mastery. According to the results of the analysis, 15 of the 84 achievement standards could not determine the degree of achievement. In science, many achievement standards could be mastered only by above-average group students. By achievement level, there were six achievement standards that advanced achievement-level students did not achieve, 38 achievement standards judged to represent mastery by advanced achievement-level students, 23 achievement standards judged to represent mastery by proficient achievement-level students, and two achievement standards judged to represent mastery by basic achievement-level students. By content area, the number of achievement standards corresponding to advanced and proficient levels was similar in the areas of motion and energy and earth and space domains. In the material and life domains, there were more achievement standards corresponding to advanced levels. Accordingly, it is necessary to reinforce customized teaching and learning activities in relation to achievement standards that were under-achieved.

• Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.69-92
• /
• 2018

In this study, we analyzed whether 2015 revised elementary school mathematics curriculum 's standards statements reflect the direction of 2015 revised curriculum. For the objectivity of analysis, 128 achievement standards statements were analyzed based on content - centered statements, activity - centered statements, and performance - centered statements by Seo Young - jin 's (2013). As a result of the analysis, it can be seen that the 2015 revision elementary mathematics curriculum achievement standards statements do not contain enough information to expand the mathematical competence of students. To complement this, the achievement standards statements should include more elements than 'content + function', and other criteria should be developed to clearly communicate the meaning of the achievement standards statements. And it is necessary to supplement the expression of 'function' in the achievement standards in order to improve the expression of the elementary school mathematics curriculum achievement standards statements.

• Education of Primary School Mathematics
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.229-255
• /
• 2020

In this study, considering the OECD's DeSeCo and 2030 projects, the curriculum to develop competency was expected to be more emphasized, and the evaluation standards of the 2015 revised mathematics curriculum for elementary school in Korea and the Australian curriculum were analyzed in depth. To this end, the capabilities newly emphasized in the OECD 2030 Project were examined in detail and examined how the Australian elementary school mathematics curriculum included capabilities in achievement standards and content descriptions. The achievement standards of elementary school mathematics curriculum in Korea and Australia were matched, and the contents of number and arithmetic domain were compared and analyzed, and the skill verbs included in the achievement standards were analyzed and compared to see how their competencies were reflected in the achievement standards. Based on the results of the analysis, implications for improving math achievement standards were derived to faithfully reflect the capabilities into the mathematics curriculum.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.43-60
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to compare the configuration changes of content elements and inquiry activities between 2009 and 2015 revised national elementary school science curriculum, and to examine the trends in achievement standards. The results of this study were as follows. First, the number of content elements presented in the 2015 revised science curriculum was slightly decreased in comparison to 2009 revised one, but fell short of goal level for revision, that was to cut 20 percent of present achievement standards. The characteristics of changes in achievement standards were to enhance the relation to practical life, to integrate the content elements separated, and to adopt the achievement standard to introduce new concept. Second, the number of inquiry activities presented in the 2015 revised science curriculum was also slightly decreased, and to be linked with the changes of achievement standards. In some cases, the range of inquiry activity was adjusted, or the unit to present it was changed. Teacher should know exactly about the elements to be changed in the 2015 revised national elementary school science curriculum, and it will be needed them to make an efforts in the cause of its smooth application.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.59 no.4
• /
• pp.357-371
• /
• 2020

In the 2015 revised math curriculum, core competencies have been embodied and presented as skills and achievement standards. In this study, I analyzed aspects of the link between competencies, skills and achievement standards in the 2015 revised mathematics curriculum for elementary schools. According to the study, six mathematics curriculum competencies were presented evenly as 'skills' in each content area of elementary school, but reflected some of the sub-components of the curriculum, and some of them were presented as 'skills' but not as 'achievement standards'. In addition, the types of skills reflected in the achievement standards varied greatly by content area, but a few of specific skills such as 'understand' were found to be highly emphasized. Based on this, several implications were derived to further improve the implementation of competencies. First, 'skill' should be presented in a more systematic way and with more validity of extraction. Second, the extent to which competencies are presented in the achievement standards should be discussed. Third, Mathematics skills should be presented differently by grade(cluster) in achievement standards, 'Guidelines for Teaching and Learning' and 'Guidelines for Assesment'. Fourth, competencies related to content shall be presented separately and in detail.

• Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.284-300
• /
• 2024

This study elucidates the achievement standards statements of the 2022 revised elementary school science curriculum to identify specific achievement standards for the upcoming curriculum. Therefore, the researcher analyzed the statements of the overall elementary school achievement standards based on Bloom's taxonomy of new educational objectives. The results are as follows. First, the achievement standards statements are biased toward certain knowledge and cognitive process dimensions; this aspect is not consistent with the goals of the 2022 revised curriculum and the teaching and learning directions of the science department. Thus, achievement standards that enable various types of activities and inquiry learning should be developed. Second, a need emerges for the hierarchization of knowledge and cognitive levels by grade level. The proportions of low levels of knowledge and cognitive process dimensions increased in the upper grades, such that a systematic hierarchy should be considered. Third, the need to diversify the use of the descriptors of achievement standards is also identified. Although the tendency to rely on specific descriptors decreased during the previous curriculum, approx imately half of the descriptors were only used once or twice. Therefore, balancing the use of various descriptors is necessary. To ensure that the results are reflected in the achievement standards for elementary school science textbooks under the revised science curriculum for elementary schools in 2022, a discussion is required on the design of achievement standards statements. As a follow-up study, the researcher proposes a comparative analysis of the achievement standards of science curricula for middle and high schools to explore the wording of achievement standards appropriate for elementary school science education considering its nature, goals, and contents and to analyze the hierarchy and continuity of the entire science curriculum.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.145-162
• /
• 2002

In this study, on the basis of the seventh national mathematics curriculum, the achievement standards were developed to specify the objectives and contents of teaching-learning and the assessment standards were also developed to differentiate students' levels of achievement at school mathematics. The achievement standards were developed on the following guidelines; 1) to present the minimum standards based on the national curriculum, 2) to develop the standards based on the order of curriculum, 3) to suggest the minimum but ultimate achievement target, 4) to comprise not only of the intellectual but also of psychological spheres such as knowledge, function, attitude, aptitude, etc., and 5) to suggest the standards comprehensively and concretely. The standards were developed on the basis of the middle areas of contents of the curriculum in order not to be too comprehensive, nor to be too detailed. Learning activities, on the other hand, were provided for the assistance of instructions with emphasis on creativity rather than on the routine instruction. The assessment standards were established based on the following principles; 1) to establish the assessment methods, contents, and situations which are to be used for assessment, 2) to establish the criteria of classifying the assessed into the upper, intermediate and lower levels, 3) to develop the assessment standards in a proportionate balance to achievement standards, 4) to establish the intermediate level as a standard, and 5) to establish the minimum level in the contents, concepts, values and attitudes of basic learning. This study also suggested the exemplary test items including short-answer and open-ended questions while putting emphasis on students' real performance to increase their ability in solving problems rather than in calculating. In addition to the test items, it introduced the grading system developed to grade the items with concrete guidelines and to report students' achievement on doing mathematics.