Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

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

Bloom의 신교육목표분류체계에 기초한 2007 및 2009 개정 초등학교 과학과 교육과정과 미국의 차세대 과학 표준(Next Generation Science Standards)의 성취기준 비교 분석

  • Received : 2015.02.04
  • Accepted : 2015.02.13
  • Published : 2015.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find the point for improvement through the comparative analysis of the 2007 & 2009 revised science curriculum, and the NGSS of the United States with Bloom's revised taxonomy. The results of the analysis confirmed that the revised curriculum in 2009 compared to the revised curriculum in 2007 has expanded the type of cognitive process and knowledge, which promote a higher level thinking. However, the revised curriculum in 2009 has been biased to the type of specific cognitive process and knowledge in cognitive process dimension and knowledge dimension as compared to the NGSS of the United States. In the revised curriculum in 2009, the type of cognitive process such as 'analyze,' 'evaluate,' 'create,' and the type of knowledge such as 'meta-cognitive knowledge' have been treated inattentively. In addition, through comparative analysis, it was identified that the type of cognitive process and knowledge that were neglected in achievement standards were not dealt with in the learning objective of teachers' guides, either. The revised curriculum should consist of achievement standards in comparison to the previous curriculum to reflect better the goals of science education. Therefore, it is necessary to create an achievement standards including various types of cognitive processes and knowledge by improving the method of statement of achievement standards of science curriculum.

과학 교육과정의 성취기준은 교육목표를 안내하고, 교육의 내용을 구성하며, 평가의 방향을 지시하는 중요한 기능을 한다. 2009 개정 과학과 교육과정은 자연현상과 사물에 대하여 흥미와 호기심을 가지고 탐구하여 과학의 기본 개념을 이해하고, 과학적 사고력과 창의적 문제해결력을 길러 일상생활의 문제를 해결할 줄 아는 과학적 소양을 기르는데 목표를 두고 있다. 새롭게 개정된 교육과정인 만큼 이전의 교육과정과 비교하여 과학교육이 추구하는 목표를 지향하는 성취기준이 되어야 바람직 할 것이다. Bloom의 신교육목표분류체계를 사용하여 우리 교육과정의 성취기준을 지식 차원과 인지과정 차원으로 분석함으로써 다양한 지식차원과 인지과정 차원을 담아내고 있는지 알아보았다. 2009 개정 교육과정은 이전의 2007 개정 교육과정과 비교하여 인지과정 및 지식 차원에서 고등사고를 촉진하는 인지과정 및 지식차원의 유형이 확장되었음을 확인하였다. 그러나 미국의 NGSS와 비교하여 인지과정 차원과 지식 차원에서 특정 범주의 인지과정이나 지식 유형에 편중되어 있었다. '분석하다', '평가하다', '창안하다'와 같은 인지과정이나 '메타인지 지식'과 같은 지식의 유형은 소홀히 다루어지고 있었다. 성취기준에서 소홀히 다루어진 인지과정과 지식의 유형은 교사용 지도서의 학습목표에서도 다루어지지 않음을 비교분석을 통해 확인하였다. 교육과정에서 천명하고 있는 과학교육의 목표를 고려하였을 때 교육과정의 성취기준 및 교사용 지도서의 학습목표 진술이 일부 지식 차원과 인지과정 차원에 편중되어 있는 것은 분명 개선이 필요하다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 과학과 교육과정 성취기준의 진술방식에 대한 제고를 통하여 다양한 인지과정과 지식의 유형을 지향하는 성취기준을 작성하여야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Rath, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2005). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. (Kang, H., Kang, Y., Kwon, D., Park, Y., Lee, W., Cho, Y., Joo, D., & Choi, H. Trans.) Boston: Pearson. (original work published 2000).
  2. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Congnitive domain, New york: David Mckay.
  3. Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L. W. (2008). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for development scientific literacy, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
  4. Cho, H., Kim, H., Yoon, H., & Lee, K. (2014). Science Education. Seoul: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
  5. Cho, Y., Seong, J., Chae, J., & Koo, S. (2000). Development and Application of Elementary Science Curriculum to Enhance Creative Problem Solving Abilities. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(2), 307-328.
  6. Choi, K., Cho, Y., & Cho, D. (1998). A Study for the Middle School Science Curriculum to Enhance Creative Problem Solving Abilities - Focusing on the 6th National Curriculum and Classroom Observations. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 18(2), pp. 149-160.
  7. Deno, S. L., & Jenkins, J. R. (1969). On the behaviorality of behavioral objectives. Psychology in the Schools, 6(1), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(196901)6:1<18::AID-PITS2310060104>3.0.CO;2-P
  8. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grade K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
  9. Ha, S., & Kwack, D. (2008). Analysis of Instructional Objectives in a Teaching-Learning Material for Gifted Elementary Students in Science by Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 18(3), 591-612.
  10. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.
  11. Kang, K., & Lim, S. (2010). Analysis of the cognitive domain in the science textbooks' questions. - Focused on “Materials” in the 7th grade of the 2007 revised national curriculum. Journal of the Society for the International Gifted in Science, 4(2), 125-132.
  12. Kim, E. C., & Kellough, R. D. (1991). A Resource Guide for Secondary School Teaching. New York: Macmillan.
  13. Kim, H. (2002). The Review of Educational Objective Theory, Analysis of Unit Objective and Proposal of Objective Statement Method. Journal of Korean practical arts education, 15(1), 1-21.
  14. Kim, N. (2008). The Development and Application of Elementary Practical Art Evaluation Instrument Based on the National Achievement Standards and Evaluation Criteria - Focused in life science contents. (Master's thesis). Seoul National University of Education.
  15. Kim, S. (2013). The Study on the Changing Possibility of National Curriculum based on the Core Knowledge Sequence. Journal of Curriculum Integration, 7(1), 69-95.
  16. Kim, S., Baek, S., & Chae, S. (1998). A review of the development of 'achievement standards and evaluation criteria' in national level. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 11(1), 47-73.
  17. Kim, Y., Lee, H., & Shin. A. (2007). Classification of Instructional Objectives of Elementary Science based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 26(5), 570-579.
  18. Kim, Y., Yoon, K., & Kwon, D. (2010). Analysis of Summative Evaluation Objectives in Middle School Biology based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 164-174.
  19. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  20. Kreitzer, A., & Madaus, G. (1994). "Empirical Investigations of the Hierarchical Structure of the Taxonony" In Anderson, L. and Sosniak, L.(Eds.) Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospective. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
  21. Lee, E., Shin, M., & Choi, C. (2012). Analyses of Instructional Objectives of "Wise Life" Based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(1), 1-12.
  22. Lee, G., & Yoo, T. (2011). Analysis of Cognitive Learning Objectives in the 2007 Home Economics High School Textbooks and Achievement Standards by the Anderson's 'Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives'. Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association, 23(3), 53-68.
  23. Lee, H. (2007). Classifications of Instructional Objectives of Biology based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. (Master's thesis). Kyungpook National University.
  24. Lee, S. & Paik, S. (2013). Suggestion for Science Education through the Analysis of Archimedes' Creative Problem Solving Process. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.030
  25. Marsh, C. (1992). Key Concept for Understanding Curriculum Development. Paris: UNESCO.
  26. Matthews, M. R. (2014). Science teaching : the role of history and philosophy of science (Kwon, S., Song, J., & Park, J. Trans.). London: Routledge. (original work published 1994).
  27. Marzano, R. J. (2005). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives (Kang, H., Kang, Y., Kwon, D., Park, Y., Lee, W., Cho, Y., Joo, D., & Choi, H. Trans.). CA: Corwin Press. (original work published 2001).
  28. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007a). A Guide for Science Curriculum. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.
  29. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007b). Science Curriculum. Notification No. 2007-79 of the MEHRD. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.
  30. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009). Elementary and Secondary School Curriculum : General Statement. Notification No. 2009-41 of the MEST. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
  31. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2012). Science Curriculum. Notification No. 2011-361 of the MEST. Seoul: Ministry of Education Science and Technology.
  32. Ormell, C. P.(1994). Bloom's Taxonomy and the Objectives of Education. Educational Research, 17, 3-18.
  33. Park, I., & Kang, S. (2011). Science Teachers' Perceptions on Scientific and Creative Problem Solving. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(2), 314-327.
  34. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
  35. Seo, Y. (2013). A Critical Review on Statement Form of Content Achievement Standards in the Korean Language Curriculum. Korean language education research, 46, 417-450.
  36. Shin, J., & Cho, C. (2008). The Statement of Geography Instruction Objectives and the Creation of Evaluation Questions Based on Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The journal of the Korean association of geographic and environmental education, 16(2), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.17279/jkagee.2008.16.2.129
  37. Wang, S., Baek, S., & Choi, S. (1999). Research for Development of Evaluation Criteria and tools on the National Curriculum. RRE 1999-4-1. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
  38. Wee, S., Kim, B., Cho, H., Sohn, J., & Oh, C. (2011). Comparison of Instructional Objectives of the 2007 Revised Elementary Science Curriculum with 7th Elementary Curriculum based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(1), 10-21.
  39. Ministry of Education. (2014, September 24). Announcement for main respect of 2015 integrated curriculum of liberal art and natural science. Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.moe.go.kr/web/100026/ko/board/ view.do?bbsId=294&pageSize=10¤tPage=3&encodeYn=Y&boardSeq= 56874&mode=view.
  40. Next Generation Science Standards. (2014, December 14). NGSS Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/iles/Final%20Release%20NGSS%20Front%20Matter%20-%206.17.13%20Update_0.pdf

Cited by

  1. 초등학교 과학과 5, 6학년 서술형 평가문항의 행동영역 내용타당도 및 이에 영향을 미치는 요인 분석 vol.36, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.1.0087
  2. 과학 교육에서의 평가 연구 동향 vol.36, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0563
  3. 2009 개정 과학과 교육과정의 성취기준에 사용된 서술어 분석 -TIMSS 인지적 영역 평가틀을 중심으로- vol.36, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.4.0607
  4. 2009 개정 초등 과학과 성취기준에 대한 교사들의 이해와 활용 vol.36, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.6.0911
  5. 언어네트워크분석을 활용한 대학부설 과학영재교육원 교육프로그램의 학습목표 특성 분석 vol.27, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.9722/jgte.2017.27.1.17
  6. 과학과 교육과정 성취기준의 인지적 영역에 대한 국어교육전공자와 과학교육전공자의 해석 차이:설명하기를 중심으로 vol.37, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0371
  7. Bloom의 신교육목표 분류체계에 기초한 4차 산업혁명 시대에 요구하는 지식과 역량 분석: 2015 개정 실과(기술·가정) 교육과정의 가정과 성취기준을 대상으로 vol.30, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.19031/jkheea.2018.09.30.3.129
  8. Analysis of Knowledge in Nursing Management Educational Objectives based on Anderson's Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy vol.25, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2019.25.3.198
  9. 2015 개정 과학과 교육과정에 제시된 중학교 1학년 성취기준과 과학 1 교과서에 포함된 활동과 평가 문항 분석: 과학과 핵심역량 중심으로 vol.63, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2019.63.3.196
  10. 통합과학, 화학 I, 화학 II의 성취기준과 교과서 활동 및 평가 문항의 과학과 핵심역량 분석: '산·염기·중화반응'과 '산화·환원'을 중심으로 vol.63, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2019.63.6.486
  11. 2015 개정 교육과정에서 초등과학과 교육과정 성취기준 분석 방법의 제안 -'지구와 우주' 영역을 중심으로- vol.40, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2020.40.2.163