Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

The Issues in the Current Studies on the Science Curriculum Reform

과학 교육과정 개혁 연구의 쟁점들

  • Published : 2004.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate issues in science curriculum reform studies. For the study the papers in ERIC data base were selected on the key words, 'science education', 'curriculum' and 'reform'. The number of papers are the most on the late 90s which has been increasing since the late 70s. During the last decade the 132 papers were identified on 30 May 2003 and the 18 journals which have more than two articles in each journal have 66% of the total papers. The identified reform issues were 'reform themes', 'program introduction', 'critics and vision of reform'. Reform themes are 'teachers', 'scientific literacy', 'integration and teaching', 'reform processes'. The contents on 'teachers' are related to almost teachers' knowledges and beliefs on the reform, those on 'scientific literacy' are related to the loose definitions of scientific literacy, those on 'integration and teaching' are related to difficulties in teaching with integration, those on 'reform processes' are related to power problems between persons or groups who participated in reform processes, and those on 'critics and visions' are related to the embodiment of science education standards and the problems on the nature of science. This study remarks that these issues should be considered sincerely for the reform of science curriculum in the future.

근래에 과학교육과정의 개혁에서 쟁점화 된 내용이 무엇인지 알아보기 위해 ERIC 자료에 수록된 논문을 중심으로 조사하였다. 과학교육과정 개혁에 관련된 논문수는 70년대부터 시작하여 90년대 말에는 최고에 이르고 있기 때문에 분석 대상 논문을 최근 10년간의 132편으로 하였다. 두 편이상의 논문이 수록된 18종의 잡지에 전체의 약 66% 의 논문들이 보고되었다. 개혁의 쟁점들을 '개혁 주제', '개혁 소개', '개혁 비판과 전망' 으로 분류하였고, 개혁 주제는 구체적으로 '교사', '과학적 소양', '통합과 교수', '개혁 과정' 으로 구별되었다. '교사'관련 내용은 주로 교사들의 믿음과 신념에 대한 것이고, '과학적 소양'은 소양개념 정의의 불확실성, '통합과 교수'는 통합의 어려움과 관련된 교수 문제, '개혁 과정'은 개혁 참여 인사들의 개인적이거나 집단적 힘의 조정 문제, '비판'은 과학교육 기준의 현장 구현과 과학의 본질에 관련되어 있음이 밝혀졌다.

Keywords

References

  1. 이명제(2001). 제7차 과학과 교육과정의 특성과 과제. 한국지구과학회지, 22(3), 248-257
  2. Anderson, H. O.(2000). Teaching toward 2000. Science Teacher, 67(1), 52-53
  3. Ben-Chaim, D., Joffe, N., & Zoller, U.(1994). Empowerment of Elementary School Teachers to Implement science Curriculum Reforms. School Science and Mathematics, 94(7), 356-366 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1994.tb15694.x
  4. Borgwald, J. M. & Schreiner, S.(1994). Science and the Movies: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(6), 367-371
  5. Boydston, T. L.(1999). Policy-Making in Science Systemic Reform. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 141-157 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461185
  6. Bybee, R. E.(1995). Achieving Scientific Literacy: Using the National Science Education Standards to Prove Equal Opportunities for All Students to Learn Science. Science Teacher, 62(7), 28-33
  7. Bybee, R. W., Rodger, W., Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Loucks-Horsley, S.(1997). National Standards and School Science and Mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 97(6), 325-334 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17282.x
  8. Caias, F.(2001). The Science/Technological Interaction: Implication for Science Literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715-729 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1028
  9. Chapman, B. S.(2001). Emphasizing Concepts and Reasoning Skills in Introductory College Molecular Cell Biology.(2001). International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1157-1176 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110038594
  10. Crandall, B. & Varrella, G.(1995). Issue-Based Science. Science Teacher, 62(7), 42-45
  11. Crawley, F. E. & Salyer, B. A.(1995). Origins of Life Science Teachers' Beliefs Underlying Curriculum Reform in Texas. Science Education, 79(6), 611-635 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790604
  12. Cross, R.(1995). Conceptions of Scientific Literacy: Reactionaries in Ascendency in the State of Victoria. Research in Science Education, 25(2), 151-162 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356449
  13. Cross, R. T. & Yager, R. E.(1998). Parents, Social Responsibility and science, Technology and Society(STS): A Rationale for Reform. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16(1), 5-18 https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514980160101
  14. Deal, D.(1994). A Look at Project AIMS. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 11-14 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1994.tb12282.x
  15. Deboer, G. E.(2000). Scientific Literacy: Another Look at Its Historical and Contemporary Meanings and Its Relationship to Science Education Reform, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
  16. Deboer, G. E.(2002). Student-Centered Teaching in a Standard-Based World: Finding a Sensible Balance. Science and Education, 11(4), 405-417 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016075805155
  17. Donna, R. S. & Arlene, H. O.(1997). Project Alliance. Science Scope, March, 50-54
  18. van Driel, J. H., Beiiaard, D., & Verloop, N.(2001). Professional Development and Reform in Science Education: The Role of Teachers' Practical Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
  19. Furio, C., Vilches, A., Guisasola, J., & Romo, V.(2002). Spanish Teachers' Views of the Goals of Science Education in Secondary Education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(1), 39-52 https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140220130911
  20. Gao, L.(1998). Cultural Context of School science Teaching and Learning in the People's of China. Science Education, 82(1), 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199801)82:1<1::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-L
  21. Hart, C.(2001). Examining Relations of Power in a Process of Curriculum Change: The Case of VCE Physics. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 525-551 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013145924470
  22. Hollis, S.(1997). Can Contact with Industry Really Be of Value to Your School? Education in Science, June, 10-11
  23. Hurd, P. D.(1994). New Minds for a New age: Prologue to Modernizing the Science Curriculum. Science Education, 78(1), 103-116 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780107
  24. Hurd, P. D.(2000). Science Education for the 21st Century. School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 282-288 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17321.x
  25. Isaacs, A., Wagreich, P., & Gartzman, M.(1997). The Quest for Integration: School Mathematics and Science. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 179-206 https://doi.org/10.1086/444180
  26. Kennedy, M. M.(1998). Education Refonn and Subject Matter Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 249-263 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199803)35:3<249::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-R
  27. Lederman, N. G. & Flick, L. B.(2002). Consensus in curriculum Development: Let's Agree To Disagree. School Science and Mathematics, 102(2), 53-56 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17894.x
  28. Lederman, N. G. & Niess, M. L.(1998). 5 Apples + 4 Oranges=? School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 281-284 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17422.x
  29. Louden, W., Wallace, J., & Groves, R.(2001). Spinning a Web(Case) around Professional Standard: Capturing the Complexity of Science Teaching. Research in Science Education, 31(2), 227-244 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013130126345
  30. Mayberry, M.(1998). Reproductive and Resistant Pedagogies: The Comparative Roles of Collaborative Learning and Feminist Pedagogy in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 35(4), 332-459
  31. Membiela, P.(1999). Toward the Refonn of Science Teaching in Span: The Social and Personal Relevance of Junior Secondary School Science Projects for a Socially Responsible Understanding of Science, International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 721-730 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290381
  32. Olson, J., James, E., & Lang, M.(1999). Changing the Subject: The Challenge of lnnovation to Teacher Professionalism in OECD Countries. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 69-82 https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183304
  33. Powell, J. C. & Anderson, R. D.(2002). Changing Teachers' Practice: Curriculum Materials and Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107-135 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560179
  34. Pratt, H.(1995). A Look at the Program Standards: How the National Science Education, Science Teacher, 62(7), 22-27
  35. Riess, F.(2000). Problems with German Science Education. Science and Education, 9(4), 327-331 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008712329753
  36. Robertson, C. L., Christine, L., & Olson, J.(1998). A Case Study of Integration and Destreaming: Teachers and Students in an Ontario Secondary School Respond. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(6), 691-717 https://doi.org/10.1080/002202798183396
  37. Roth, W-M., & Lee, S.(2002). Scientific Literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 22-56
  38. Saez, M. J. & Carretero, A.(1998). Innovation in Spanish Science Curriculum: A View of Systemic Reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(6), 719-738 https://doi.org/10.1080/002202798183404
  39. Settlage, J. & Meadows, L.(2002). Standards-Based Reform and Unintended Consequences: Implications for Science Education within America s Urban Schools, Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 39(2), 114-127 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10012
  40. Stanley. W. B. & Brickhouse, N. W.(1994). Multiculturalism, Universalism, and Science Education. Science Education, 78(4), 387-398 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780405
  41. Theodore, L. B.(1999). Policy-Making in Science Systemic Reform. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 141-157 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461185
  42. Thomsen, P. V.(1998). The Historical-Philosophical Dimension in Physics Teaching: Danish Experiences. Science and Education, 7(5), 493-503 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008657731933
  43. Tippins, D., Weiseman, K., & Nichols, S. E.(1998). Contemplating Criteria for Science Education Reform: The case of the Olympia School District. School Science and Mathematics, 98(7), 389-396 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17310.x
  44. Venville, G., Wallace, J., & Louden, W.(1998). A State-Wide Change Initiative: The Primary Teacher-Leader Project. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 199-217 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02462905
  45. Westheimer, F. H.(1994). Deciding How Much Science Is Enough. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 203-206
  46. White, R & Wallace, J.(1999). Heroism and Science Education Reform. Research in Science Education, 29(4), 417-430 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461587
  47. Yager, R. E.(2000), A Vision for What Science Education Should Be Like for the First Years of Millennium, School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 327-341 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17327.x
  48. Yager, R. E. & Lutz, M. V.(1994). Integrated Science: The Importance of 'How'versus 'What'. School Science and Mathematics, 94(7), 338-346 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1994.tb15690.x
  49. Yager, R. E. & Lutz, M. V.(1995). STS to Enhance Total Curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 95(1), 28-35 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15720.x
  50. Zembylas, M.(2002), The Global, the Local, and the Science Curriculum: A Struggle for Balance in Cyprus. International Journal of science Education, 24(5), 499-519 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095267