고등학교 화학Ⅰ과목 중심의 2007 개정 교육과정과 2009 개정 교육과정의 비교분석

Abstract

A comparative analysis of the Curriculum Revision 2009 with the Curriculum Revision 2007: Focusing on the high school Chemistry I

Se Young Joun

Graduate School of Education Pukyong National University

Abstract We are facing a future that will be based on and driven by knowledge, where the creation and development of information and knowledge will serve as the foundation of the society. The Curriculum Revision 2009 was announced with a view to educating our future generation who can successfully meet this challenge, by equipping them with creative skills, as well as upright character.

The current study is a comparative analysis of the Curriculum Revision 2009, in terms of organization, number of units, objectives, instruction methods, assessment, and chapter contents of the science subject. The findings are as follows:

First, the Curriculum Revision 2009 is based on the “cluster subjects” so that the science can serve a better role and have a better status in education. Compared to the Curriculum Revision 2007, the Revision 2009 proposes high schools practice the elective subjects and suggests only the minimum units so that schools can have autonomy. The science cluster is composed of social science area and natural science area, and 35 units per year (15 units for natural science area) are suggested. Chemistry I, in particular, has one unit degree of freedom depending on each school’s situation. This brings about a concern about the variance of the rate and quality of science education among schools, as well as about the science having insufficient units of instruction.

Second, the Chemistry I of the Curriculum Revision 2009 consists of certain contents from the Chemistry II of the Revision 2007, deleting the contents that do not fit in the current school environment. The Chemistry I begins with the basic terminology and concepts, and advances to the understanding of diverse chemical reactions. Also it is composed of four groups of chapters that are hierarchical in contents. Even though it is an advancement with respect to the logic behind the change, it accompanied both the expansion of the amount of contents and the focus on the concepts. This can cause students to feel burden in learning the Chemistry I. Considering that the current system does not distinguish natural science focus from liberal arts focus in high schools, this may exacerbate the problem of students’ avoidance of natural sciences, particularly Chemistry I as their electives.

Third, the Curriculum Revision 2009 suggests exploration activities in each chapter to compensate for the focus on concepts. However, the realistic diagnosis of the school resources, such as lab facilities and the number of units assigned for the subject, raise a concern about the feasibility of the plan.

These findings will help better understand the core of the Curriculum Revision 2009 and can serve as a basis for the establishment of the Chemistry I education stability. Specific suggestions based on these findings are made.