교양-전공 연계교육 교과과정 개발을 위한 예비 고찰

Abstract

This study is conducted to build a basis for developing a curriculum model of General Education(GE) aligned with the education of specialized fields in korean colleges or universities. In order to carry out the aimful work, we need a critical assumption that such curricula be distributed in every semester or year and provide all students with the opportunity to attend the courses of GE alongside subject matters offered by the disciplinary fields. Before discussing the development of the curricula model, in this work some relevant issues are dealt with: the situation of GE in Korea and other countries, suggesting three types of curriculum model of GE, and problems which should be solved. Some comparable features are found regarding management of the GE in Korea and abroad. Firstly, while the purpose of GE is not given in many korean universities it is clearly stated in other countries especially in the american and japanese institutions. Secondly, the GE curricula in Korea are still categorized according to the academic fields, in contrast with the case of foreign colleges in which GE curricula are mainly classified reflecting the theme-based, task-based, or problem-solving education. With regard to the curricula model of GE, three samples are suggested for instance institutional, departmental, and eclectic form. In the institutional sample the categories are classified as core, foundation, depth, selective, and special division and sample subjects are distributed under the divisions respectively. As for faculty sample it is taken into consideration that all students can take part in the GE courses during all four years in company with the classes for major field. In the compromised sample a number of seminars are suggested under the blocks such as core, blended, the-based, merged etc. Regardless which sample become GE curriculum model, it should be the prerequisite to set appropriate purpose of GE to each institution, clear goals, and concrete objectives measurable the student learning outcomes and give them feedback to improve their developmental ability. Even though this work has limitation in terms of sufficiency regrading the analysed literatures, it could be envisioned as meaningful to give a basis for developing adequate models available in Korea. In order to produce such successful models, further empirical investigation should be continued.