영어과 개정 교육과정의 성취기준과 CEFR과의 비교 연구
A comparative study of the achievement standards between the Revised Korean National Curriculum of English and Common European Framework of References (CEFR)
1
조회
0
다운로드
27
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In recent years the Korean National Curriculum of English has been revised and its achievement standards have been established. The purpose of this paper is to compare the achievement standards of the Korean National Curriculum of English with those of Common European Framework of References (CEFR) which has been developed by a number of leading applied linguists and pedagogical specialists from more than 40 member states of the Council of Europe. It also explores the underpinnings and rationales of the two framework developments and discusses their commonalities and differences in terms of the standard descriptions and the framework development methods. Based on the discussions and findings, some general suggestions are made to provide the common basis for the proper Korean curriculum development of English education. Firstly, omplementary quantitative methods are needed to obtain objective validity of achievement standards. Secondly, like CEFR, the descriptive scheme of our achievement standards is required to emphasize the communicative aspects by setting communicative metacategories. Finally, there seem to be significant level discrepancies within the same category as well as between the different categories of language skills. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain the balance in describing the levels of language attainment.
Abstract
In recent years the Korean National Curriculum of English has been revised and its achievement standards have been established. The purpose of this paper is to compare the achievement standards of the Korean National Curriculum of English with those of Common European Framework of References (CEFR) which has been developed by a number of leading applied linguists and pedagogical specialists from more than 40 member states of the Council of Europe. It also explores the underpinnings and rationales of the two framework developments and discusses their commonalities and differences in terms of the standard descriptions and the framework development methods. Based on the discussions and findings, some general suggestions are made to provide the common basis for the proper Korean curriculum development of English education. Firstly, omplementary quantitative methods are needed to obtain objective validity of achievement standards. Secondly, like CEFR, the descriptive scheme of our achievement standards is required to emphasize the communicative aspects by setting communicative metacategories. Finally, there seem to be significant level discrepancies within the same category as well as between the different categories of language skills. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain the balance in describing the levels of language attainment.
참고문헌 (26)
- ,교육인적자원부, , 2007
- 김신영, "국가수준의 ‘성취기준 및 평가기준’ 개발에 대한 고찰", 교육평가연구, 11(1), pp.47~73 (1998)
- 김진석, "수시개정체제 하에서의 영어과 교육과정 개발 체제와 절차", 언어과학, 15(1), pp.21~37 (2008), 한국언어과학회
- 손승희, "초등학교 영어과 교육과정의 학년별 읽기ㆍ쓰기 성취기준 조정에 대한 제언", 현대영어교육, 6(1), pp.101~123 (2005)
- 교육과정에서의 성취기준 연구, "윤현진", 한국교육과정평가원, ~, pp.연구보고 RRC 2008-2 (2008)
- 영어과 교육내용 적정성 분석 및 평가, "이의갑", 한국교육과정평가원, ~, pp.연구보고 RRC 2004-1-11 (2004)
- 이의갑, "영어과 교육과정 개정안(시안)개발 연구 In: 2005년 영어과 교육과정 개정안(시안)개발 연구 위탁과제 답신 보고" (2005), 한국교육과정평가원
- 임찬빈, "영어과 교육과정 개정 시안 수정ㆍ보완 연구 In: 2006년도 교육과정 개정연구 위탁과제 답신 보고" (2006), 한국교육과정평가원
- 장복명, "한국과 일본의 영어과 교육과정에 대한 연구", 현대영어교육, 2(2), pp.278~300 (2001)
- 최진황, "제7차 영어과 교육과정 개발 연구" (1997), 한국교육개발원
- 홍완기, "국가수준 교육과정,무엇을 어떻게 개정할 것인가? In: 한국교육과정평가원 개원 7주년 기념 세미나 자료집" (2005), 한국교육과정평가원
- Alderson, J. C., "Bands and score In: Language testing in the 1990s", pp.71~86 (1991), Macmillan
- Council of Europe, "Common European framework of reference for languages:Learning,teaching,assessment" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Davidson, F., "Statistical support for training in ESL composition rating In: Assessing second language writing in academic contexts", pp.155~166 (1992), Ablex
- Fulcher, G., "Does thick description lead to smart tests? In: A data-based approach to rating scale construction", Language Testing, 13(2), pp.208~238 (1996)
- King, J. A., "Can we achieve outcome-based education?", Educational Leadership, 49(2), pp.73~75 (1991)
- "A bank of descriptors for self-assessment in European Language Portfolios"[URL]
- Linkin-Gasoarro, J. E., "The ACTFL proficiency guidelines:Gateway to testing and curriculum", Foreign Language Annals, 17(5), pp.475~489 (1984)
- Lowe, P., "The ILR proficiency scale as a synthesising research principle:the view from the mountain In: Foreign language proficiency in the classroom and beyond", pp.9~53 (1985), National Textbook Company
- Lowe, P., "Proficiency:Panacea,framework,process? In: A Reply to Kramsch,Scholz,and particularly,to Bachman and Savignon", Modern Language Journal, 70(4), pp.391~397 (1986)
- Milanovic, M., "Language examining and test development" (2002), Language Policy Division
- Milanovic, M., "Developing rating scales for CASE:Theoretical concerns and analysis In: Validation in language testing", pp.15~38 (1996), Multimedia Matters
- North, B., "Scales of language proficiency", Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 4(2), pp.60~111 (1995)
- North, B., "Developing descriptor scales of language proficiency for the CEF Common Reference Levels In: Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching,assessment CASE STUDIES", pp.87~105 (2002), Language Policy Division
- Shohamy, E., "The effect of raters'background and training on the reliability of direct writing tests", Modern Language Journal, 76, pp.27~33 (1992)
- Stansfield, C. W., "Comparing the scaling of speaking tasks by language teachers and the ACTFL guidelines In: Validation in language testing", pp.124~153 (1996), Multimedia Matters