영국의 자국어 교육과정 현황 고찰

Abstract

This article examines the format and content of the 2013 English National Curriculum, with specific emphasis on its English language components, and presents some implications for the revision of the Korean National Curriculum. The most interesting aspect of the new curriculum is that its status and role are limited to ‘just one element in the education of every child … which means [that] it provides an outline of core knowledge around which teachers can develop exciting and stimulating lessons’. This is quite different from the Korean view that school-level curriculums should entail the process of implementing the national curriculum. Four domains comprise the English National Curriculum: Spoken Language, Reading, Writing, and Grammar and Vocabulary. The reading domain includes two dimensions—Reading Words and Comprehension—while Writing has three: Transcription, Composition and Vocabulary, and Grammar and Punctuation. Literature does not have a dedicated domain; instead, it is included with reading and writing materials. It is also notable that Grammar and Vocabulary are emphasised in the curriculum, and that pupils are assigned lists of words to learn, which are provided in the appendix. The statement of attainment is summarised as follows: ‘pupils are expected to know, apply and understand the matters, skills and processes specified in the relevant programme of study’. However, potential gaps between the programmes of study and attainment targets could cause confusion. As a result of this policy, certain levels of student achievement are no longer statutory. We suggest the following four revisions to the Korean National Curriculum. First, its status and role should be reduced so that teachers may fulfil various needs of learners as defined in the school-level curriculum. Second, Korean sociocultural characteristics should be reflected in the development of the national curriculum. Third, a subject-matter–centred approach should be favoured over a general educational approach in the curriculum’s design. Finally, the curriculum should be revised on the basis of social agreement and instituted procedures, not for political purposes.