中、韩现行义务教育课程方案及课程标准比较
Comparison of Compulsory Education Curriculum Programs and Standards between China and Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Using the method of comparative analysis, the contents of China's Compulsory Education Lesson Plans (2022edition) and Korea's General Education Curriculum (2015 Edition 2022 Revised) are compared in terms of six aspects: Educational Training Objectives, Principles of Education, Curriculum Development, Preparation of Curriculum standards, Preparation of Teaching Materials, Curriculum Implementation and Curriculum Evaluation. Analysis of the differences between the compulsory education curriculum programs in China and Korea. The results of the comparison reveal that there are certain similarities between the current education Lesson Plans and standards in China and Korea based on the legal, cultural and international context of basic education curriculum reform, but due to the differences in curriculum objectives, reform and implementation stages between the two countries, there are significant differences in the actual teaching and learning process in three areas: curriculum development, curriculum implementation and curriculum evaluation. The compulsory Lesson Plans and standards in China and Korea are still undergoing reform and innovation. Korea 's experience with China is as follows:1. breakthroughs in the implementation of the "lifelong education" reform and the "credit bank" policy; 2. active learning in the capacity of primary and secondary schools in terms of overall school curriculum planning, subject development guidance plans and unit planning plans; 3. a breakthrough is needed in the area of creativity in the editing of teaching materials. China's experience with Korea is as follows: 1. the scientific and logical nature of the construction of a core literacy system for student development is worth learning from; 2. the lack of knowledge panels and knowledge skills in some subjects requires a re-examination of the overall structure of the curriculum and the logic of the subject system; 3. the difficulties in improving the quality of education and the polarization of examination results brought about by a highly liberal and democratic curriculum requires a more detailed policies, it is worth pondering.
Abstract
Using the method of comparative analysis, the contents of China's Compulsory Education Lesson Plans (2022edition) and Korea's General Education Curriculum (2015 Edition 2022 Revised) are compared in terms of six aspects: Educational Training Objectives, Principles of Education, Curriculum Development, Preparation of Curriculum standards, Preparation of Teaching Materials, Curriculum Implementation and Curriculum Evaluation. Analysis of the differences between the compulsory education curriculum programs in China and Korea. The results of the comparison reveal that there are certain similarities between the current education Lesson Plans and standards in China and Korea based on the legal, cultural and international context of basic education curriculum reform, but due to the differences in curriculum objectives, reform and implementation stages between the two countries, there are significant differences in the actual teaching and learning process in three areas: curriculum development, curriculum implementation and curriculum evaluation. The compulsory Lesson Plans and standards in China and Korea are still undergoing reform and innovation. Korea 's experience with China is as follows:1. breakthroughs in the implementation of the "lifelong education" reform and the "credit bank" policy; 2. active learning in the capacity of primary and secondary schools in terms of overall school curriculum planning, subject development guidance plans and unit planning plans; 3. a breakthrough is needed in the area of creativity in the editing of teaching materials. China's experience with Korea is as follows: 1. the scientific and logical nature of the construction of a core literacy system for student development is worth learning from; 2. the lack of knowledge panels and knowledge skills in some subjects requires a re-examination of the overall structure of the curriculum and the logic of the subject system; 3. the difficulties in improving the quality of education and the polarization of examination results brought about by a highly liberal and democratic curriculum requires a more detailed policies, it is worth pondering.
참고문헌 (18)
- "义务教育课程方案和课程标准(2022年版) 情况介绍" (2022)[URL]
- 义务教育课程方案和课程标准(2022年版)答记者问, "教育部教材局", 教育部, ~ (2022)
- 中华人民共和国教育部, "普通高中课程标准(2017年版2020年修订)" (2020), 人民教育出版社
- 中华人民共和国教育部, "中华人民共和国义务教育法" (2021), 中国法制出版社
- 中华人民共和国教育部, "义务教育课程方案和课程标准" (2022), 人民教育出版社
- 崔允漷, "义务教育课程改革的目标、标准与实践向度(笔谈)", 义务教育课程方案和课程标准, (9), pp.6~19 (2022), 现代教育管理
- 中韩高中地理(社会)课程标准比较, "金春梅", 延边大学, ~ (2013)
- 索丰, "G20国家教育研究系列丛书韩国基础教育", pp.65~66 (2015), 同济大学出版社
- 王民, "基于学生核心素养的地理科学能力研究" (2018), 北京师范大学出版社
- "별책3 중학교 교육과정(2018-162호)" (2018), 교육부[URL]
- "015 개정 초등학교 교육과정 총론 해설서(고시 제2022.2호 일부 개정 포함)" (2022), 교육부[URL]
- "2015 개정 중학교 교육과정 총론 해설서(제2022. 2호 일부 개정 포함)", 교육부[URL]
- "고시 제2022-2호 초ㆍ중등학교 교육과정 총론(고교학점제 단계적 이행 방안반영)", 교육부[URL]
- "초ㆍ중등학교교육과정총론(교육부고시제2022-2호)", 교육부[URL]
- (2021), 법무부[URL]
- "교육부고시 제2022-2호" (2022), 총론[URL]
- 소경희(蘇京姬), "국가 교육과정 개혁 과제 탐색:‘2007 교육과정’의 검토와 반성", 아시아교육연구, 8(2), pp.135~159 (2007), 교육연구소[DOI]
