대학원 국어국문학과 교과과정의 한일(韓日) 비교 고찰

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide meaningful suggestions for reforming the graduate school curriculum at Korea University by analyzing Japan's case, especially that of Kyoto University. The study covers both educational systems such as prerequisite credits for completion and degree requirements, special curricular contents and the categories of subject matter, which were mainly obtained by analyzing catalogues. The results of the comparison between the two curricula is as follows: First, there are thirty-six credits for the completion of the doctoral course in Korea, but there is none required in Japan. Second, for the acquisition of a doctoral degree, a qualification exam is required in Korea, but not in Japan. In the case of Kyoto University, a graduate student who has not finished the doctoral course but who has made excellent academic achievements, can acquire a doctoral degree. The difference of in curriculum contents is as follows: First, courses in Japan are held for one year in general, unlike Korea's semester system. Also in Japan a intensive courses (‘Shutsu－kogi’) of sixteen lessons per week for one credit are scheduled during the year, but not in Korea. Second, master's and doctoral courses in Korea are divided into two independent programs, such as courses of Korean Language & Korean Literature, while this is not the case at Kyoto University. Thus, the curriculum of Kyoto University has traditionally emphasized the linguistic interpretation of classics, such as annotation of historical Japanese literature. But Korea University has a large number of subjects which mainly reflects the latest research and applied studies. Finally, this study suggests as follows: First, graduate programs in Korea University should provide an interdisciplinary curriculum which includes classical subjects as well as practical subjects. Second, in-class teaching skills should be evaluated by the graduate students. In this respect, it is necessary to execute F.D. (Faculty Development) including the faculty and staff, the courses and programs, all of which can become self-renewing. It is also desirable for graduates students to participate in the process of planning the curriculum by reflecting their input.