고등학교 교사의 학교교육과정 개발 영역과 교육과정 관심수준 관계
Received: Apr 13, 2004 ; Revised: May 19, 2004 ; Accepted: Jun 7, 2004
Published Online: Jun 30, 2004
본 연구는 제7차 교육과정을 도입 운영하는 고등학교 교사의 학교교육과정 개발영역에 따른 교육과정 관심 수준 차이를 살피는데 그 목적을 두었다. 이를 위해 학교교육과정 개발에 참여하는 집단을 세 집단(집단Ⅰ: 창의적 재량활동 교재개발, 집단Ⅱ: 학교 선택교과 선정위원, 집단Ⅲ: 학교 운영계획서 개발)으로 묶고, 각 집단의 교육과정 관심수준을 설문지를 통해 조사하였다. 또한 각 집단이 주재한 회의관찰과 개인면담도 실시하였다.
연구결과 창의적 재량활동 교재 개발에 참여한 집단Ⅰ이, 학교 선택교과 선정위원인 집단Ⅱ나 학교운영계획서 개발에 참여한 집단Ⅲ에 비해 교육과정 관심수준이 유의미하게 높았다. 사후검증에서 일곱 수준 가운데 지각적 관심, 정보적 관심, 결과적 관심, 강화적 관심 수준이 타 관심에 비해 특히 높게 나타났다. 그러나 관심수준에 대한 집단별 프로파일을 보면 우리나라 고등학교 교사들의 교육과정 관심수준이 제1단계의 관심수준에 머물러 있음이 드러났다. 따라서 이를 극복할 수 있는 획기적인 대책이 필요하다고 본다.
This article was to investigate the relationship between the types of tasks in school curriculum development in which high school teachers' were involved and their level of concerns with the implementation of the Seventh National Curriculum.
For this purpose, 86 secondary teachers (groupⅠ, groupⅡ, groupⅢ) in the capital region were surveyed. And the instrument for the study was Hord's questionnaires for Stages of Concern. For the analysis of variance, SPSS for Windows 10.0 version was used.
The major results obtained from this study are summarized as follows.
First, the three high school teacher groups were significantly different from one another in such stages of concern about the curriculum as awareness, information, consequence, and refocusing.
Second, according to the Scheffe test, groupⅠ(that was involved in developing instructional materials for creative optional activities) was higher than group Ⅱ (that was involved in selecting subjects) and group Ⅲ (that was involved in designing a general plan for school operation) in the intensity of concern.
Third, it is problematic that high school teachers stayed in the first stage of concern (awareness) about curriculum implementation as seen in figure 1.
The results gave following suggestions for effective development and management of school based curriculum based on the revised national curriculum.
First, curriculum developers should break with such simple methods as top-down or bottom-up. Circular methods such as cycle 1, cycle 2, convergency, divergency are much better in raising the level of teachers' participation and concern.
Second, curriculum development period should not be short and it should not be treated hastily. Instead, depending on the types of tasks in school curriculum development, longer time period and diverse approaches are needed.
Third, the national curriculum development center needs to provide teachers, individually or as a group, with differentiated supports according to their stages of concern.
Fourth, teachers, as professional educators, should be encouraged to take part in the process of developing school based curriculum.