The main purposes of the study were to compare instructional objectives, inquiry levels, and inquiry skills between Korean and American high school biology textbooks by analyzing 136 laboratory works in 5 kinds of Korean textbooks and 194 ones in 4 kinds of American textbooks, providing high school ...
The main purposes of the study were to compare instructional objectives, inquiry levels, and inquiry skills between Korean and American high school biology textbooks by analyzing 136 laboratory works in 5 kinds of Korean textbooks and 194 ones in 4 kinds of American textbooks, providing high school biology teachers, curriculum planners, and textbook writers with some useful informations for laboratory instruction planning and improvement in curriculum. In this study, 336 instructional objectives from Korean textbooks and 637 ones from American textbooks were classified into knowledge and cognitive process dimension by Bloom’s revised taxonomy. In knowledge dimension, ‘conceptual knowledge’ was primary constituent of the objectives, followed by ‘procedural knowledge’. However there was much less proportion of ‘factual knowledge’, and ‘meta-cognitive knowledge’ in both Korean and American textbooks. On the other hand, ‘understand’ was primary constituent of the objectives, followed by ‘apply’ and ‘rember’ in cognitive process dimension and the proportion of ‘analyze’, ‘evaluate’, and ‘create’ was little. And in American textbooks, ‘understand’ was also primary constituent of the objectives, followed by ‘apply’ as in Korean textbooks, but the proportion of ‘create’ was much more than in Korean textbooks and that of ‘rember’ was the least. A quantitative analysis into 4 inquiry levels of confirmed, structured, guided, and open inquiry for 136 laboratory works in Korean textbooks and for 194 ones in American textbooks was performed. Laboratory works in both Korean and American textbooks were mostly at structured inquiry level while few ones were at guided inquiry level. But, the proportion of guided inquiry level in American textbooks was more than in Korean textbooks. For a qualitative analysis of laboratory works, each coding scheme for problem, procedure, and solution section of laboratory works was developed, respectively. Each coding scheme for problem, procedure, and solution section was composed of 5, 6, and 3 codes, respectively. In the laboratory works of structured inquiry, more codes of problem, procedure, and solution section were found in those of American textbooks than in those of Korean textbooks. The differences between samples from Korean textbooks and those from American textbooks were found in problem section. The pattern of procedure section in samples from Korean textbooks and that in samples from American textbooks were similar. In solution section, the number of samples including ‘application’ code from American textbooks was much more than those from Korean textbooks. As in the laboratory works of structured inquiry, in those of guided inquiry, more codes of problem, procedure, and solution section were found in samples from American textbooks than in those from Korean textbooks. Two distinct differences among laboratory works of structured, and guided inquiry were drawn from the data obtained through the qualitative analysis. Based on these differences, a new quantitative classification scheme of inquiry levels of laboratory works was proposed. And this scheme was applied to sampled laboratory works from Korean and American textbooks for qualitative analysis to reclassify inquiry levels of them. In the laboratory works of structured inquiry, while higher level samples from Korean textbooks were reclassified into structured inquiry b in which students were asked to make either a ‘hypothesis’ or an ‘application’, and structured inquiry c in which students were asked to make neither a ‘hypothesis’ nor an ‘application’, almost of higher level ones from American textbook were reclassified into structured inquiry a in which students were asked to make both a ‘hypothesis’ and an ‘application’. On the other hand, all of lower level ones from Korean textbooks were reclassified structured inquiry c, but a few of lower ones from American textbooks were reclassified into structured inquiry b. Two higher level samples of guided inquiry from Korean textbooks were reclassified into each guided inquiry b, and c. But in the case of higher level ones from American textbooks, all of them were reclassified into guided inquiry a. On the other hand a lower level sample of guided inquiry from a Korean textbook was determined to be a guided inquiry c, but those samples from American textbooks were determined to be guided inquiry a, b, and c. Inquiry skills of performance category were comprised thoroughly, and the proportion of each inquiry skill of the category was similar in Korean and American textbooks. Inquiry skills of planning and design, analysis and interpretation, and application category were not comprised thoroughly in Korean textbooks whereas all inquiry skills of the categories were presented in American textbooks. Moreover, the proportion of each inquiry skill presented in Korean textbooks was generally much less than in American textbooks.
The main purposes of the study were to compare instructional objectives, inquiry levels, and inquiry skills between Korean and American high school biology textbooks by analyzing 136 laboratory works in 5 kinds of Korean textbooks and 194 ones in 4 kinds of American textbooks, providing high school biology teachers, curriculum planners, and textbook writers with some useful informations for laboratory instruction planning and improvement in curriculum. In this study, 336 instructional objectives from Korean textbooks and 637 ones from American textbooks were classified into knowledge and cognitive process dimension by Bloom’s revised taxonomy. In knowledge dimension, ‘conceptual knowledge’ was primary constituent of the objectives, followed by ‘procedural knowledge’. However there was much less proportion of ‘factual knowledge’, and ‘meta-cognitive knowledge’ in both Korean and American textbooks. On the other hand, ‘understand’ was primary constituent of the objectives, followed by ‘apply’ and ‘rember’ in cognitive process dimension and the proportion of ‘analyze’, ‘evaluate’, and ‘create’ was little. And in American textbooks, ‘understand’ was also primary constituent of the objectives, followed by ‘apply’ as in Korean textbooks, but the proportion of ‘create’ was much more than in Korean textbooks and that of ‘rember’ was the least. A quantitative analysis into 4 inquiry levels of confirmed, structured, guided, and open inquiry for 136 laboratory works in Korean textbooks and for 194 ones in American textbooks was performed. Laboratory works in both Korean and American textbooks were mostly at structured inquiry level while few ones were at guided inquiry level. But, the proportion of guided inquiry level in American textbooks was more than in Korean textbooks. For a qualitative analysis of laboratory works, each coding scheme for problem, procedure, and solution section of laboratory works was developed, respectively. Each coding scheme for problem, procedure, and solution section was composed of 5, 6, and 3 codes, respectively. In the laboratory works of structured inquiry, more codes of problem, procedure, and solution section were found in those of American textbooks than in those of Korean textbooks. The differences between samples from Korean textbooks and those from American textbooks were found in problem section. The pattern of procedure section in samples from Korean textbooks and that in samples from American textbooks were similar. In solution section, the number of samples including ‘application’ code from American textbooks was much more than those from Korean textbooks. As in the laboratory works of structured inquiry, in those of guided inquiry, more codes of problem, procedure, and solution section were found in samples from American textbooks than in those from Korean textbooks. Two distinct differences among laboratory works of structured, and guided inquiry were drawn from the data obtained through the qualitative analysis. Based on these differences, a new quantitative classification scheme of inquiry levels of laboratory works was proposed. And this scheme was applied to sampled laboratory works from Korean and American textbooks for qualitative analysis to reclassify inquiry levels of them. In the laboratory works of structured inquiry, while higher level samples from Korean textbooks were reclassified into structured inquiry b in which students were asked to make either a ‘hypothesis’ or an ‘application’, and structured inquiry c in which students were asked to make neither a ‘hypothesis’ nor an ‘application’, almost of higher level ones from American textbook were reclassified into structured inquiry a in which students were asked to make both a ‘hypothesis’ and an ‘application’. On the other hand, all of lower level ones from Korean textbooks were reclassified structured inquiry c, but a few of lower ones from American textbooks were reclassified into structured inquiry b. Two higher level samples of guided inquiry from Korean textbooks were reclassified into each guided inquiry b, and c. But in the case of higher level ones from American textbooks, all of them were reclassified into guided inquiry a. On the other hand a lower level sample of guided inquiry from a Korean textbook was determined to be a guided inquiry c, but those samples from American textbooks were determined to be guided inquiry a, b, and c. Inquiry skills of performance category were comprised thoroughly, and the proportion of each inquiry skill of the category was similar in Korean and American textbooks. Inquiry skills of planning and design, analysis and interpretation, and application category were not comprised thoroughly in Korean textbooks whereas all inquiry skills of the categories were presented in American textbooks. Moreover, the proportion of each inquiry skill presented in Korean textbooks was generally much less than in American textbooks.
주제어
#laboratory works biology textbooks for high school student instructional objectives qualitative analysis inquiry levels inquiry skills 생물교육
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.