지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 역사교육연구회 역사교육 歷史敎育 第131輯
- 발행연도
- 2014.9
- 수록면
- 67 - 102 (36page)
- DOI
- 10.18622/kher.2014.09.131.67
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
‘Sequencing History Education’ actually means systematization of learning contents of elementary, middle and high school history curriculum. And differentiation strategies for classification in outward appearance is not quite the point of ‘Sequencing.’ Distinct differences found in history education contents for each tri-level school, could be the result of specialized contents formation based on the aims of elementary, middle and high school history education.
‘Sequencing History Education’ demands the multi-pronged efforts for systematization of learning contents; hierarchy of instructional objectives, plans for ‘doing history’ step-by-step, characterized learning topics and so on. Empirically, formal logic claim to stand for sequencing is largely meaningless and should be discouraged; for example, the standard of “life history for elementarypolitical history for middlesocial economy, and cultural history for high school” has proven empirically inefficient, impractical and even harmful to ‘Sequencing History Education’. It requires a more judicious approach to applying the new standards or methods for ‘Sequencing History Education’.
If we hope some fruitful discussion and substantial amendments in ‘Sequencing History Education’, we should rely on the power of collective intelligence of academic and educational world. More important, however, is the greater political will for reasonable and collaborative system for curriculum development.
‘Sequencing History Education’ demands the multi-pronged efforts for systematization of learning contents; hierarchy of instructional objectives, plans for ‘doing history’ step-by-step, characterized learning topics and so on. Empirically, formal logic claim to stand for sequencing is largely meaningless and should be discouraged; for example, the standard of “life history for elementarypolitical history for middlesocial economy, and cultural history for high school” has proven empirically inefficient, impractical and even harmful to ‘Sequencing History Education’. It requires a more judicious approach to applying the new standards or methods for ‘Sequencing History Education’.
If we hope some fruitful discussion and substantial amendments in ‘Sequencing History Education’, we should rely on the power of collective intelligence of academic and educational world. More important, however, is the greater political will for reasonable and collaborative system for curriculum development.
목차
1. 여는 글
2. ‘계열화’ 논의의 국면들
3. 초등학교 ‘사회’ 한국사 내용 구성의 문제점과 개선 방안
4. 중ㆍ고등학교 한국사 내용 구성의 문제점과 개선 방안
5. 맺는 글
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-370-002736690