NCS에 기반한 2009-2015 상업교육과정의 비교연구 : 교수학습방법과 평가를 중점으로

Abstract

ABSTRACT A comparative study of 2009 - 2015 Commercial curriculum based on NCS : Focusing on teaching-learning methods and evaluation

Kwon Ji Min Advisor: Prof. Hwang Yoon Yong Major in Business Information Education Graduate School of Education, Chosun University

To understand the current status of education, this study compared the 2015 Curriculum to the 2009 Curriculum whose teaching methods and evaluation standards were vague in respect to NCS introduced for practical education to nurture capable students. For the comparison of differences between the 2009 Curriculum for which NCS was not reflected and the 2015 NCS-based Curriculum, this study interviewed four commerce high school teachers and four small and middle-sized company workers in Gwangju and Jeonnam. The high school teachers as subjects answered the questions on textbooks, teaching methods, evaluation and changes in employment rate. The companies the subjects were working for employed many commerce high school graduates and the company workers who were selected as subjects had direct experiences in office work, banking and tax. The questions were four. The 2015 Curriculum was based on NCS and the class was module-based. However, in respect to whether these modules were good for students to understand and teachers to use as teaching materials, usability of the current NCS textbooks was decided to be Question 1. As results of the interview, learning modules as NCS textbooks were not good for ability-specific class in respect to instruction time. As learning time in curriculum was not matched with learning modules, there was a difficulty in progress of class. Also, the NCS textbooks were ability-based unlike existing textbooks, students did not show interest in textbooks themselves and there was a difficulty in teaching slow learners with them. As there were differences in teaching methods and evaluation measures between the NCS-based curriculum and the 2009 curriculum, this study decided changes in teaching methods and evaluation measures to be Question 2 and Question 3. As results, it was discovered that in the 2009 curriculum the class used both lectures and discussion properly but teachers intervened in class at least for self-directed learning, However, as it was difficult to know specific ability required by industrial fields, it was limited for practical use. The 2015 curriculum usually used project-based class. If teachers gave tasks to students, the students finished the tasks independently and actively using diverse tools. Teachers were just class helpers and students cooperated with classmates for work, which helped them understand the class and encouraged them to have interest in it. However, for this class, teachers had to be well-prepared for the class, changes in instruction time were frequent and it was difficult to achieve objectives intended. Evaluation was made of paper work and performance, and in the 2015 curriculum, the rate of performance evaluation was higher. The 2009 curriculum evaluated only achievement while the 2015 curriculum evaluated both achievement and progress. The 2009 curriculum evaluated practical skills and activity for performance, but in case of evaluation of practical skills, evaluation time was a problem and it was difficult to evaluate students with low rate of participation. The 2015 curriculum evaluated progress. All the progress was evaluated while a student was performing an activity. As one teacher evaluated a few students many times, it was difficult in reality. Also, like the 2009 curriculum, it was difficult to evaluate those who did not participate in activity. Finally, Question 4 was to explore efficacy of employing high school graduates based on the 2015 curriculum. The key of the 2015 curriculum was to help students perform at industrial fields without additional education. The problem is how much companies trust in students who were educated with NCS and whether they will employ them. This study interviewed teachers and companies independently. As a result, teachers responded that change in employment rate was insignificant as the NCS-based curriculum was newly executed. The subjects responded that the future of the NCS-based education will be better if it is stabilized at school and needs of companies are reflected at industrial fields Companies responded that as NCS-based employment increases, students should make more effort to acquire practical skills, humanities and performance ability and cooperate each other for community life, and employment will depend on education background and specifications of students until before the NCS-based employment becomes usual.