RISS 검색 - 학위논문 상세보기

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 2018년에 개시된 『고교영어과정표준(2017년판)』(이하 SHECS)의 실시에 관한 연구로서 중국 중학교 영어교육의 커리큘럼 혁신을 대표하고 있습니다.커리큘럼 혁신이 큰 영향을 미쳤지만 '고교 영어수업기준' 시행의 현실에 대한 연구는 드물었습니다.이 연구 공백을 메우기 위해 본 연구에서는 현실에서 일어나는 일과 SHECS 의도의 일치 정도를 고찰하고, 다음의 세 가지 질문에 답하려고 시도합니다.
질문 1: 개정된 교과서는 수업내용과 목표에 있어서 SHECS와 일치합니까?
질문 2: 복잡한 수업 현실에서 선생님은 어떻게 생각하고 SHECS를 실행합니까?
질문 3: 어떤 요인이 SHECS의 실시에 영향을 미쳤습니까?
삼각측량법을 사용했을 때, 연구에 의하면 실시한 결과가 좋고 나쁨이 반반이라고 합니다.많은 좋은 방면이 있지만, 존재하는 문제도 경각심을 불러일으킵니다. 교과서는 기본적으로 SHECS의 혁신을 반영하지만, 어휘량이 너무 많고, 문화원 분포가 고르지 못한 문제도 있습니다. 교사의 수업 이념은 혁신도 있고 전통도 있지만, 그들이 보여주는 수업 실천은 더욱 뿌리 깊고, 전통적이며, 형식적이고, 교사 중심적이고, 교과서 중심적이고, 시험 중심적입니다.연구에 따르면 교사들이 교과서에 지나치게 의존하고 있어 SHECS 에 대한 이해와 시행에 편차가 있는 것으로 나타났습니다. 그러면서 이들은 SHECS가 너무 높고 야심 차다고 주장해 현실에서 실용적이지 않다는 것을 증명했습니다.
연구에서 발견된 잠재적 영향요인은 일반적으로 서로 얽혀 있습니다.수업 자체와 관련된 요인, 학습자의 요인, 교사의 요인, 기관의 요인, 외부의 요인이 함께 SHECS 시행의 실정을 초래하였습니다.커리큘럼이 실용적이고 명료하지 못하며, 학생들의 적극성, 자주성, 숙련도가 낮고, 교사의 업무량이 많고, 전문성이 강하지 않으며, SHECS에 대한 이해도 철저하지 못합니다.지방교육기관, 학교, 부서교육연구 (DER) 및 동료교사는 교사의 실시에 충분하고 효과적인 지원을 하지 못하고 있습니다. 외부 요인으로는 전국대학수학능력시험(NMET)이 가장 두드러지는데, 이는 본 연구에서 검토되는 거의 모든 측면에 영향을 미치기 때문입니다.
그 결과과정 커리큘럼 혁신이 예상대로 시행되지 않았다는 것을 알 수 있습니다. SHECS의 실시를 개선하기 위하여 약간의 건의를 제기했습니다. 첫째, 하향식 및 상향식(예를 들어, 대학과 고등학교의 협력 프로그램)을 통합한 포괄적인 실행 시스템을 구축하여 커리큘럼 혁신을 실현할 것을 제안합니다.둘째, 전국적인 네트워크 플랫폼을 구축하여 교육 불균형 문제를 해결하기 위한 실시간 지원과 자원을 제공하고 교사의 혁신 장애를 적시에 제거해야 합니다. 또한 교과 과정 구조와 교과서는 서로 다른 수준의 학생들을 수용할 수 있도록 구체적으로 계층화해야 합니다.또 NMET 개혁과 교과서는 수정해야 합니다. SHECS의 이념과 더 잘 일치하도록 노력하세요. 또한, 실무 훈련과 같은 전문적인 개발 채널을 실행 가능한 방식으로 제공하는 것이 좋습니다. 형식은보다 다양해야하며, 이론에서보다 실제 교육에 대한보다 구체적인 지침이 있어야합니다.
이 연구는 이론과 실천 모두에 중요한 의미를 가지고 있습니다.한편으로는, 국가 커리큘럼 개혁의 시행 등 거대하고 복잡한 과제와 예측하기 어려운 성격 연구를 연구하는 실행 가능한 방법을 제공할 수 있습니다. 한편 구현의 질을 밝히고 실시 현황과 이상화 개념 사이의 차이를 지적하여 의사결정자, 교과 과정 디자이너, 교과서 편집자, 교육 행정관, 교사 등 이해 관계자에게 저해 요인 과 현황을 이해시켜 향후 계획, 설계 및 구현을 개선할 수 있도록 합니다.

번역하기

본 연구는 2018년에 개시된 『고교영어과정표준(2017년판)』(이하 SHECS)의 실시에 관한 연구로서 중국 중학교 영어교육의 커리큘럼 혁신을 대표하고 있습니다.커리큘럼 혁신이 큰 영향을 미쳤...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The present study examines the implementation of the Senior High School English Curriculum Standards (2017 edition) (hereafter the SHECS), which was initiated in 2018, representing curriculum innovation in English language education in Chinese secondary schools. Despite the significant influence that the curriculum innovation brought about, the relevant study on the reality of the implementation of the SHECS was scarce. To fill the research gap, the present study examined the extent of alignment in terms of school textbooks and teachers between what happened in reality and what was intended by the SHECS, trying to answer the following three questions:
Question 1: Are the revised textbooks aligned with the SHECS in terms of curriculum content and objectives?
Question 2: How do teachers think and do in implementing the SHECS in the complex teaching realities?
Question 3: What factors might have influenced the implementation of the SHECS?
Employing a triangulation approach, the study revealed a mixed result of the implementation. There were many good aspects, but the impeding factors were also alerting. Textbooks basically reflected the innovations of the SHECS, though there were some problems such as the overloaded volume of the vocabulary and uneven distribution of the cultural sources. Teachers’ teaching beliefs were both innovative and traditional, while the teaching practices they exhibited were more entrenched, which appeared traditional, form-focused, teacher-centered, textbook-centered and exam-oriented. It was also found that teachers relied too much on the textbooks, which led to their biased interpretation and implementation of the SHECS. Meanwhile, they thought the SHECS was too lofty, supreme and ambitious, indicating that it was not practicable in reality.
The perceived factors were usually interwoven in the study. Factors related to the curriculum itself, learner factors, teacher factors, institutional factors and external factors collectively resulted in the realities of the implementation of the SHECS. The curriculum was not practicable and clearer enough, students were low in motivation, autonomy and proficiency, and teachers were heavily loaded, incompetent in professional skills, and inadequate in a thorough understanding of the SHECS. Local educational institutions, schools, departmental education research (DER), and colleagues did not provide sufficient and effective support for teachers’ implementation. Among external factors, the National Matriculation English Test (NMET) was most salient as it influenced almost all dimensions under scrutiny.
The result indicated the curriculum innovation was not implemented as it was intended. Suggestions were offered to help improve the implementation of the SHECS. First, it was suggested to construct a comprehensive implementation system to enact the curriculum innovation in a combination of the top-down and the bottom-up approach, e.g., university and senior high school collaboration programs. Second, a national online platform should be constructed to provide real-time support and resources to solve the educational imbalance and to remove teachers’ implementation barriers in time. Besides, the curriculum structure and textbooks should be specifically stratified to accommodate different levels of the students. Furthermore, the NMET reform and textbooks should be revised to keep better alignment with the philosophy of the SHECS. In addition, professional development channels such as in-service training should be provided in a feasible way, with more diversity of forms and more concrete guidance on the actual teaching rather than just talking big on theories.
The research had important implications for both theory and practice. For one thing, it contributed to the feasible approaches to investigate the elusive nature of such a massive and complex task as the implementation of national curriculum reform. For another, it can reveal the quality of the implementation and indicate the gap between implementation and idealized conceptions, informing the high-stake holders such as policymakers, curriculum designers, textbook compilers, educational administrators and teachers of the impeding factors and the status quo so that they can improve the plans, designs and implementation in the future.

번역하기

목차 (Table of Contents)

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background 1
1.1.1 English curriculum reforms in China’s secondary education 3
1.1.2 Problems: a need for reform 5
1.2 Purpose 9

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background 1
1.1.1 English curriculum reforms in China’s secondary education 3
1.1.2 Problems: a need for reform 5
1.2 Purpose 9
1.3 Research questions 11
1.4 Significance 11
1.5 Organization of the dissertation 14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 15
2.1. Curriculum 15
2.1.1 Curriculum Standards 15
2.1.2 Curriculum and syllabus 18
2.2 The SHECS: a curriculum innovation 19
2.2.1 Towards core competencies 20
2.2.2 Aims and objectives 22
2.2.3 Content 26
2.2.4 Teaching approach 32
2.2.5 English teaching paradigms underlying the SHECS 35
2.3 Literature review on curriculum implementation 40
2.3.1 Models for examining implementation alignment 40
2.3.2 Textbooks in the implementation of curriculum innovation 47
2.3.3 Teachers in the implementation of curriculum innovation 52
2.3.4 Factors influencing the implementation 59
3. METHODOLOGY 62
3.1 Research design 62
3.1.1 Contexts 63
3.1.2 Conceptual framework 65
3.1.3 Triangulation 69
3.2 Research methodology 70
3.2.1 Textbook analysis 71
3.2.2 Questionnaire 77
3.2.3 Interview 87
4. FINDINGS FROM TEXTBOOK ANALYSIS 95
4.1 Macro-level analysis 95
4.2 Micro-level analysis 100
4.2.1 Themes 101
4.2.2 Text types 105
4.2.3 Language competence 108
4.2.4 Cultural knowledge 126
4.2.5 Learning ability/Learning strategies 133
4.2.6 Thinking capacity/Learning activities 144
5. FINDINGS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE 148
5.1 General descriptions 148
5.1.1 Perception & Receptivity (PR) subscale 149
5.1.2 Beliefs and Orientation (BO) subscale 153
5.1.3 Teaching Practice (TP) subscale 159
5.1.4 Resources and Support (RS) subscale 165
5.2 Differences among teachers 171
5.2.1 Age and gender differences 171
5.2.2 District differences and school type differences 174
5.2.3 Differences in teaching length and academic qualification 176
5.3 Correlation among dimensions 179
6. FINDINGS FROM THE INTERVIEWS 182
6.1 Teaching materials 182
6.1.1 Evaluation of the teaching materials 182
6.1.2 Use of other teaching materials 185
6.1.3 Teachers’ interaction with textbooks 186
6.2 Teacher beliefs and practices 188
6.2.1 Mistaking textbooks with the SHECS 189
6.2.2 Limited understanding 190
6.2.3 Gao, Da, Shang 193
6.2.4 Insufficient practice of language skills 194
6.2.5 Complicated beliefs and practice 198
6.2.6 Cultivation of nonlanguage competence 203
6.3 Influencing factors 206
6.3.1 Factors of curriculum and innovation per se 206
6.3.2 Local factors 207
6.3.3 External factors 220
7. DISCUSSIONS 228
7.1 Research question 1 228
7.2 Research question 2 230
7.3 Research question 3 235
8. CONCLUSIONS 241
References 248
Appendix 273
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire 273
Appendix B Semi-Structured Interview Protocol 275
Appendix C: A Snapshot of Each Textbook 279
Abstract (Korean) 281

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Egan , K., "What is curriculum ?", 8 ( 1 ) , 65-72 ., 1978

2 Zou , S., "Test effect and solutions", 109 , 59-66, 2005

3 Porter , A. C. , Smithson , J. , Blank , R. , & Zeidner , T., "Alignment as a teacher variable", 20 ( 1 ) , 27-51 ., 2007

4 Thomas , J, "Cross-cultural pragmatic failure", 2 , 91-122, 1983

5 Fullan , M., "The return of large-scale reform", 1 ( 1 ) , 5-27 ., 2000

6 Cortazzi , M. , & Jin , L., "English teaching and learning in China", 29 ( 2 ) , 61-80 ., 1996

7 Fullan , M. G., "Why teachers must become change agents", 50 , 12-12, 1993

8 Braun , V. , & Clarke , V., "Using thematic analysis in psychology .", 3 ( 2 ) , 77-101 ., 2006

9 Goodlad , J. I. , Klein , M. F. , & Tye , K. A ., "The domains of curriculum and their study", 43-76, 1979

10 Creswell , J. W. , & Miller , D. L., "Determining validity in qualitative inquiry", 39 ( 3 ) , 124-130, 2000