미국 교육과정 구성법의 전개와 그 발달사적 특징

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to generally review the evolution of the curriculum making in the 1900’s-1950’s and to explore meaning of it in a developmental history. The curriculum making refers to the technique of curriculum construction in the light of tenet of so called scientific curriculum development rather than a constructivist’s idea or constructivism as a educational epistemology. So this study examines the characteristic of technique of the curriculum making and explains the historical evolution of the curriculum making in general. The technique of the curriculum making includes the subjects method focusing on subject making by subject matter specialist, the adult activity analysis focusing on analysis of future life of adult and job analysis by F. Bobbitt and C. Charters, the social functions focusing on scope with social functions and sequence with interests, there by work unit resulting in core curriculum by Caswell and Campbell, the needs to youth life focusing on needs and area of problem of youth learner with co-meeting of teacher and learner by H. Alberty, persistent life situation focusing on relation of daily life and persistent life situation by Stratemeyer, et al., and the structure of discipline focusing on the structure of knowledge by Bruner. This study focuses a characteristic and meaning of mode of ’How to make a curriculum’ in a developmental history and evolution. The curriculum making in these days is understood as a reality with socio-historical background. Major elements including establishment of educational objectives, scope, sequence, and unit are interrelated on the basis of the particular orientation and ideas influencing on technique of curriculum making. According to the meaning and the nature of the curriculum making in an historical exploration, a evolution of period by curriculum making is summarized as follows; introductory exploring period, initial establishing period, expansive developing period, and discipline-based period. There are many tasks we should solve for the future concerning context-driven curriculum making, construction beyond Tylerian approach, and our own creative curriculum making.