Bloom의 교육목표분류체계(개정)에 기반한 여행지리 교육과정의 고차 사고력 분석 = An Analysis of Higher Order Thinking in the Travel Geography Curriculum Based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to identify the structure of higher order thinking embedded in the 2015 revised Travel Geography curriculum by applying the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. To this end, a comprehensive analysis was conducted of the characteristics of the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions within the cognitive domain, encompassing achievement standards, learning objectives, textbook texts, inquiry activities, and assessment criteria. In the knowledge dimension, ‘factual knowledge’, ‘conceptual knowledge’, and ‘procedural knowledge’ were classified as lower order knowledge, whereas ‘metacognitive knowledge’ was classified as higher order knowledge. In the cognitive process dimension, ‘remember’, ‘understand’, and ‘apply’ were categorized as lower order cognitive processes, while ‘analyze’, ‘evaluate’, and ‘create’ were categorized as higher order cognitive processes.
The research procedure began with a theoretical review of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy and an analysis of previous studies to examine its applicability to the domain of travel geography. On this basis, an expert-panel content analysis was carried out with three coders, including the researcher. Using a thematic content analysis approach, the curriculum and textbook passages were categorized according to the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions, and the frequency and proportion of each category were calculated. These results were then interpreted in light of the curriculum’s intent and context, as well as the nature of student performance. On this basis, the categories were further refined. A mixed-methods design integrating quantitative frequency analysis and qualitative interpretation was employed to analyze the level and hierarchy of higher order thinking.
The analysis comprised 21 achievement standards in the 2015 revised Travel Geography curriculum, 48 learning objectives from Textbook A, 21 learning objectives from Textbook B, 169 in-text paragraphs from Textbook A, 109 in-text paragraphs from Textbook B, 101 inquiry activities from Textbook A, 189 inquiry activities from Textbook B, and 63 assessment criteria (21 for the ‘high’, 21 for the ‘medium’, and 21 for the ‘low’ performance levels), totaling 721. Within these, nouns and verbs embedded in the achievement standards, learning objectives, inquiry activities, and assessment criteria were classified into the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions, resulting in 1,612 nouns and 1,334 verbs being examined. In consideration of the narrative characteristics of the textbook texts, only nouns were analyzed in the main-text sections.
The findings are as follows. First, in the knowledge dimension, metacognitive knowledge appeared at a relatively high level, indicating that the 2015 revised Travel Geography curriculum partially reflects its stated intention to foster competencies and higher order thinking. However, the overall distribution was heavily skewed toward factual and conceptual knowledge, whereas procedural knowledge appeared at a very low level. Moreover, metacognitive knowledge was concentrated in specific units, leading to an imbalance across units. In the cognitive process dimension, ‘remember’ and ‘understand’ were dominant, whereas higher order cognitive processes such as ‘apply’, ‘evaluate’, and ‘create’ appeared with low frequency. This suggests that cognitive activities in Travel Geography teaching and learning tend to remain at the level of explaining and understanding information.
Second, regarding the hierarchy of higher order thinking, the curriculum did not sufficiently secure a systematic progression from factual knowledge through conceptual and procedural knowledge to metacognitive knowledge, nor from ‘remember’, ‘understand’ to ‘apply’, ‘analyze’, ‘evaluate’, and ‘create’. In particular, the frequency of ‘apply’ was extremely low, and in the ‘low’ level assessment criteria, no cognitive processes other than ‘understand’ were found. This indicates that the current assessment structure does not adequately support the hierarchical development of higher order thinking.
Finally, based on these results, the study proposes directions for improvement at both the national curriculum level and the classroom level, taking into account the hierarchy of higher order thinking. Specifically, it emphasizes the need to strengthen procedural knowledge and the cognitive process of ‘apply’ as intermediate stages in order to enable a gradual transition from lower order to higher order thinking, and to establish coherent, hierarchical alignment among achievement standards, learning objectives, textbook texts, inquiry activities, and assessment criteria. Furthermore, to remedy the current overemphasis on lower order cognitive processes, higher order cognitive processes such as ‘evaluate’ and ‘create’ should be more actively incorporated into inquiry activities and assessment tasks, thereby providing students at all performance levels (‘high’, ‘medium’, and ‘low’) with opportunities to develop higher order thinking. In addition, to address inconsistencies in the required level of higher order thinking across units, continuous development of instructional models is required.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 서론 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 1
• 2. 연구 문제 3
• 3. 연구의 범위 및 정당성 3
• 4. 연구의 중요성 4
• 5. 연구흐름도 5
• II. 이론적 토대 7
• 1. Bloom의 교육목표분류체계(개정) 7
• 1) Bloom의 교육목표분류체계(개정)의 이론 7
• (1) 연구 동향 7
• (2) Bloom의 교육목표분류체계(개정)의 특징 12
• (3) 지식 차원 16
• (4) 인지과정 차원 20
• 2) Bloom의 교육목표분류체계(개정)의 구조 및 교육적 효과 27
• 2. 고차 사고력 28
• 1) 고차 사고력의 정의 및 특징 28
• 2) 고차 사고력 함양의 위계성 34
• (1) 사고력 및 고차 사고력 함양의 위계성 34
• (2) Bloom의 교육목표분류체계(개정)를 활용한 고차 사고력 함양의 위계성 37
• 3. 여행지리의 성격과 교육목표 45
• 1) 여행지리의 성격 45
• 2) 교육목표 51
• III. 연구 방법 53
• 1. 연구 방법 53
• 2. 분석대상 54
• (1) 성취기준 55
• (2) 학습목표 56
• (3) 교과서 본문 57
• (4) 교과서 탐구활동 59
• (5) 평가기준 61
• (6) 성취기준, 학습목표, 교과서 본문 및 교과서 탐구활동, 평가기준의 관계 63
• 3. 분석 전략 66
• 1) 분석 기준 66
• 2) 분석 틀 재구성 73
• 3) 분류가 모호한 인지과정 동사 차원의 구분 75
• IV. Bloom의 교육목표분류체계(개정)를 활용한 고차 사고력 분석 결과 87
• 1. 성취기준 분석 87
• 1) 지식 차원 87
• 2) 인지과정 차원 93
• 2. 학습목표 분석 98
• 1) 지식 차원 98
• 2) 인지과정 차원 102
• 3. 교과서 본문 분석 108
• 1) 지식 차원 108
• 4. 교과서 탐구활동 분석 112
• 1) 지식 차원 112
• 2) 인지과정 차원 117
• 5. 평가기준 분석 124
• 1) 지식 차원 124
• 2) 인지과정 차원 128
• 6. 사고 수준 간의 위계성 분석 134
• 1) 단원별 지식 차원 134
• 2) 단원별 인지과정 차원 138
• 7. 분석 결과 정리 142
• V. 논의 및 개선 방안 146
• 1. 논의 146
• 1) 여행지리 교육과정의 '메타인지 지식' 함양 146
• (1) '자기 성찰'을 통한 의사결정 요소의 반영 146
• (2) '모두가 행복한 여행'을 통한 창의적 문제해결력 증진 147
• 2) 고차 사고력 함양 및 위계성 보완의 필요성 148
• (1) 지식 및 인지과정 차원의 집중 분포 148
• (2) 낮은 비중의 '절차적 지식' 및 '적용하다' 150
• (3) '사실적 지식'에서 '메타인지 지식'으로의 도약 150
• (4) 단원 및 수준 간 고차 사고력의 불균형 152
• 2. 개선 방안 153
• 1) 저차와 고차를 연결하는 사고력 강화 153
• 2) 여행지리 교육과정 개선 방안 156
• (1) 고차 사고력의 함양 및 사고의 위계성을 반영한 국가 수준 교육과정 개발 156
• (2) 고차 사고력 함양을 위한 학교 수준의 여행지리 수업 163
• VI. 요약 및 결론 168
• 참고문헌 173
• ABSTRACT 181
• 부록 1 184
• 부록 2 185