This study is to critically examine the Korean curriculum research and development system and to propose the future direction of curriculum R&D on the basis of a researcher`s experience and self-reflection of participating in the 7th national curricul...
This study is to critically examine the Korean curriculum research and development system and to propose the future direction of curriculum R&D on the basis of a researcher`s experience and self-reflection of participating in the 7th national curriculum R&D. In the former part, this study proposes five major problems of the Korean national curriculum R&D system. First, design rather than deliberation is being emphasized in the national curriculum R&D process. Second, the curriculum R&D process is too much controlled by government officials in terms of the R&D period, money, and personnel. Third, there are too many discrepancies between general guidelines of the national curriculum and features of subject curricula. Fourth, prescription is being preferred to understanding in the R&D process. Fifth, there is a very hierarchical structure in the R&D system. In the latter part, this study proposes four basic principles of the national curriculum R&D in Korea on the basis of current R&D problems identified above. First, the R&D system should be more democratized by involving more persons in the R&D process. Second, the R&D system should provide more opportunities to deliberate over the major problems. Third, the R&D system should be changed to produce diversified curricula. Fourth, the R&D system should be simplified in order to make curriculum implementation more plausible. In conclusion, this study presupposes that an eclectic model of curriculum R&D system is better than an institutional model in which national curriculum is revised periodically and whole scale on the national level by government-led policies, and better than a romantic model in which national curriculum is revised constantly and gradually on the school level by teachers. Here, an eclectic model is regarded by a researcher as the synthesis of an institutional model (as thesis) and a romantic model (as antithesis).