This study was conducted to determine the need to increase the linkage between the “2022 Special Education Korean Language Basic Curriculum (hereinafter referred to as “Basic Curriculum”)” and the “2022 General Korean Language Education Cur riculum (hereinafter referred to as “General Curriculum”).” For this purpose, the “Basic Curriculum” and the “General curriculum” were compared and analyzed. The specific areas of comparison were subject competency, subject goals, and content systems between the two curricula. The researchers conducted a comparison and analysis of the two curricula documents and reviewed and supplemented the appro priateness of the results through interviews with special education experts. The study findings were as follows: When comparing subject competencies, the “Basic Curriculum” was reduced in terms of the meaning and scope of the subject competencies in the “General Curriculum.” The analysis of subject goals confirmed that the “Basic Curriculum” places greater emphasis on the ability to use language as an act of understanding and expression. When presenting the subgoals, greater emphasis was placed on the use of communication media or tools in the “Basic Curriculum.” Furthermore, in the composition of the sub-domains, the “Basic Cur riculum” presented only three areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and the contents of grammar, literature, and media were significantly reduced. Finally, comparing the content system and content elements reveals that the two curricula share a large framework of the content system. However, the “Basic Curriculum” lacked detail in the subcategories that highlight the characteristics of the Korean language subjects, which made it challenging to present content elements system atically. Based on the results of this analysis, this study proposed a plan to increase the connection between the “Basic Curriculum” and the “General curriculum.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: