Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on the Opti

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on the Opti"

국희 포
5 years ago
Views:

1 Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on the Optimization of Appropriate Hearing-impaired Curriculum Purpose: This study articulated the three following research purposes from the intention to assess how appropriately the 2015 Revised Special Education Curriculum reflects the educational needs of Hearing-impaired students. Method: First, it investigated the effect of change in the curriculum on Subject Matter of Hearing-impaired students. Second, it analyzed the effect of achievement standards on appropriateness of Hearing-impaired curriculum. Lastly, it established the effect of the 2015 Revised Special Education Curriculum on Subject Matt of Hearing-impaired students. The author conducted a review on the literature to achieve the first and third goals, and analyzed an agent-based model for the third goal. Results: The results were as follows. First, curriculum for deaf students has gradually been developed in order to meet the general standards of Common Core State Standard Curriculum and the special needs claimed by Hearing-impaired students. Second, it is important to locate the optimal level of content standards to develop a higly appropriate Special education curriculum. Third, the 2015 Revised Special Education Curriculum focuses more on the reorganization and the application of the curriculum by subjects, than on the participation of Hearing-impaired students in the Subject Matter. Key words : hearing-impaired student, change in the curriculum, optimization of curriculum, reorganization of curriculum Corresponding Author: Kwon, Soon-Hwang. International University of Korea, Dept. of Elementary Special Education, (52833) Dongburo 965 Munsan Jinju Gyeongnam, Korea, kwosk@hanmail.net

2 .,,.., (Deckers, 2004) (, 2011;, 2010;, 2015)... (, 2012;,, 2013;,, 2004). (, 2013). (,, 2013).,,,.,?

3 (, 2015;,, 2009;, 2015;, 2015;, 2015) ,.,., , (, 2012) (, 2010). (, 2009).. (2004), 5 (1989) 7. (2010),.

4 (2010).. (2015),.. (, 2010) ,,.. (2011),. (2012),,,. (2013),, (2013). (2013), (2011). (2011)

5 , (2011),,,., (2009),,,,.,,,,,. (2010),,. (2015),,. (2015),,.. (Computational modeling)..., (Burton & Obel, 2011).,. (Agent-based modeling) (Epstein, 1999).,..

6 2015, ( ) ( ). 2015,,,.,. ''. (),.,. (). 20%, 30%..,.,,,,,,..,.,,,, () 50%..

7 , ( ) (, 2013) ,.. 1) 연구모형 March(1991)., t t (, 2015).,, t=0.. Mc*Mp,. Mc Mp., , [(1, 0), (1, 1), (0, 0), (0, 1), (0, 0)]., t, N.,, stdc stdp.

8 ,.. C,. 2) 분석 Mc Mp 20, N 30.. t 100., t,. C (C=.7) (, 2015 ). stdc stdp stdc stdp,. 10,000 (, 2015 ).. < -1>. 1 *, 1955~1963 *, +

9 ( ) 1 * * *,,, * ~ * +, + * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ *, * *,, *,, * (1,2) 3 *,,, / * 1,2 *,, * ( ) * 21 * * * * 3 * * :,,, * * ( ) * *, * : + + (,,,,,,,, ) * 2 * * 1979~ * ( ) 1984~ ~ ~ * * * * * *, * * * * * *, * * * -,,, * -,, *,,,

10 ( ) * * * ' ' - ' < -1>. 3 4 (, 2015). 1) 내용기준이특수교육교육과정적합성에미치는영향 Average Achievement Level stdc (Content Standard) Time (t) N=30; Mc, Mp=20; stdp=0.5; C= ,000 Iterations.

11 < -1>. t, ) 수행기준이청각장애특수교육교육과정적합성에미치는영향 Average Achievement Level 0.8 stdp (Performance Standard) Time (t) N=30; Mc, Mp=20; stdc=0.5; C= ,000 Iterations. < -2> ) 성취기준이특수교육교육과정적합성에미치는영향

12 Average Achievement Level (t=100) 0.8 stdp (Performance Standard) stdc (Content Standard) N=30; Mc, Mp=20; C=0.7; t=100; 10,000 Iterations. < -3> t=100. stdp stdc. stdc 0.5 stdp 0.5, stdc stdc < -2> *. * * * * * * * (,,,,, )

13 ( ) 2015 * * (,,,,, '' ) * '() * *, *. ' < -2> (2004) 7, (2010) (2010) , (,, 2015)

14 4 (,, 2004) , (2009).. (2001).. (, 2014) (2008). (2013) (, 2015).,, (, 2012).,

15 ,. (2013), (2011).., (2011), (2013)..,.,, (, 2012)...,.. (2011)..

16 ,.,...., (, 2015).,.,. 2015,. (2015) 2015,,.., (2015) (, 2011).,., ( ).

17 (2015) 3 2,,, ,,,.,.., 2015 (,,, 2015). (2015),.,,,.. (2014).,., (, 2011)., 2015.

18 ..,..,.., 2015.,.,.

19 (2011).. (3), (2014).. (4), , (2013).,. (4), (2011)... (2013).. (2), (2013)... (2012).. (4), (2015).. (2), (2011).. (4), (2010).. (2), , (2013).. (4), (2015).. (2), , (2013) (2), (2009)..., (2015). : (3), (2009)... (1989)..., (2013).. (2),

20 , (2008).. (3), , (2009).. (3), (2015) :. (1), (2011) (1), (2001). :..,, (2015). : (4), (2015).. (3), (2015) :. (4), , (2011).. (4), ,,,,,, (2015). :. (2011).. (4), , (2011).. (1), (2010).. (1), 1-21., (2004). 7. (1), (2010).. (2), (2012).. (3), (2013).. (3), Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (2011). Computational modeling for what-is, what-might-be, and

21 what-should-be studiesand triangulation. Organization Science, 22(5), Decker, F. W. (2004).. :. Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agentbased computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 4(5), Grant, W., & Jay, M. (2008).,,,,,. :. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), : / : / :

22 : 2015.,.,., :. :,.,., 2015.

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Analysis of

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.99-117 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.28.1.201803.99 2015 * A Analysis of the Characters and Issues about the 2015 Revised Social