Quantitative Analysis On Curriculum Organization

It is known to all that curriculum organization is the important step of Tyler's curriculumdesign—classical objective model(ought). Together with others, Lam Chi-chung examines thecurriculum organization from the perspective of course design's result (actual). He putsforward vertical and horizontal organization of curriculum organization. However, theresearch still stays on the ideal level. Shi Ning-zhong et al puts forward “Difficulty Model ofCurriculum”, which starts the quantitative research of curriculum organization. But it is stillnot systematic. Five PISA test results show that East Asian countries and regions' mathperformance is excellent. However, the researches on the features and advantages ofmathematic curriculum in East Asian are very rare.This study takes China and South Korea high school mathematic textbooks as an entrypoint, and uses quantitative approach to discuss the quantitative methods of curriculumorganization from two latitudes of deep organization and surface organization, trying toconclude common characterizes of the Asian mathematic curriculum represented by Chinaand South Korea.The study is divided into3phases:(1) Research of Curriculum Standards. It wouldanalyze the curriculum standards between China and South Korea in curriculum objectives,curriculum content, curriculum selection approach and so on.(2) Research of quantitativemethods used in deep organization of curriculum. The thesis takes China and South Koreahigh school mathematic (Chinese version A and South Korea version N) as an example tocarry out the study. Based on literature review and expert consultation, the thesis establishesthe basic unit of curriculum organization, and builds the quantitative tool in curriculumdevelopment and integration.(3) Research of quantitative methods used in surfaceorganization of curriculum. The quantitative analysis of high school mathematic textbookscomes from two latitudes of unit class hour and unit pages between China and South Korea;the thesis also makes comparative analysis on the structural characteristic of unit organizationfrom three links, which named “lead-in, extend, and end”.Research Findings:1. Based on the original concepts such as Curriculum Depth, Breadth, Difficulty,the present thesis introduces new conceptions including Knowledge Group, Frequency,Rhythm, and Slope, etc. and attempts to construct quantitative analysis methods incurriculum organization.(1) The vertical organization and horizontal organization are collectively calledcurriculum deep organization. By introducing the conception of “Knowledge Group” into deep organization and establishing a basic unit of quantitative analysis, it could be the deeptissue in curriculum content according to the results of a longitudinal section and couldincrease the content comparability and organization quantitative of curriculum.(2) It involves5elements which is Frequency, Origin, End, Rhythm and Slope duringadvancement of the curriculum vertical organization's direction. Depending on the differentway, different slopes are formed which is the ratio of the amount of change in school yearand the amount of forward, it could be divided into3types: single-point arrangement, linearrise arrangement and Spiral arrangement. The spiral arrangement can be further divided into3types: standard, compression and extension.(3) Focusing on Knowledge-group, curriculum integration can be divided into internaland external subjects according to the intersection between curriculum integration of internaland external subject. Knowledge-point is the media of curriculum integration, so we quantifythe rate of curriculum integration and breadth of curriculum integration which range from thetwo dimensions of gravity and scope.2. The prominent feature of curriculum organization expressed in China and SouthKorea high school mathematic curriculum standard and textbook: from spiral formtoward local linear form and concerning internal integration.(1) Curriculum standard in China and South Korea are national unified standard, inChina the mathematic curriculum standard can be divided into compulsory education and highschool, while in South Korea the curriculum standards system is12years of consistence.(2) The mathematics curriculum objective is built from top to bottom in China and SouthKorea. The slight difference is that in China, the objective of high school mathematicscurriculum is a three-dimensional target; while in South Korea, the objective of high schoolmathematics curriculum is a two-dimensional target. It is proved that China pays moreattention to procedural and experiential goals; the high school mathematics learning in Chinaand South Korea is based on the individual difference and division of required courses andelective courses, reflecting the selective, the depth of the curriculum content in the basic"understanding" level; China and South Korea mathematics curriculum are based on the creditand use “module” style to organize course content, reflecting the diversity way of choosing incurriculum, while the degree on arts and science of high school mathematics curriculumbetween China and South Korea is different.(3) In the mathematics curriculum of China and South Korea, the Knowledge-groupprogressed in a spiraling way in start of the primary school and junior school level, whilesome difference occur in Knowledge-group with the start of high school. For example, Chinabased on single point arrangement, while South Korea based both on the lineal rising andsingle point arrangement. (4) The integration degree of high school math curriculum is not high in China and SouthKorea. The internal integration degree of subject curriculum is slightly larger than externalintegration degree of subject curriculum. South Korea is slightly larger than China fromcurriculum integration rates, while China is slightly larger than South Korea from the breadthof curriculum integration.(5) There exists a significant positive correlation between the unit class hours and unitpages in China and South Korea mathematic textbooks; Unit organization structure ofmathematic textbooks are “Unit?Section?Small section” tertiary structure and the functionmodule which are similar. A version is nearly2times of N version from the textbook in termsof curriculum capacity; N version is1.6times of A version from the textbook in terms of“Reading Material” capacity.3. The characteristic deduction of mathematics curriculum about East Asia:Concerning about the double bases, building mathematics curriculum organizationcontent with the main traditional mathematics branch and using the overall structure(or local linear) features.Based on the analysis of China and South Korea's high school math curriculum, we canapproximately infer the features of mathematics curriculum in East Asia by using onecurriculum standard throughout the country; emphasizing on basic knowledge and basic skill;concerning math feeling and attitude in relative, setting up the basic framework of middle andprimary school with”Number”,”Graph”,“Probability”,”Statistics” as the school segmentupgrades and keep adding course contents; arranging mainly the spiral arrangement; Coursecontent and the integration of mathematical culture, but IT has not yet become amathematic-solving tool.Based on the above conclusion, suggestion to education sector goes as follows:12yearsof consistent development in curriculum standard and steadily push forward the newcurriculum of high school; Carrying out the supporting system of “Textbook-Workbook”,carefully chosen curriculum contents and well written textbooks.Implication for textbooks preparation: Paying more attention to the process of textbookswritten and generated by the slope which originated from the academic tasks at the beginningof textbooks' compiling. We need to examine whether the slope of knowledge is rational, too.If the slope is too large, we can integrate the curriculum to provide “transitional pedal”; if theslope is too small, it is necessary to consider whether textbooks can be carefully made or tosuit the change the school years; Textbooks compiling should not only concern the breadth ofcurriculum integration, but also need to concern the rate of curriculum integration, which iswhen choosing the material of textbooks compiling, we need to concern whether the selectedmaterial is focused on partial knowledge, or whether the materials properties are diversified, thus, it would improve the degree of curriculum integration.