Comparative Studies On Physical Curriculum Standards For 2003 And 2017

Every new "curriculum standard" is the result of educational reform and development.In this study,two versions of curriculum standards,2003 and 2017,were used as subjects to compare the changes in each face-to-face of the two versions of curriculum standards,and to propose new requirements for teachers.This study is divided into eight parts:The first part is the introduction.This section mainly expounds the background of this study and the review of relevant existing studies,and explains the purpose and significance of this study.The second part is the theoretical basis and research methods of this study.This research mainly involves three theories: comparative teaching theory,curriculum theory and curriculum difficulty theory,and two research methods: literature research and comparative research.The third part is the comparison of the two versions of "the nature and concept of the course ".Through comparison,both versions emphasize the basic and natural science attributes of the physics curriculum in the terms of its nature.Then,t he 2017 puts forward the curriculum idea of "core accomplishment of physics subject ".Teachers should renew their teaching concept,change their knowledge view and cultivate people through education.The fourth part is a comparison of the two versions of "course objectives ".Through comparison,the 2017 edition puts forward the four-dimensional curriculum goal with the core accomplishment of physics as the core,and this study thinks that it is the development and sublimation of the three-dimensional curriculum goal of the 2003 edition.Teachers are required to excavate the content of physics knowledge when determining the teaching goal,and combine the core accomplishment of physics subject to compile the four-dimensional teaching goal.The fifth part is a comparison of the two versions of "course structure ".Through comparison,it is found that the 2017 edition establishes the curriculum structure which combines "foundation" with "expansion ",which takes into account the systematicness and selectivity of physical knowledge.Teachers are required to clarify the similarities and differences of each module and determine the new teaching scope according to the changes.The sixth part is a comparison of the two versions of "course content ".Through the comparison of the breadth,depth and difficulty of some course contents "credit requirements ",it is found that the breadth of the 2017 edition is slightly larger than that of the 2003 edition,but the 2017 edition is slightly smaller than that of the 2003 edition in the depth of the course content.Then combined with chi-square test,we can see that the difference of breadth and depth between the two versions is not obvious at the significant level of 0.05.With the same course time,the 2017 edition is slightly more difficult than the 2003 edition.The change of curriculum content requires teachers to redefine the important and difficult points of teaching content and adjust teaching activities in time.The seventh part is a comparison of the two versions of Teaching and Evaluation.Through comparison,the 2017 edition strengthens the relationship between physical knowledge and situational teaching,and improves the diversity of evaluation methods.It is suggested that teachers should create real problem situations for students to learn physics in real experience,and teachers should adopt various and systematic evaluation methods according to and using academic quality standards.The eighth part is to summarize the research conclusions and reflect on the deficiencies.Then proposed new curriculum standards to be improved.