Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been four more years since the seventh Korean National Curriculum was notified. Now it is time to think about the new National Curriculum, named, the eighth Korean National Curriculum. However the general principles are not yet discussed, the comparative study for the particular principles, especially art principle, can be proceeded. The purpose of this study was 1) to compare and analyze the current National Art Curriculum of seven countries, TIle Republic of Korea, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Germany, focusing on its construction, organization, purpose, contents, and instructional methods in art education area, especially visual art education, for elementary, junior and high school level, and 2) to provide some suggestions for researches on the curriculum development. This study included 1) history and the development of the Korean National Art Curriculum from the first to the seventh, 2) the National Art Curriculum in Visual Arts of USA by National Art Education Association, 3) the National Ali Curriculum in Art & Design of UK, 4) the Art Curriculum in Fine Arts, Art, Visual Arts of two states, British Columbia and Ontario, of Canada, 5) the Art Curriculum in the Arts of Australian Capital Territory of Australia, 6) the National Art Curriculum of Japan, 7) the Art Curriculum of Berlin, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Brandenburg, Rheinland-Pfalz, and Hessen of Germany, and 8) the new model for the Korean National Art Curriculum. Major aspects of the differences of the art curriculum of the seven countries In this study are as follows: there is only one curriculum by government in Korea, USA, UK and Japan, but the states have their own curriculum in Canada, Australia and Germany. The findings and the recommendations of this study arc as follows; 1) the national achievement and evaluation standards should be developed and presented with the purpose of art education, 2) the art contents should be developed and presented in accordance with the achievement and evaluation standards, 3) the direction for the guidance on the development of the instructional methods should be distinctly suggested in order to encourage developing the instructional methods appropriate to each art activities, and 4) holistic assessment tasks and multiple assessment strategies should be suggested as one of the alternative assessment methods, It is expected that the results of this study would be the basis on the development of the new Korean National Art Curriculum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".