검색 상세

한국어(KSL) 학습자의 학업 문식성 신장을 위한 한국어 교재 구성 연구 : 과학 교과를 중심으로

A Study on Korean Textbook Design for Developing Academic Literacy of KSL Learners: Focusing on the Science Subject

  • 유상미 (Yu Sangmi, 대학원 국어교육학과 국어교육전공)

초록/요약

본 연구의 목적은 한국어(KSL) 학습자의 학업 문식성을 향상하기 위한 한국어(KSL) 교재 구성 방안을 마련하는 데 있다. 학업 문식성은 특정 교과목에서 요구하는 방식으로 텍스트를 깊이 이해하고 활용할 수있는 의사소통 능력으로, 제2언어 학습자의 학업 성취와 교과 학습에 필수적인 역량이다. 본 연구는 체계기능언어학(SFL), 내용 중심 접근법 (CBI), 내용 언어 통합 접근법(CLIL)의 이론적 원리를 통합적으로 적용 하여 과학 교과 학습에 효과적인 한국어 교재 구성 방안을 모색하였다. 연구 방법으로는 먼저 학업 문식성의 개념과 제2언어 학습자의 학업 문식성 발달 양상을 이론적으로 고찰하였다. 다음으로 한국어(KSL) 학습자와 교사를 대상으로 면담을 실시하여, 과학 교과 학습에서 경험하는 언어적·개념적·실행적 어려움과 교재에 대한 요구를 파악하였다. 또한 현행 『고등학생을 위한 표준 한국어』 교재를 대상으로 단원 구성, 학습 내용, 학습 활동의 특징을 비판적으로 파악하고, 체계기능언어학 관점에서 과학 교과 단원 설명 텍스트의 언어적 특성을 체계적으로 분석 하였다. 분석 결과, 고등학교 한국어(KSL) 학습자들은 과학 교과 학습에서 언어·개념 측면(전문 용어 이해, 문법적 은유 해석, 텍스트 결속성 파악 등)과 실행·탐구 측면(실험 수행, 관찰 결과 기록, 동료와의 소통 등)에서 다양한 어려움을 경험하고 있음을 확인하였다. 교사들은 언어 내용, 교과 통합성, 실용성, 내용·구조, 교재 개발 과정 등 다각적인 차원에서 교재 개선의 필요성을 제기하였다. 또한 현행 교재는 학교급별 위계성, 학습 도구 어휘 제시, 문법 항목의 제시, 텍스트 유형의 다양화, 의사소통 기능 연습 기회 측면에서 개선이 필요함이 드러났다. 과학 교과 단원 설명 텍스트는 문법적 은유가 빈번하게 사용되고, 대인적 대기능의 표현이 제한적이며, 결속성 장치가 복잡하게 구성되어 있는 특성을 보였다. 이러한 분석을 바탕으로, 본 연구는 SFL 기반 언어 교육 원리, CBI·CLIL 기반 내용·언어 통합 원리, 학습자 및 교사 요구 반영 원리를 교재 구성의 기본 원리로 설정하였다. 이를 바탕으로 2022 개정 과학과 교육과정을 분석하여 ‘과학 주제’, ‘과학 탐구 과정’, ‘과학 텍스트 유형’, ‘과학 언어 기능’의 네 영역으로 구성된 ‘내용 교과 중심 교수요 목’을 설계하였다. 또한 SFL·CBI·CLIL 통합 단원 구성 방안을 제안하 였는데, 구체적으로 SFL 기반 언어 목표와 CBI·CLIL 기반 내용 목표의 통합, SFL 기반 언어적 특성을 활용한 과학 교과 텍스트 설계, 언어 기능과 교과 내용을 통합한 단계별 학습 활동 구성 방안을 제안하였다. 마지막으로 단원의 실제 구성 사례를 개발하여 교재 구성 원리의 구체 적인 적용 방안을 제시하였다. 본 연구는 한국어(KSL) 학습자의 학업 문식성 신장을 위한 교재 구성에 있어, 이론적 원리와 현장의 요구를 통합적으로 반영한 실제적 방안을 제시하였다는 점에서 의의를 부여하고자 한다. 본 연구를 계기로 다양한 관점과 방법론을 통합한 학제 간 연구가 활발히 이루어져, 한국어(KSL) 학습자의 학업 문식성 신장을 위한 보다 체계적이고 효과적인 교육 방안이 마련되기를 바라는 바이다.

more

초록/요약

This study presents a Korean textbook design framework for developing academic literacy among Korean as a Second Language (KSL) learners, with a focus on the science subject. Academic literacy is defined as the communicative competence to deeply understand and utilize texts in discipline-specific ways, which is an essential capability for second language learners' academic achievement and content learning. This study seeks to develop an effective Korean textbook design approach for science subject learning by integrating theoretical principles from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), Content-Based Instruction (CBI), and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The research methodology involved first theoretically examining the concept of academic literacy and the developmental patterns of second language learners' academic literacy. Next, in-depth interviews were conducted with KSL learners and teachers to analyze the linguistic, conceptual, and practical inquiry challenges in science subject learning and their needs regarding textbooks. Additionally, the current "Standard Korean for High School Students" textbook was analyzed in terms of unit composition, learning content, and learning activities, and the linguistic characteristics of science subject unit texts were investigated from a Systemic Functional Linguistics perspective. The analysis revealed that learners experience various difficulties in science subject learning in linguistic and conceptual aspects (understanding technical terms, interpreting grammatical metaphors, comprehending text cohesion) and practical inquiry aspects (conducting experiments, recording observations, peer communication). Teachers identified the need for textbook improvements across multiple dimensions including language content, subject integration, practicality, content structure, and textbook development processes. The current textbook showed a need for improvement in terms of hierarchy, systematic expansion of academic vocabulary, explicit presentation of grammatical items, diversification of text types, and opportunities for communicative function practice. Science subject explanatory texts demonstrated frequent use of grammatical metaphors, limited interpersonal function expressions, and complex cohesive devices. Based on these analyses, this study established three fundamental principles for textbook design: SFL-based language education principles, CBI·CLIL-based content-language integration principles, and principles reflecting learner and teacher needs. Using these principles, the study analyzed the 2022 revised science curriculum and designed a content-based syllabus comprising four domains: 'science topics,' 'science inquiry processes,' 'science text types,' and 'science language functions.' The study also proposed an integrated SFL·CBI·CLIL unit design approach, specifically integrating SFL-based language objectives with CBI·CLIL-based content objectives, designing science subject texts utilizing SFL-based linguistic features, and structuring learning activities that progressively integrate language skills and content knowledge. Finally, a sample unit was also developed to demonstrate concrete applications of these textbook design principles. This study is significant in that it presents practical approaches that integratively reflect both theoretical principles and field-based needs in designing textbooks for developing KSL learners' academic literacy. It is hoped that this research will catalyze active interdisciplinary studies integrating diverse perspectives and methodologies, leading to more systematic and effective educational approaches for developing KSL learners' academic literacy.

more

목차

1. 서론 ············································································································1
1.1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 ·················································································1
1.2. 선행 연구 검토 ······························································································7
1.2.1. 한국어 학습자의 학업 문식성 연구 ·····················································7
1.2.2. 한국어 학습자를 위한 교육과정 및 교재 연구 ·······························12
1.2.3. 과학 교과 언어 특성 연구 ·································································19
1.3. 연구 대상 및 방법 ······················································································22

2. 학업 문식성 신장을 위한 한국어 교재 구성의 이론적 배경 ···········40
2.1. 학업 문식성의 개념 및 발달 양상 ····························································41
2.1.1. 학업 문식성의 개념 및 구성 요소 ····················································41
2.1.2. 제2언어 학습자의 학업 문식성 발달 양상 및 특성 ·······················49
2.2. 학업 문식성 신장을 위한 언어 교육 접근법 ·················································56
2.2.1. 체계기능언어학(SFL)과 학업 문식성 교육 ·······································57
2.2.1.1. 체계기능언어학의 이론적 전제 ··················································57
2.2.1.2. 체계기능언어학 기반 제2언어 교육 ··········································64
2.2.1.3. 체계기능언어학 기반 교과 언어 분석 ·······································70
2.2.2. 내용 중심 접근법(CBI)·내용 언어 통합 접근법(CLIL)의 특징 ··· 73
2.2.2.1. 내용 중심 접근법의 개념 및 특징 ··········································73
2.2.2.2. 내용 중심 접근법의 교수 모형 ················································81
2.2.2.3. 내용 언어 통합 접근법의 개념 및 특징 ·······························87
2.2.2.4. 내용 언어 통합 접근법의 교육 원리 ·······································90
2.3. 학업 문식성 신장을 위한 통합형 교재 개념 및 구성 원리 ··················97
2.3.1. 내용 교과 중심 통합형 교재의 개념 및 특성 ·································98
2.3.2. SFL·CBI·CLIL 기반 통합형 교재 구성 원리 ································101

3. 과학 교과 학습 양상과 학습자 및 교사의 한국어 교재 인식 및 구성 특성
·····································································································107
3.1. 한국어 학습자의 과학 교과 학습 양상 ··································· 107
3.1.1. 학습자가 인식한 과학 교과 학습 양상 ··········································107
3.1.1.1. 언어·개념 차원 ···········································································107
3.1.1.2. 실행·탐구 차원 ···········································································113
3.1.2. 교사가 인식한 학습자의 과학 교과 학습 양상 ·····························119
3.1.2.1. 언어·개념 차원 ···········································································119
3.1.2.2. 실행·상호작용 차원 ···································································125
3.2. 학습자 및 교사의 한국어 교재에 대한 인식 및 요구 ·······················136
3.2.1. 한국어 학습자의 인식 및 요구 ······················································136
3.2.1.1. 언어·구조 차원 ···········································································136
3.2.1.2. 교수·학습 지원 차원 ·································································140
3.2.2. 한국어 교사의 인식 및 요구 ·························································143
3.2.2.1. 언어 내용 차원 ········································································143
3.2.2.2. 교과 통합성 차원 ·····································································145
3.2.2.3. 실용성 차원 ··············································································147
3.2.3. 과학 교사의 인식 및 요구 ·····························································151
3.2.3.1. 내용·구조 차원 ·········································································152
3.2.3.2. 교재 개발 과정 차원 ·······························································155
3.3. 학습 양상 및 교재 인식에 기반한 학업 문식성 교재 구성 특성 ··········157
3.3.1. 학습자 요구 및 학습 양상 기반 특성 ··········································158
3.3.2. 교사 인식 및 교수 경험 기반 특성 ··············································160

4. 한국어 학습자의 학업 문식성 관련 한국어 교재 분석 ··················162
4.1. 『고등학생을 위한 표준 한국어』 구성 체계 및 활동 양상 ··················162
4.1.1. 단원 구성 ·······················································································162
4.1.2. 학습 내용: 주제, 어휘, 문법, 텍스트 유형 ·······························165
4.1.2.1. 주제 ·························································································165
4.1.2.2. 어휘 ·························································································166
4.1.2.3. 문법 ·························································································169
4.1.2.4. 텍스트 유형 ············································································172
4.1.3. 학습 활동: 의사소통 기능 ····························································174
4.2. 체계기능언어학 관점에서 본 과학 교과 단원 설명 텍스트의 언어 양상
··················································································································178
4.2.1. 생물 과목 설명 텍스트 ···································································178
4.2.1.1. 관념적 대기능과 문법적 은유 ················································179
4.2.1.2. 대인적 대기능 ··········································································182
4.2.1.3. 텍스트적 대기능과 결속성 ······················································184
4.2.2. 화학 과목 설명 텍스트 ···································································189
4.2.2.1. 관념적 대기능과 문법적 은유 ················································190
4.2.2.2. 대인적 대기능 ··········································································192
4.2.2.3. 텍스트적 대기능과 결속성 ······················································195
4.2.3. 지구과학 과목 설명 텍스트 ···························································199
4.2.3.1. 관념적 대기능과 문법적 은유 ················································200
4.2.3.2. 대인적 대기능 ··········································································202
4.2.3.3. 텍스트적 대기능과 결속성 ······················································203
4.2.4. 물리 과목 설명 텍스트 ···································································206
4.2.4.1. 관념적 대기능과 문법적 은유 ················································207
4.2.4.2. 대인적 대기능 ··········································································209
4.2.4.3. 텍스트적 대기능과 결속성 ······················································211
4.3. 교재 분석에 기반한 학업 문식성 교재 구성 시사점 ·························214
4.3.1. 교재의 구조적 특성 기반 시사점 ··················································214
4.3.2. 교재의 언어적 특성 기반 시사점 ··················································218

5. 한국어 학습자의 학업 문식성 신장을 위한 한국어 교재 구성 방안
····················································································································221
5.1. 교재 구성 원리 ·························································································221
5.1.1. SFL 기반 언어 교육 원리의 적용 ···················································221
5.1.2. CBI·CLIL 기반 내용·언어 통합 원리의 적용 ···································223
5.1.3. 학습자 및 교사 요구 반영 원리 ·····················································225
5.2. 교수요목 및 단원 구성 ············································································227
5.2.1. 내용 교과 중심 교수요목 ·································································227
5.2.1.1. 내용 교과 중심 교수요목의 구성 원리 ···································227
5.2.1.2. 내용 교과 중심 교수요목의 구성 체계 ···································228
5.2.2. SFL·CBI·CLIL 통합 단원 구성 ······················································235
5.2.2.1. SFL 기반 언어 목표와 CBI·CLIL 기반 내용 목표의 통합 · 235
5.2.2.2. SFL 기반 과학 교과 설명 텍스트 설계 ··································236
5.2.2.3. 언어 기능과 교과 내용을 통합한 학습 활동 구성 ················237
5.3. 단원 구성의 실제 ······················································································238
5.3.1. 도입 ·····································································································240
5.3.2. 전개(탐구) ···························································································243
5.3.2. 정리 및 확장 ······················································································253

6. 결론 ·······································································································255
6.1. 요약 ··········································································································255
6.2. 제언 ··········································································································258

참고문헌 ··················································································································259
부록 ·························································································································286

more
반출 Meta View 목록