The purpose of the current study is to examine whether or not Korean language textbooks of the elementary level published in this country contain sufficient contents to pass the beginning levels(1st & 2nd levels) of TOPIK.
After conducting the sur...
The purpose of the current study is to examine whether or not Korean language textbooks of the elementary level published in this country contain sufficient contents to pass the beginning levels(1st & 2nd levels) of TOPIK.
After conducting the survey, we examined the actual state of learners, and based on this, investigated the vocabularies of Korean language textbooks of the elementary level and TOPIK. As a result of the survey, 33.8% of the learners responded 'relatively yes' to the question about whether or not it was necessary to learn vocabularies for TOPIK, and 75% of them answered that they were learning vocabularies separately. It has been found that it is necessary to learn vocabularies in that they are studying them more than 1 hour and less than 2 hours a day and though they say that they are understanding most of the vocabularies presented in textbooks, there are many respondents who say that it is necessary to learn vocabularies, so it has been conceivable that the unity between TOPIK and textbooks was not considered.
In chapter Ⅱ we examined the number of the vocabularies and the evaluation standards of TOPIK as analyses of TOPIK questions and vocabularies and classified them into 7 types. In addition, the vocabularies in the examination were total 78 in N type, verbs are total 88 out of V type, adjectives were 35, Adv type-43, and postpositional particles were total 21. Vocabularies of the antonym relation and vocabularies of the synonym relation are total 18 questions by 3 questions respectively and 2 vocabularies by one questions are taken in the examination so total 72 vocabularies were taken in the exam. These vocabularies became those to be compared in chapter Ⅲ.
In chapter Ⅲ we examined the vocabularies of Korean language textbooks of the elementary level and analyzed the vocabularies of them through comparison with TOPIK. Examining N type, the textbooks that vocabularies of the 1st & 2nd levels of TOPIK and Korean language textbooks of the elementary level corresponded to each other most were 64 out of 78 as <Ewha>, <Konkuk>, and <Kyunghee> textbooks and the textbook that lest corresponded was 41 as <Yonsei> textbook. In the case of the verb out of V type, the textbook that corresponded most was 76 out of 88 as <Konkook> textbook and the textbook that lest corresponded was 26 as <Kukrip> textbook. In the case of adjectives, the textbook that corresponded most was 34 out of 35 as <Konkook> textbook and the textbook that lest corresponded was 10 as <Yonsei> textbook. In the case of Adv type, the textbook that corresponded most was 34 out of 43 as <Kyunghee> textbook and the textbook that lest corresponded was 6 as <Kukrip> textbook. In the case of postpositional particle, the textbook that corresponded most was 19 out of 20 as <Hanyang> textbook and the textbook that lest corresponded was 10 as <Kukrip> textbook.
In the case of vocabularies of the antonym relation, they were 15 pairs of total 16 pairs and <Hanyang> and <Kyunghee> corresponded most and the textbook that lest corresponded was 4 pairs as <Yonsei> textbook. In the case of the vocabularies of the synonym relation, they were 11 pairs out of total 17 pairs and <Kyunghee> corresponded most and the textbook that lest corresponded was 1 pair as <Kukrip> textbook.
Until now, the vocabularies of the Korean language textbook of the elementary level and vocabulary & grammar areas of TOPIK 1․2 levels were analyzed classifying into parts of speech and relations. As a result, it has been found that in the vocabulary analysis by parts of speech, there were words that do not appear even in one textbook out of 10 sorts, and there are many vocabularies presented less than 5 kinds as well. In the vocabulary analysis by relations, it was found that in the textbooks the words were not presented being related with each other although there were many vocabularies which could be understood in terms of the antonym relation or the synonym relation. It is conceivable that it can be thought that there is a problem that unity between textbooks and the evaluation exam was not made and in studying vocabularies learners might feel burdened. Actually, as in the case of Korean language learners, they feel that it is necessary to learn vocabularies, it is conceivable that diversity and relations should be considered in standards of selecting vocabularies and their quantity so that more effective education and learning can be made.
본 연구의 목적은 국내에서 출간된 초급 한국어 교재가 한국어능력시험(TOPIK) 초급(1,2급)을 통과하는 데 충분한 내용을 담고 있는가를 살펴보는 것이다. 표준교육과정이 정해져 있지 않은 한...
|
