부산대학교 도서관

The purpose of this study was to compare the curriculum of physical education teacher education (PETE) in South Korea and China, to find the similarities and differences of PETE curriculum between South Korea and China, and to find the status quo and problems of PETE curriculum currently in operation in China. And provide basic data to guide the development of physical education teacher education in the future.The research design of this paper was to start problems, investigation and classification, compare structures, analyze causes, and suggestions. The study was based on the basic theory of education, the specific procedure was as follows. To accomplish the purpose of this study, 10 PETE curricula were selected in national universities for analysis. (5 from South Korea and 5 from China). The data analysis was modified and utilized for the purpose of the research using the proposed comparative analysis method by Bereday (1964). That is, in the first and second phases, it was examined the in-service documents and curriculum of both countries. In the third phase of the juxtaposition phase, it was set up comparative criteria for the purpose of the research and classified the analyzed data in both countries by theme beyond the regional research, and found the similarities and the differences in both. Finally, at the comparative phase, the physical education teacher education curriculum in both countries was compared comprehensively, and then conclusions were produced.The results were as follows: First, cultivating objectives. Both countries are committed to cultivating physical education teachers, but China tends to cultivate composite and applied talents. South Korea tends to train physical education experts or elites. Second, the category. There are liberal arts courses, major courses and elective courses in both South Korea and China in common. But, while there are teaching profession courses in South Korea, and practica in China. China PETE curriculum mainly required courses, and South Korea is mainly electives. The major courses of China are mainly distributed in the first six semesters, while South Korea is evenly distributed. Third, knowledge structure. In major courses, the proportion of activity courses in China is higher than that in South Korea, while the proportion of theoretical courses in South Korea is higher than that in China. Compared with the natural sciences, the PETE in both South Korea and China pays more attention to the humanities & social sciences. The general pedagogy courses of South Korea and China has the highest proportion in pedagogy courses, accounting for about half, but the proportion of teaching practicum in China is higher than that of South Korea. Fourth, the issues of PETE curriculum of China. Nowadays, the issues of China PETE are like this: The credit requirements for each category of the curriculum are too strict, the methods of teaching practicum are single and not enough, lack of teaching profession courses in category and not enough emphasis on pedagogy, the proportion of optional courses is low and there are fewer choice courses.And the suggestions for PETE curriculum of South Korea and China are like this: Enrich the methods of teaching practicum to improve practice effectiveness, add physical education safety education, pay attention to special groups such as handicapped and extend the scope of elective courses.