Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association (한국가정과교육학회지)

Korea Home Economics Education Association (한국가정과교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Philosophical Study on the Agency of the Home Economics Teachers as Agent from a Critical Science Perspective

비판과학 관점의 주체로서 가정과 교사 행위주체성에 관한 연구

  • Yang, Ji Sun (Graduate School of Education, Ewha Womans University)
  • 양지선 (이화여자대학교 교육대학원)
  • Received : 2021.03.03
  • Accepted : 2021.04.06
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is to identify the concept of action from the critical science perspective and to explore the agency of home economics teachers for the purpose of teacher education. The context and various characteristics of home economics teacher' agency were identified in terms of philosophy and teacher education. The results of the study indicates, first, the concept of action refers to an activity of individuals involving one's own intentions, and include the ability to reveal a unique identity that aims to reach a set purpose and decision, and this can be identified by mutual meaning in the public sphere. Second, teacher agency is influenced by a teacher's professional experiences and cultural and structural aspects, and it can create an environment which can promote self-directed and cooperative relationships among individuals and communities. Therefore, home economics teachers should be able to reasonably judge, contemplate, and act through reflections on the circumstances and consequences in which their agency is exercised. Third, home economics teachers can reflect and think critically about the values, roles, and sense of purpose of home economics education based on agency. Teachers should focus on the process of achieving their agency rather than on completing it, and they can continuously develop it through a perceived shared understanding among teachers. Therefore, the conceptualization of the agency of home economics teachers is to understand the practice revealed in a teacher's actions. This requires environmental support in school settings because it acts as a mechanism for strengthening the thinking and reflection of teachers through the creation of interactive environments in which professional knowledge and experiences can be shared.

본 연구는 비판과학 관점에서 행동의 개념을 분석하고, 교사교육 측면에서 가정과 교사 행동주체성을 탐색하고자 하였으며, 다음과 같은 내용을 함축하고 있다. 첫째, 행동의 개념은 인간이 자신의 의도를 포함하는 활동이며, 설정된 목적과 결정에 도달하려는 고유한 정체성을 드러낼 수 있는 능력으로 공적 영역에서 상호의미에 의해 파악될 수 있다. 둘째, 교사 행위주체성은 교사가 가진 전문적인 경험과 문화적·구조적 측면에서 영향을 받고 있으며, 개인과 공동체의 자기주도적이고 협력적 관계를 촉진할 수 있는 환경을 만들어 나갈 수 있다. 가정과 교사는 행위주체성이 발휘되는 상황과 결과에 대한 성찰을 통해 이성적으로 판단하여 숙고하고 행동할 수 있어야 할 것이다. 셋째, 가정과 교사는 행위주체성을 바탕으로 가정과 교육의 가치와 역할, 목적의식에 대해 비판적으로 성찰하고 사유할 수 있다. 교사의 행위주체성 자체는 완성되는 것이라기보다는 이루려고 하는 과정이 중요하며, 교사 서로 간의 지각된 상호이해를 통해 지속성을 갖고 발전해나갈 수 있다. 따라서 가정과 교사 행위주체성의 개념화는 교사의 행동에서 드러나는 실천을 이해하려는 것이며, 이는 전문적 지식과 경험을 공유하는 상호주체적 환경조성을 통해 교사의 사고와 성찰을 강화하는 기제로 작용할 수 있기에 학교 현장의 환경적 지원이 요구된다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2020S1A5B5A17089581)

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Thirsk: Dialogos.
  2. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.
  3. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  5. Aristotle. (2011). 니코마스 윤리학 [Nicomachean Ethics]. (S. J. Kang, J. H. Kim, & W. C. Lee, Trans.). Seoul: Gil.
  6. Bandura, A. (1986). From thought to action: Mechanisms of personal agency. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 1-17.
  7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  8. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
  9. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(2), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092
  10. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 624-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
  11. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the life course: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545
  12. Bolton, R. E. (2005, February 25). Habermas's theory of communicative action and the theory of social capital. San Diego, California: Paper presented at meeting of Western Regional Science Association.
  13. Brown, M. M. (1985). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States: Our practical intellectual heritage I. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University for Vocational Education.
  14. Brown, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition. Alexandria, VA: American Home Economics Association.
  15. Buckingham, D. (2017). Media theory 101: Agency. Journal of Media Literacy, 64(1&2), 12-16.
  16. Calvert, L. (2016). Moving from compliance to agency: What teachers need to make professional learning work. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward and NCTAF.
  17. Capurro, R. (2012). Erratum to: Toward a comparative theory of agents. AI & Society, 27(4), 479-488. doi:10.1007/s00146-012-0423-1
  18. Carman, T. (2003). Heidegger's analytic: Interpretation, discourse, and authenticity in being and time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Coope, U. (2004). Colloquium 5: Aristotle's account of agency in physics III 3. Proceeding of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, XX (pp. 201-227). Boston: Brill. doi:10.1163/22134417-90000063
  20. Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy, 60(23), 685-700. doi:10.2307/2023177
  21. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
  22. Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
  23. Durkheim, E. (1974). Sociology and philosophy. New York: The Free Press.
  24. Etelapelto, A., Vahasantanen, K., Hokka, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10(1), 45-65. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001
  25. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of oppresses. New York, NY: Continuum.
  26. Frost, D. (2006). The concept of 'agency' in leadership for learning. Leading and Managing, 12(2), 19-28.
  27. Fu, G., & Clarke, A. (2017). Teacher agency in the Canadian context: Linking the how and the what. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(5), 581-593. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1355046
  28. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  29. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
  30. Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: a pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, Mass: Bergin & Garvey.
  31. Giroux, H., & Simon, R. (1989). Popular culture and critical pedagogy: Everyday life as a basis for curriculum knowledge. In H. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds.), Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle (pp. 236-292). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  32. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
  33. Goller, M., & Harteis, C. (2017). Human agency at work: Towards a clarification and operationalisation of the concept. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 85-103). Cham: Springer.
  34. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1968).
  35. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Reason and rationalization of society (Vol I). (T. A. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981).
  36. Hanraets, I., Hulsebosch, J., & De Laat, M. (2011). Experiences of pioneers facilitating teacher networks for professional development. Educational Media International, 48(2), 85-99. doi:10.1080/09523987.2011.576513
  37. Hays, S. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.2307/202035
  38. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper and Row.
  39. Jenkins, G. Y. (2014). A contextual analysis of secondary home economic teachers' agency in a time of mandatory curriculum change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
  40. Kim, J. Y. (2019). The systematic literature review of teacher agency and the support plan for teacher agency. Journal of Education & Culture, 25(5), 105-128. doi:10.24159/joec.2019.25.5.105
  41. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899-916. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003
  42. Leadbeater, C. (2017). Student agency: Learning to make a difference (Seminar series). 269, East Melbourne, VIC: Centre for Strategic Education.
  43. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812-819. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001
  44. Lusted, D. (1986). Why pedagogy? Screen, 27(5), 2-16. doi:10.1093/screen/27.5.2
  45. Luttenberg, J., Imants, J., & Van Veen, K. (2013). Educational reform as a dynamic system of problems and solutions: Towards an analytic instrument. Teachers and Teaching, 19(3), doi:10.1080/13540602.2012.754161
  46. Marsh, H., Craven, R., & McInerney, D. (2008). Self-processes, learning, and enabling human potential dynamic new approaches. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, INC.
  47. McGregor, S. L. T. (2010). Well-being, wellness and basic human needs in home economics (McGregor Monograph Series No. 201003). Seabright: McGregor Consulting Group.
  48. Mead, G. H. (1969). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  49. Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education, 32(1), 3-24 https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200101
  50. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  51. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  52. Pacherie, E. (2010). Self-agency. In S. Gallagher (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the self (pp. 440-462). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  53. Pantic, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 759-778. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044332
  54. Parsons, T. (1949). The structure of social action. New York: McGrawHill.
  55. Philosophical Dictionary Compilation Committee. (2012). 철학사전 [Encyclopedia of philosophy]. Seoul: Jungwon munhwa.
  56. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. (M. Cook, Trans.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. (Original work published 1936).
  57. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.
  58. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2012). Teachers as agents of change: An exploration of the concept of teacher agency. Working paper no. 1, Teacher Agency and Curriculum Change.
  59. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
  60. Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191-214. doi:10.2307/23253807
  61. Renwick, K., & Powell, L. J. (2019). Focusing on the literacy in food literacy: practice, community, and food sovereignty. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 111(1), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS111.1.24
  62. Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  63. Schlosser, M. (2015). Agency. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
  64. Schunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in education theory, research, and application (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
  65. Shulman, L. S. (2007). Practical wisdom in the service of professional practice. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 560-563. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07313150
  66. Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the all-good/all-bad discourse on accountabilityexplicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 119-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00350.x
  67. Taylor, A. (2012). Examined life: Excursions with contemporary thinkers. (S. S. Han, Trans.). Seoul: Ewhobook. (Original work published 2009).
  68. Tyler, C. (1971). Interpretation and the sciences of man. The Review of Metaphysics, 25(1), 3-51.
  69. Vahasantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers' professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.006
  70. Vaines, E. (1995). Family science and home economics: Companion communities in search of meaning. Family Science Review, 8(1&2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1995.00001.x
  71. Vaines, E. (1999). The sacred nature of food: A family perspective. In C. J. Strugnell & G. A. Armstrong (Eds.), Conference Proceedings for the XIXth International Consumer Studies and Home Economics Research Conference (pp. 13-25). Belfast, Ireland: Ulster University.
  72. Vaines, E. (2004). Wholeness, transformative practices and everyday life. In M. G. Smith, L. Peterat, & M. DeZwart (Eds.), Home economics now: Transformative practice, ecology and everyday life: A tribute to the scholarship of Eleanore Vaines (pp. 133-136). Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
  73. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
  74. Vieweg, K. (2012). Das denken der freiheit: Hegels grundlinien der philosophie des rechts [The thinking of freedom: Hegel's outlines of philosophy of right]. (D. S. Jung, Trans.). Paderborn, Deutschland: Wilhelm Fink.
  75. Voogt, J., Laferriere, T., Breuleux, A., Itew, R., Hickey, D., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259-282. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7
  76. Warburton, N. (2006). Philosophy: The classics (3rd ed). London; New York: Routledge.
  77. Yang, C. A. (2013). Hannah Arendt's concept of action: Focusing on metaphors of mask and performance. Cogito, 74, 127-157.