Browse > Article

The effect of practical reasoning Home Economics instruction on morality of middle school students  

채정현 (한국교원대학교 가정교육과)
유태명 (경상대학교 사범대학 가정교육과, 과학교육연구센타)
박미정 (서운중학교)
이지연 (춘천중학교)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association / v.41, no.12, 2003 , pp. 53-68 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop lesson plans and teaching materials applying practical reasoning instruction for the 7th home economics curriculum content, and to test the effect of practical reasoning instruction on morality of middle school students. This study is a quasi-experimental research with a pretest-posttest design. Practical reasoning instruction for experimental group and traditionally lecture oriented instruction for comparison group were input, and tested the statistical differences between two groups before and after the treatment. The subjects for this study were 8th grade students of a middle school located in Kwangju city. Two classes of 76 students homogeneous in characteristics and academic record for each experimental and comparison group were assigned. Instrument used for this study was a revised moral indicator, that was developed by KEDI(2001). Spss/win for 10.0 statistics program was used for analysis of data. ANCOVA was done for testing statistical difference between pretest and posttest of experiment group and comparison group. Result of study which showed statistically significant difference between groups were：1. Virtue of "responsibility for words and deeds"(from 3.22 to 3.61 for experimental group and from 3.27 to 3.26 for comparison group) in domain of responsibility and cooperation, and virtue of "punctuality"(from 3.59 to 3.76 for experimental group and from 3.41 to 3.28 for comparison group) in domain of trustworthiness, 2. Virtue of "conversation etiquette"(from 3.47 to 3.67 for experimental group and from 3.28 to 3.31 for comparison group) in domain of caring for others, 3. Virtue of "forgiveness other′s mistakes"(from 3.32 to 3.65 for experimental group and from 3.33 to 3.25 for comparison group) in domain of kindness, concession, forgiveness, and virtue of "volunteering activity"(from 2.89 to 3.71 for experimental group and from 3.36 to 3.45 for comparison group) in domain of compassion and service, 4. Virtue of "equip the convenient facility for handicapped"(from 4.19 to 4.29 for experimental group and from 4.17 to 3.91 for comparison group) in domain of equality and human rights, virtue of "recovering selfness for own community"(from 2.34 to 2.79 for experimental group and from 2.14 to 2.29 for comparison group), virtue of "opposing way of accomplishing purpose by an means"(from 3.27 to 3.31 for experimental group and from 3.47 to 3.05 for comparison group), virtue of "opposing election of considering acquaintance"(from 3.35 to 3.56 for experimental group and from 3.12 to 3.14 for comparison group) in domain of fairness, and virtue of "eradication of military force or violence among countries"(from 3.49 to 3.57 for experimental group and from 3.38 to 3.05 for comparison group) in domain of love for humanity. The morality of experimental group was improved more than that of comparison group in all of above items. From the results of this study, following conclusion was drawn. Practical reasoning instruction in home economics is effective in raising students′ virtue and value of responsibility in words and deeds, trustworthiness in punctuality, courtesy of not interrupting conversation, forgiveness of other′s mistakes, volunteering activity, equity for handicapped, fairness opposing selfness for own community, fairness opposing way of accomplishing purpose by all means, fairness opposing election of considering acquaintance, and love for humanity opposing war.
Keywords
morality; practical reasoning instruction; virtue and value; home economics;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 이돈희(1986). 도덕교육론 원론. 교육과학사
2 정순근(1990). 가치 갈등 Program 적용이 고등학생의 도덕성 발달에 미치는 영향. 원광대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문
3 최종걸(1994). 도덕성을 기르기 위한 고등학교 화학의 한 수업내용. 공주대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문
4 Coombs, J.R.(1997). Practical reasoning: What is it? how do we enhance It? In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
5 Coombs, J. R. & Meux, M.(1971). Teaching strategies for value analysis. In L. Metcalf(Ed.). Values education. Washington. DC: National Council for the Social Studies
6 Edersheim, M. A.(1988). The contribution of practical reasoning instruction and other factors to the decision making level of tenth grade home economics students. Unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
7 Laster, J. F. & Thomas, R. G.(1997). Thinking for ethical action in families and communities. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
8 김재광(1999). 교사의 관심에 기초한 실천적 추론 가정과 수업의 실행 과정에 대한 연구. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문
9 양정혜(1998). 가정과 수업의 협동학습이 학생의 교과에 대한 흥미와 태도에 미치는 영향. 한국가정과교육학회지. 10(1), 137-151   과학기술학회마을   ScienceOn
10 정익채(1990). 가치명료화를 위한 토의 상담 프로그램 활용이 아동의 도덕성발달에 미치는 영향. 공주대학 교육대학원 석사학위논문
11 Commer, D. Hittman, L. & Fedje, C.(1997). Questioning: Ateaching strategy and everyday life strategy. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
12 Laster, J. F.(1986). Practical action teaching model. Journal of Home Economics, 74(3), 41-44
13 Johnson, J. & Fedje, C. (1999). Family and consumer science curriculum: Toward a critical science approach. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
14 Peterat L. & Slocum, A.(1997). Teaching critical thinking in family and consumer science education. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
15 김기덕(1997). 도덕성을 지향한 과학교육의 정의적 접근. 공주대학교 교육대학원 석사 학위논문
16 Jenkins-Vulgamore, V. J.(1991), The relationship of home economics instruction and other factors on early adolescents' decision making skill levels. Unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
17 Laster, J. F.(1998). Assessment of practical reasoning. In Thomas, R & Laster, J. Inquiry into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
18 Thomas, R. & Laster, J.(1998). Inquin; into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
19 박윤명(1997). 도덕성의 구성과 도덕교육의 종합적 접근. 한국교원대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문
20 변현진(1999). 실천적 추론 가정과 수업이 비판적 사고력에 미치는 효과-가족관계와 자원관리 단원을 중심으로- 한국교원대학교대학원 석사학위논문
21 박효정, 정광희(2000). 한국 사회의 도덕성 지표 개발 연구(II). 한국교육개발원
22 이춘식, 최유현, 유태명(2001). 실과(기술 가정) 교육 목표 및 내용체계 연구(I). 한국교육과정평가원
23 이현미(1999). 실천적 추론 가정과 수업이 여고생들의 창의성에 미치는 효과- ‘인간발달과 가족관계’ 영역을 중심으로- 이화여자대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
24 윤만형(1997). 초등학교 체육프로그램을 통한 도덕성 발달 연구. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
25 Knippel, D.(1998). Practical reasoning in the family context. In Thomas, R. & Laster, J. Inquiry into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
26 김수현, 채정현(1998). 협동 학습법을 적용한 가정과 학습 지도안 모형 개발: 중학교 가정의 인간 발달과 가족 관계 영역을 중심으로. 대한가정학회지, 36(5), 59-74
27 이진웅(1996). 청소년의 도덕성 발달에 관한 연구 인성적 측면을 중심으로-원광대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
28 Fedje, C. G.(1998). Helping learners develop their practical reasoning capacities. In Thomas, R & Laster, J. Inquiry into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
29 박대균(1997). 실천 중심의 인성교육이 아동의 도덕성 발달에 미치는 영향. 관동대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문
30 유태명(1992). 교육과정의 국제적 비교-가정과 교육 방향의 재조명을 위한 가정학 철학 정립의 중대성. 제 4차 한국가정과교육학회 학술대회자료집
31 Arcus, M.E.(1997). Alternative theories of ethical thought. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Cammunities. AAFCS
32 채정현(1999). 실천적 추론 가정과수업이 한국 여고생들의 의사결정 능력에 미치는 효과 및 의사결정 능력과 관계하는 요인. 대한가정학회지, 37(3), 43-61
33 김태길(1986). 성숙한 시민 개방된 사회. 교육과학사
34 문성희(1999). 식생활 단원에 적용한 실천적 추론 수업이 여고생의 도덕성에 미치는 효과. 한국교원대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
35 유지연(1997). 실천적 문제중심의 고등학교 가정과 교육과정 개발에 관한 연구-식생활 내용을 중심으로-. 중앙대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
36 김동규(1995). 도덕성 회복을 위한 학교교육의 내용과 방법에 관한 연구. 배해수 외. 한국인의 도덕성 연구. 아산 사회복지재단
37 채정현(1996). 가정과 교육과정 모형에 대한 선호도. 한국가정과교육학회지, 8(1), 33-49   과학기술학회마을   ScienceOn
38 Manifold, S. C.(1984). The development of a decision making skills instrument for vocational home economics practical problems. Unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
39 Thomas, R.G.(1997). Thinking for Ethical Action in Families: Family and Consumer Sciences Meanings. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
40 Knippel, D.(1989). A case study of a family engaging in practical reasoning. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
41 한국교육개발원(2001). 한국사회의 도덕성 지표 개발연구(II). 연구보고 RR 2001-1
42 Martin, J. L.(1988). Practical reasoning instruction in the secondary Family and Consumer Science classroom. In Thomas, R & Laster, J. Inquiry into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
43 McClelland, J.(1997). Critical pedagogy: Guideposts for ethical action in family and consumer sciences education. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
44 도난희(1997). 실천문제 해결 수업 모형을 적용한 중학교 가정과 인간발달과 가족관계 영역의 수업지도안 개발. 한국교원대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
45 박효정, 정광희, 유균상(2000). 한국 사회의 도덕성 지표 개발 연구. 한국교육개발원
46 유난숙(1997). 세 가지 행동체계에 따른 중.고등학교 가정교과 식생활 내용에 대한 교사의 요구조사. 한국교원대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
47 이인수(1996). 도덕적 판단력 신장을 위한 수업 모형의 효과. 한국교원대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
48 Olson, K.(1999). Practical reasoning. In Johnson, J. & Fedje, C. (1999). Family and consumer science curriculum: Toward a critical science approach. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
49 한완상(1993). 민중시대의 문제의식. 일월서각
50 Knorr, A.J & Manning, D.E.(1997). Reasoning and acting on practical problems of home and family. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
51 이홍우(역) (1987). 민주주의와 교육. 교육과학사
52 윤복순(1998). 남녀 고등학생이 인식한 실천적 문제 중심 가정과 수업의 효과 인간발달 영역을 중심으로. 이화여자대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문
53 Dewey, J.(1966). Democracy and education. Free Press
54 Bubolz, M.M. & Clifford, M.C.(1997). A Framework for creating a shared moral ecology in family and consumer Sciences. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Cammunities. AAFCS
55 Baldwin, E.E.(1997). Ethical action for policy affecting families: The role of critical theory. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
56 이춘식, 최유현, 유태명(2002). 실과(기술가정) 교육목표 및 내용체계 연구(II). 한국교육과정평가원
57 장혜경, 유태명(1994). Marjorie M. Brown의 가정과 교과 과정 모형에 근거한 '인간발달과 가족관계' 영역의 학습지도안 개발. 한국가정과교육학회지, 6(2), 109-131