• Journal of the Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition
• /
• v.39 no.8
• /
• pp.1220-1230
• /
• 2010

The purposes of this study were to compare price sensitivity analysis for using environmental-friendly agricultural products in university foodservice between Jeonnam and Gyeongnam areas in Korea and to suggest the optimum guideline for price increase. The questionnaires were distributed to 600 university students respectively in Jeonnam and Gyeongnam area from July 15 to July 25, 2008; among them, 570 students from Jeonnam area and 490 students from Gyeongnam area responded. The results of this study were as follows. First, Indifference price (IDP) were 890 won (Jeonnam area) and 1,050 won (Gyeongnam area); Optimum price point (OPP) were 1,030 won (Jeonnam area) and 1450 won (Gyeongnam area). Price stress range were 140 won (890~1030 won) in Jeonnam area and 400 won (1050~1450 won) in Gyeongnam area. Second, point of marginal cheapness (PMC) were 500 won (Jeonnam area) and 790 won (Gyeongnam area) whereas point of marginal expensiveness (PME) were 1,170 won (Jeonnam area) and 1820 won (Gyeongnam area). Range of acceptable price (RAP) were 670 won (500~1170 won) in Jeonnam area and 1030 won (790~1820 won) in Gyeongnam area. Third, on the basis of IDP percentage and RAP, students in Jeonnam area were more sensitive to meal price increase than students in Gyeongnam area. In contrast, on the basis of Price Stress, students in Gyeongnam area were more sensitive to meal price increase than students in Jeonnam area. Hence, when using environmental-friendly agricultural products in university foodservice, in Jeonnam area, meal price increase should be recommended to be in RAP (500~1170 won), and in Gyeongnam area, meal price increase should be recommended to be in RAP (790~1820 won).

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.117-134
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to identify the stage of concern, the level of use, and the innovation configuration of Home Economics teachers regarding creativity and personality education in Home Economics(HE) classes. The survey questionnaires were sent through mails and e-mails to middle-school HE teachers in the whole country selected by systematic sampling and convenience sampling. Questionnaires of the stages of concern and the levels of use developed by Hall(1987) were used in this study. 187 data were used for the final analysis by using SPSS/window(12.0) program. The results of the study were as following: First, for the stage of concerns of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, the information stage of concerns(85.51) was the one with the highest response rate and the next high in the following order: the management stage of concerns(81.88), the awareness stage of concerns(82.15), the refocusing stage of concerns(68.80), the collaboration stage of concerns(61.97), and the consequence stage of concerns(59.76). Second, the levels of use of HE teachers on creativity and personality education was highest with the mechanical levels(level 3; 21.4%) and the next high in the following order: the orientation levels of use(level 1; 20.9%), the refinement levels(level 5; 17.1%), the non-use levels(level 0; 15.0%), the preparation levels(level 2; 10.2%), the integration levels(level 6; 5.9%), the renewal levels(level 7; 4.8%), the routine levels(level 4; 4.8%). Third, for the innovation configuration of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, more than half of the HE teachers(56.1%) mainly focused on personality education in their HE classes; 31.0% of the HE teachers performed both creativity and personality education; a small number of teachers(6.4%) focused on creativity education; the same number of teachers(6.4%) responded that they do not focus on neither of the two. Examining the level and type of performance HE teachers applied, the average score on the performance of creativity and personality education was 3.76 out of 5.00 and the mean of creativity component was 3.59 and of personality component was 3.94, higher than standard. For the creativity education, openness/sensitivity(3.97) education was performed most and the next most in the following order: problem-solving skill(3.79), curiosity/interest(3.73), critical thinking(3.63), problem-finding skill(3.61), originality(3.57), analogy(3.47), fluency/adaptability(3.46), precision(3.46), imagination(3.37), and focus/sympathy(3.37). For the personality education, the following components were performed in order from most to least: power of execution(4.07), cooperation/consideration/just(4.06), self-management skill(4.04), civic consciousness(4.04), career development ability(4.03), environment adaptability(3.95), responsibility/ownership(3.94), decision making(3.89), trust/honesty/promise(3.88), autonomy(3.86), and global competency(3.55). Regarding what makes performing creativity and personality education difficult, most HE teachers(64.71%) chose the lack of instructional materials and 40.11% of participants chose the lack of seminar and workshop opportunity. 38.5% chose the difficulty of developing an evaluation criteria or an evaluation tool while 25.67% responded that they do not know any means of performing creativity and personality education. Regarding the better way to support for creativity and personality education, the HE teachers chose in order from most to least: 'expansion of hands-on activities for students related to education on creativity and personality'(4.34), 'development of HE classroom culture putting emphasis on creativity and personality'(4.29), 'a proper curriculum on creativity and personality education that goes along with students' developmental stages'(4.27), 'securing enough human resource and number of professors who will conduct creativity and personality education'(4.21), 'establishment of the concept and value of the education on creativity and personality'(4.09), and 'educational promotion on creativity and personality education supported by local communities and companies'(3.94).