• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.47-63
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to suggest the basic information for diverse and balanced research and development in this field with understanding research trends related to safety education in home economics. In order to so, this study makes population and sampling by targeting cases which refer to 'safety' on 15 papers of academic journals related to home economics registered in the National Research Foundation from 2001 to 2015, 244 papers related to safety education area and 179 master doctorate thesis by searching keyword as 'safety'. Analysis contents are research trends of papers related to safety education by year and by subject and research trends of safety education by area and by research method. As a result of the study, first, the number of research papers related to safety education by year on home economics curriculum repeated increase and decrease and there have been consistent studies conducted on safety education with 14-52 papers per every year and yearly average 28.2 papers. On the other hand, the most number of studies conducted in 2015 with 52 papers which are twice as much of 26 papers in 2014. This seems to be affected by the announcement of safety comprehensive countermeasures from government and the emphasis of safety subject on 2015 curriculum revision of the Ministry of Education. Second, with regards to research trends by topic, 137 papers are related to safety education (29%), 336 papers are related to safety actual condition (71%). Accidents and recognition had a greater percentage in a paper before 2009 (74.4%) and studies are increased after 2009 (from 21 papers to 53 papers) in terms of development or evaluation of safety education program, development of education materials, development of education method etc. Subject area dealt with the most on the research of safety actual condition is regarding safety accidents or effective variables (23.2%). Subject regarding the variables are researches related to factors influencing family violence, internet addiction, spouse violence, willingness to purchase unsafe food, age harassment, or suicidal attempt etc. Next, researches related to safety recognition (13.9%), safety knowledge and attitude (7.4%), safety behaviors (6.3%), safety consciousness (2.3%) show in sequence. Subject area dealt with the most on the researches regarding safety education is development and evaluation of safety education program (11%) and this appears the most in 2015 by year (21.5%). Third, with regards to eight areas of safety education, there are 143 papers regarding public safety (33.8%), 106 papers regarding violence and personal safety (25.1%), 93 papers regarding general subject on safety or whole safety area (22%) and 58 papers regarding drug and internet addiction (13.7%) in sequence. And there is no paper related to first aid and 1 paper is related to occupational safety (0.2%). Occupational safety area is less researched nevertheless its included in home economic curriculum as relative chapter. First aid does not directly correlate with home economics curriculum but should be studied in preparation for accident which could happen in practical class. Forth, with regards to research trends by research method, quantitative research (89.1%) is mostly used and both research study (70.4%) and experimental research (18.7%) are used the most frequently. In particular, researches on the actual condition of safety education and experimental studies for effectiveness verification take most of research method. As qualitative studies, there are phenomenological study (3.1%) and case study (3.1%) related to actual conditions of safety accidents. 10 papers (2.4%) are mixture of quantitative and qualitative research and some research conducted research study and experimental research at the same time (0.9%). With regards to subject of study, human environments (87.5%) are more than physical environments (12.5) and students (48.4%) are more than teachers and school parents (20.6%). As the subject of physical environments, school (6.5%) is the most but home environment is none. As a result of the study, research for the development of evaluation tool for evaluating safety education, occupational safety and lifelong education should be conducted from this time forward. In addition, the object of study shall be expanded to both human environments in terms of entire life and physical environments for home. An in-depth qualitative research should be needed by observing and meeting with each student.

• 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).