• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.91-117
• /
• 2007

This study was to compare the contents and practical problems addressed, the process of teaching-learning method, and evaluation method of Korean Home Economics curriculum and of the Oregon and Ohio's Practical Problem Focused Family & Consumer Sciences Curricula. The results are as follows. First, contents of Korean curriculum are organized by major sub-concepts of Home Economics academic discipline whereas curricular of both Oregon and Ohio states are organized by practical problems. Oregon uses the practical problems which integrate multi-subjects and Ohio uses ones which are good for the contents of the module by integrating concerns or interests which are lower or detailed level (related interests). Since it differentiates interest and module and used them based on the basic concept of Family and Consumer Science, Ohio's approach could be easier for Korean teachers and students to adopt. Second, the teaching-learning process in Korean home economics classroom is mostly teacher-centered which hinders students to develop higher order thinking skills. It is recommended to use student-centered learning activities. State of Oregon and Ohio's teaching-learning process brings up the ability of problem-solving by letting students clearly analyze practical problems proposed, solve problems by themselves through group discussions and various activities, and apply what they learn to other problems. Third, Korean evaluation system is heavily rely on summative evaluation such as written tests. It is highly recommended to facilitate various performance assessment tools. Since state of Oregon and Ohio both use practical problems, they evaluate students mainly based on their activity rather than written tests. The tools for evaluation include project documents, reports of learning activity, self-evaluation, evaluation of discussion activity, peer evaluation in a group for each students for their performance, assessment about module, and written tests as well.

• Sijohaknonchong
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.141-171
• /
• 2004

Even though only 3 sijo are in high school textbook. through these 3 sijo each type can be understood in that each represents pyung sijo, sasul sijo, and present sijo. To learn with learner-centered activities, which aim for full knowledge acquisition regarding literary works, as the preparing stage, students can learn what theyll learn by teachers. Sijo are, so to speak, formed with three chapters, and stand for the world that is colorless, scentless, and flavorless. So, the theme can be found with ease. Compared with other genres, sijo can be formed creating background with ease. Moreover, sijo are not too long, so learners can paraphrase it. Sijo that express private experiences with the everyday language can be related to other genres or everyday language. So, sijo are last to present. In the teaching phase, on the gradation of concretion and gradation, writing or presentation activities are presented. After classroom, learners keep a reaction journal. In the phase of concretion and gradation, learners can apprehend that typical differences of the emotions of poetic speakers is from typical differences, even though emotions of poetic speakers of (1)$\cdot$(2)$\cdot$(3) that is each stand for pyung sijo, sasul sijo, and present sijo are roughly summarized loneliness, desolateness, and gloominess. Moreover, these typical differences are from social, political. and cultural settings, namely, the differences of contexts. In this teaching model. learners should prepare for content regarding context and text before the class. Teachers should act as an assistant to help learners pre-understand their subjective experiences and imaginations.

• 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).