• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.161-193
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate pre-parenthood education program(PPEP) based on Home Economics(HE) subject for high school students. The development and evaluation of PPEP based on HE subject in this study followed ADDIE model except implementation through 4 processes such as analysis, design, development, and evaluation. First, program development directions were set in three aspects such as 'general development', 'contents', and 'teaching and learning methods'. Themes of the program are 11 in total such as '1. Parenting, what is being a parent', '2. Choosing your spouse, happy marital relationship, the best gift to your children', '3. Pregnancy and birth, a moving meeting with a new life', '4. Taking care of a new born infant for 24 hours', '5. Taking care of infants, relationship with my lovely baby, attachment', '6. Taking care of young children, my child from another planet', '7. Parents and children in healthy family', '8. Parent-child relationship, wise parents to make effective interaction with their children', '9. Parents safety manager at home,', '10. Practice to take care of infants', and '11. Practice of community nurturing support service development'. In particular, learning activities of the program have major characteristics such as 1) utilization of cases including practice problems related to parenting, 2) community exchange activities utilizing learned knowledge and techniques, 3) actual life project activities utilizing learning contents related with parenting, 4) activities inducing positive changes in current life of high school students, and 5) practice activities for the necessities of life such as food, clothing and shelter supporting development of children. Second, the program was developed according to the design. Teaching-learning plans and materials for 17 classes were developed according to 11 themes. The developed plans include class flow and teacher's reference. It starts with receiving a class-related message from a virtual child at the introduction stage and ended with replying to the message by summarizing contents of the class and making a promise as a parent-to-be. That is the basic frame of class flow. Learning materials included various plans and reports necessary for learning activities and they are prepared in details so that they can be play the role of textbooks in regular curriculum. Third, evaluation of developed program was executed by a 5 point Likert scale survey on 13 HE experts on two aspects of program development process and program development results. In the evaluation of development process, mean value was 4.61 and index of content validity was 97.4%. For development results, mean value was 4.37 and index of content validity was 86.9%. These values showed that validity in the development process and results in this study was highly secured and confirmed that PPEP based on HE was appropriate and valid to enhance parent qualifications of high school learners.

• 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).