• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.151-173
• /
• 2018

The purposes of this study was to identify the magnitude and direction of the effects of Practical Reasoning Instruction (PRI) on students' achievements in Home Economics classes using the meta-analysis method and to examine whether the effects of PRI vary across publication status, study design, year of the studies, school level, gender of students, type of students' achievements, content area, location where the interventions of PRI were conducted, and duration. Thirty-four primary studies with 44 effect sizes were analyzed with calculation method of Becker(1988). A funnel plot method result revealed no publication bias. The results of this meta-analysis are as follows. First, PRI was more effective than traditional instruction on students' achievements. A summary statistic was 0.60 with a standard error of .074, which means that an increase of about two-third of a standard deviation beyond what would be expected from traditional instruction was gained from PRI intervention. Second, categorical and regression analyses were employed to find the sources of variance and moderators that predict the effects of PRI. The moderator analyses revealed no statistically significant effects of publication status, study design, school level, gender of students, type of students' achievements, and duration. Content area, location where the interventions of PRI were revealed to be moderators. It was concluded that PRI was effective in improving students' achievements regardless of publication status, study design, year of the studies, school level, gender of students, type of student achievement, and duration.

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2001

The purpose in this study was to investigate stages of concern of home economics teachers about the practical reasoning instruction(PRI) innovation configuration. levels of use. using Concerns Based Adoption Model(CBAM) The design of the study was descriptive. The Questionnaires of stages of concern. levels of use. and innovation configuration developed by Hall in 1987 were used. Data from HE teachers were collected through mailing. focus interview. and phone calls. Mean. percents. an frequencies were used to describe stages of concern, level of use. and innovation configuration. The results of the study were as follows: 1. The highest number of HE teacher respondents was stage 1. Information in March and july. 2 In terms of mean of PRI configuration. percentile. the HE teachers had implemented over 63% of the PRI elements and the cooperative learning elements in both March and July. However. of evaluation elements, 33% in March and 47% in July had been conducted. 3. The highest number of HE teacher respondents was level 3. Mechanical level in March. and July.

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.133-144
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to investigate Home Economics(HE) teachers' stages of concern, levels of use, and needs about the practical reasoning instruction focusing on the Concerns Based Adoption Model(CBAM). Questionnaires were administrated to HE teachers who worked for middle or high school in Korea and used HE textbooks according to the revised 2007 HE curriculum through mailing and visiting HE teacher training centers. 350 data collected from the responses were finally analyzed using SPSS 12.0. The results of the study were as follows: First, HE teachers' stages of concern about the Practical Reasoning Instruction(PRI) were demonstrated by the following order: awareness stage 0(97.05%), informational stage 1(87.06%), personal stage 2(86.23%), management stage 3(79.85%), refocusing stage 6(63.22%), consequence stage 4(61.26%), and collaboration stage 5(60.12%). Second, HE teachers' levels of use for PRI were demonstrated by the following order: preparation level 2(30.3%), orientation level 1(18.30%), refinement level 5 (18.30%), mechanical level 3: (16.0%), routine level 4(10.09%), nonuse level 0(4.0%), integration level 6(1.70%), and renewal level 7(0.60%). Third, needs for HE teachers' practical reasoning process were shown as the following order: '(O)Outline and implement a plan for action'(1.89), '(A)Analyze choices and consequences'(1.75), '(N)Note the results of your action(s)'(1.57), '(E)Evaluate information needed to solve the problem'(1.44), '(R)Recognize the problem'(1.39), and '(S)Select the best choices'(1.36).