The purpose of this study was to develop lesson plans and teaching materials applying practical reasoning instruction for the 7th home economics curriculum content, and to test the effect of practical reasoning instruction on morality of middle school students. This study is a quasi-experimental res...
The purpose of this study was to develop lesson plans and teaching materials applying practical reasoning instruction for the 7th home economics curriculum content, and to test the effect of practical reasoning instruction on morality of middle school students. This study is a quasi-experimental research with a pretest-posttest design. Practical reasoning instruction for experimental group and traditionally lecture oriented instruction for comparison group were input, and tested the statistical differences between two groups before and after the treatment. The subjects for this study were 8th grade students of a middle school located in Kwangju city. Two classes of 76 students homogeneous in characteristics and academic record for each experimental and comparison group were assigned. Instrument used for this study was a revised moral indicator, that was developed by KEDI(2001). Spss/win for 10.0 statistics program was used for analysis of data. ANCOVA was done for testing statistical difference between pretest and posttest of experiment group and comparison group. Result of study which showed statistically significant difference between groups were:1. Virtue of "responsibility for words and deeds"(from 3.22 to 3.61 for experimental group and from 3.27 to 3.26 for comparison group) in domain of responsibility and cooperation, and virtue of "punctuality"(from 3.59 to 3.76 for experimental group and from 3.41 to 3.28 for comparison group) in domain of trustworthiness, 2. Virtue of "conversation etiquette"(from 3.47 to 3.67 for experimental group and from 3.28 to 3.31 for comparison group) in domain of caring for others, 3. Virtue of "forgiveness other′s mistakes"(from 3.32 to 3.65 for experimental group and from 3.33 to 3.25 for comparison group) in domain of kindness, concession, forgiveness, and virtue of "volunteering activity"(from 2.89 to 3.71 for experimental group and from 3.36 to 3.45 for comparison group) in domain of compassion and service, 4. Virtue of "equip the convenient facility for handicapped"(from 4.19 to 4.29 for experimental group and from 4.17 to 3.91 for comparison group) in domain of equality and human rights, virtue of "recovering selfness for own community"(from 2.34 to 2.79 for experimental group and from 2.14 to 2.29 for comparison group), virtue of "opposing way of accomplishing purpose by an means"(from 3.27 to 3.31 for experimental group and from 3.47 to 3.05 for comparison group), virtue of "opposing election of considering acquaintance"(from 3.35 to 3.56 for experimental group and from 3.12 to 3.14 for comparison group) in domain of fairness, and virtue of "eradication of military force or violence among countries"(from 3.49 to 3.57 for experimental group and from 3.38 to 3.05 for comparison group) in domain of love for humanity. The morality of experimental group was improved more than that of comparison group in all of above items. From the results of this study, following conclusion was drawn. Practical reasoning instruction in home economics is effective in raising students′ virtue and value of responsibility in words and deeds, trustworthiness in punctuality, courtesy of not interrupting conversation, forgiveness of other′s mistakes, volunteering activity, equity for handicapped, fairness opposing selfness for own community, fairness opposing way of accomplishing purpose by all means, fairness opposing election of considering acquaintance, and love for humanity opposing war.
The purpose of this study was to develop lesson plans and teaching materials applying practical reasoning instruction for the 7th home economics curriculum content, and to test the effect of practical reasoning instruction on morality of middle school students. This study is a quasi-experimental research with a pretest-posttest design. Practical reasoning instruction for experimental group and traditionally lecture oriented instruction for comparison group were input, and tested the statistical differences between two groups before and after the treatment. The subjects for this study were 8th grade students of a middle school located in Kwangju city. Two classes of 76 students homogeneous in characteristics and academic record for each experimental and comparison group were assigned. Instrument used for this study was a revised moral indicator, that was developed by KEDI(2001). Spss/win for 10.0 statistics program was used for analysis of data. ANCOVA was done for testing statistical difference between pretest and posttest of experiment group and comparison group. Result of study which showed statistically significant difference between groups were:1. Virtue of "responsibility for words and deeds"(from 3.22 to 3.61 for experimental group and from 3.27 to 3.26 for comparison group) in domain of responsibility and cooperation, and virtue of "punctuality"(from 3.59 to 3.76 for experimental group and from 3.41 to 3.28 for comparison group) in domain of trustworthiness, 2. Virtue of "conversation etiquette"(from 3.47 to 3.67 for experimental group and from 3.28 to 3.31 for comparison group) in domain of caring for others, 3. Virtue of "forgiveness other′s mistakes"(from 3.32 to 3.65 for experimental group and from 3.33 to 3.25 for comparison group) in domain of kindness, concession, forgiveness, and virtue of "volunteering activity"(from 2.89 to 3.71 for experimental group and from 3.36 to 3.45 for comparison group) in domain of compassion and service, 4. Virtue of "equip the convenient facility for handicapped"(from 4.19 to 4.29 for experimental group and from 4.17 to 3.91 for comparison group) in domain of equality and human rights, virtue of "recovering selfness for own community"(from 2.34 to 2.79 for experimental group and from 2.14 to 2.29 for comparison group), virtue of "opposing way of accomplishing purpose by an means"(from 3.27 to 3.31 for experimental group and from 3.47 to 3.05 for comparison group), virtue of "opposing election of considering acquaintance"(from 3.35 to 3.56 for experimental group and from 3.12 to 3.14 for comparison group) in domain of fairness, and virtue of "eradication of military force or violence among countries"(from 3.49 to 3.57 for experimental group and from 3.38 to 3.05 for comparison group) in domain of love for humanity. The morality of experimental group was improved more than that of comparison group in all of above items. From the results of this study, following conclusion was drawn. Practical reasoning instruction in home economics is effective in raising students′ virtue and value of responsibility in words and deeds, trustworthiness in punctuality, courtesy of not interrupting conversation, forgiveness of other′s mistakes, volunteering activity, equity for handicapped, fairness opposing selfness for own community, fairness opposing way of accomplishing purpose by all means, fairness opposing election of considering acquaintance, and love for humanity opposing war.
Arcus, M.E.(1997). Alternative theories of ethical thought. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Cammunities. AAFCS
Baldwin, E.E.(1997). Ethical action for policy affecting families: The role of critical theory. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
Bubolz, M.M. & Clifford, M.C.(1997). A Framework for creating a shared moral ecology in family and consumer Sciences. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Cammunities. AAFCS
Coombs, J.R.(1997). Practical reasoning: What is it? how do we enhance It? In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
Commer, D. Hittman, L. & Fedje, C.(1997). Questioning: Ateaching strategy and everyday life strategy. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
Coombs, J. R. & Meux, M.(1971). Teaching strategies for value analysis. In L. Metcalf(Ed.). Values education. Washington. DC: National Council for the Social Studies
Edersheim, M. A.(1988). The contribution of practical reasoning instruction and other factors to the decision making level of tenth grade home economics students. Unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Fedje, C. G.(1998). Helping learners develop their practical reasoning capacities. In Thomas, R & Laster, J. Inquiry into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
Jenkins-Vulgamore, V. J.(1991), The relationship of home economics instruction and other factors on early adolescents' decision making skill levels. Unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Johnson, J. & Fedje, C. (1999). Family and consumer science curriculum: Toward a critical science approach. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
Knippel, D.(1989). A case study of a family engaging in practical reasoning. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Knippel, D.(1998). Practical reasoning in the family context. In Thomas, R. & Laster, J. Inquiry into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
Knorr, A.J & Manning, D.E.(1997). Reasoning and acting on practical problems of home and family. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
Laster, J. F.(1986). Practical action teaching model. Journal of Home Economics, 74(3), 41-44
Laster, J. F.(1998). Assessment of practical reasoning. In Thomas, R & Laster, J. Inquiry into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
Laster, J. F. & Thomas, R. G.(1997). Thinking for ethical action in families and communities. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
Manifold, S. C.(1984). The development of a decision making skills instrument for vocational home economics practical problems. Unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Martin, J. L.(1988). Practical reasoning instruction in the secondary Family and Consumer Science classroom. In Thomas, R & Laster, J. Inquiry into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
McClelland, J.(1997). Critical pedagogy: Guideposts for ethical action in family and consumer sciences education. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
Olson, K.(1999). Practical reasoning. In Johnson, J. & Fedje, C. (1999). Family and consumer science curriculum: Toward a critical science approach. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
Peterat L. & Slocum, A.(1997). Teaching critical thinking in family and consumer science education. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
Thomas, R.G.(1997). Thinking for Ethical Action in Families: Family and Consumer Sciences Meanings. In Thinking for Ethical Action in Families and Communities. AAFCS
Thomas, R. & Laster, J.(1998). Inquin; into thinking. Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.