Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.379-404 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.27.3.201709.379 : A basic research for the after-school forest activities program models: Focusing on requirement and perception of parents Purpose: he purpose of this study is to conduct a basic research to develop an elementary school after school forest activity program, furthermore provide contents for a new after school program, and activate forest childhood education. Results & Conclusion: In investigating the awareness and needs of parents, the results showed that 54.4% had 'heard of forest activity program', and 89.3% responded that it is 'needed'. When investigating by background variables, there was no significant difference according to parents' education. However parents of students in grades 1 & 2 had the highest ratio of parents that had heard about forest activity program. Next, in identifying the detailed requirements of the after school forest activity program, '2 hours' was considered as most favorable duration for activities in one day (48.2%), class configuration of 'lower, upper grades' (36.9%), preference of 'forest commentator' (50.6%) as leading teacher, for the role of teacher 'safety manager' (46.4%), and 'Observations based navigation in accordance with the interests of the child' (38.0%) as educational method. Like such, all considerations and concerns were associated with safety. Parents that participated in the interview saw forest activity program becoming 'education that makes today happy', and 'education that prepares for the future', and showed their positive expectations. Key words: elementary after school, forest activities, models development, requirement and perception of parents Corresponding Author: Kim, Eunju. Pusan National University, Dept. of Early Childhood Education, Busandaehakro, Jangjeondong, Busan, Korea, e-mail: eunjukim@pusan.ac.kr
.,,. 1892 '(Friluftsfamjandet), 1950. 2008 140 1) (, 2017),,,, (2015) 3,574 (41.1%), 2,056 (23.0%). (2014.11.05, KBS),,,... (2011), (2009) (2014),.,,,,, (, 2012) (, 2012). 1),,, 12.
., (2002),,,,,. (, 2006),., (,,, 2013), (,, 2006;, 2008;,,, 2013) (, 2011;, 2013;, 2010,,,,, 2012). (,, 2014) -,,.,,.,,,,, (, 2014)., (,,, 2013) (, 2008) (, 2011).,, (2006) (,,,, 2011).. (, 2009;, 2010).. Noddings (2010),,,.
..,. 2005. (, 2012),,, (,, 2002). (2005), (2005), (2005)..,,,..,?,?
. 1) 설문조사대상 B 200. n(%) 20 ~25 1(0.6) 25 ~30 5(3.0) 30 ~35 20(11.9) 35 ~40 76(45.2) 40 66(39.3) 15(8.9) 153(91.1) 49(29.2) 43(25.5) 68(40.5) 8(4.8) 75(44.6) 4(2.4) 89(53.0) 1~2 65(38.7) 3~4 58(34.5) 5~6 45(26.8) 77(45.8) 91(54.2) 168(100) 180 12 168. 35 ~40 76 (45.2%),. 4 68 (40.5%), 89 (53.0%) 75 (44.6%). 77 (45.8%), 91 (54.2%), 1~2 65 (38.7%), 3~4 58 (34.5%), 5~6 45 (26.8%).
2) 면담대상 8, < -2>. A 37 1 B 38 3 C 40 2 D 40 5 E 44 5 F 35 2 G 30 2 H 42 1 1) 설문지 (2008), (2003), (2009) (2011). 6, 12, 2, 20 1 3. < -3>.,,,,, 6,,,,,,,,,,, 12, 20 2
2) 면담지.,. 1) 설문조사 5. 2016 3 5 SPSS18.0. 2) 면담.... 1 50. 1 2.
. 1) 숲활동프로그램에대한인식여부, < -1>. χ 24(27.3) 25(31.3) 49(29.2) 22(25.0) 21(26.3) 43(25.6) 1.9 36(40.9) 32(40.0) 68(40.5) df=3 6(6.8) 2(2.5) 8(6.8) 1~2 36(40.9) 29(36.3) 65(38.7) 6.63 3~4 23(26.1) 35(43.8) 58(34.5) 5~6 29(33.0) 16(20.0) 45(26.8) df=2 88(52.4) 80(47.6) 168(100.0) P<.05 < -1> 88 (52.4%), 80 (47.6%)., (χ =6.63, P<.05). 1~2 36 (40.9%), 3~4 35 (43.8%), 5~6 29 (33.0%). 2) 숲활동프로그램의필요성 < -2>.
χ 40(26.7) 9(50.0) 49(29.2) 41(27.3) 2(11.1) 43(25.6) 20.38 65(43.3) 3(16.7) 68(40.5) df=3 4(2.7) 4(22.2) 8(4.8) 1~2 59(39.3) 6(33.3) 65(38.7) 1.52 3~4 53(33.3) 5(27.8) 58(34.5) 5~6 38(38.7) 7(38.9) 45(26.8) df=2 150(89.3) 18(10.7) 168(100.0) P<.05 150 (89.3%)., (χ =20.38, P<.05). 3) 숲활동프로그램의일일활동시간 < -3>. 1 2 3 4 5 χ 20(29.0) 24(29.6) 5(29.4) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 49(29.2) 12(17.4) 27(33.3) 4(23.5) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 43(25.6) 8.69 33(47.8) 26(32.1) 8(47.1) 0(0.0) 1(100.0) 68(40.5) df=9 4(5.8) 4(4.9) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 8(4.8) 1~2 31(44.9) 27(33.3) 6(35.3) 0(0.0) 1(100) 65(38.7) 5.90 3~4 22(31.9) 32(39.5) 4(23.5) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 58(34.5) 5~6 16(23.2) 22(27.2) 7(41.2) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 45(26.8) df=6 69(41.1) 81(48.2) 17(10.1) 0(0.0) 1(0.0) 168(100.0) < -3> 2 81 (48.2%), 1 69 (41.1%), 3 17 (10.1%), 5 1 (0.6%)., 168 81 2, (P<.05).
4) 숲활동프로그램반구성., (1~6) 21(34.4) 16(25.8) 7(25.9) 5(27.8) 49(29.2) 14(23.0) 18(29.0) 7(25.9) 4(22.2) 43(25.6) 25(41.0) 25(40.3) 12(44.4) 6(33.3) 68(40.5) 1(1.6) 3(4.8) 1(3.7) 3(16.7) 8(4.8) 1~2 25(41.0) 26(41.9) 11(40.7) 3(16.7) 65(38.7) 3~4 19(31.1) 24(38.7) 6(22.2) 9(50.0) 58(34.5) 5~6 17(27.9) 12(19.4) 10(37.0) 6(33.3) 45(26.8) 61(36.3) 62(36.9) 27(16.1) 18(10.7) 168(100.0) χ 8.47 df=9 8.14 df=6 < -4>, 62 (36.9%) 61 (36.3%), 27 (16.1%), (1~6) 18 (10.7%). (P<.05). 5) 숲활동프로그램희망지도교사. χ 10(23.8) 2(15.4) 5(26.3) 1(100.0) 27(31.8) 4(50.0) 49(29.2) 13(31.0) 4(30.8) 4(21.1) 0(0.0) 21(24.7) 1(12.5) 43(25.6) 18(42.9) 7(53.8) 9(47.4) 0(0.0) 31(36.5) 3(37.5) 68(40.5) 1(2.4) 0(0.0) 1(5.3) 0(0.0) 6(7.1) 0(0.0) 8(4.8) 10.11 df=15
( ) χ 1~2 20(47.6) 5(38.5) 9(47.4) 0(0.0) 29(34.1) 2(25.0) 65(38.7) 3~4 12(28.6) 4(30.8) 8(42.1) 1(100.0) 31(36.5) 2(25.0) 58(34.5) 5~6 10(23.8) 4(30.8) 2(10.5) 0(0.0) 25(29.4) 4(50.0) 45(26.8) 42(25.0) 13(7.7) 19(11.3) 1(0.6) 85(50.6) 8(4.8) 168(100.0) 9.00 df=10 < -5> 85 (50.6%), 42 (25.0%), 19 (11.3%), 13 (7.7%), 8 (4.8%), 1 (0.6%)., 168 85 (50.6%), (P<.05). 6) 숲활동프로그램지도교사대아동비율. 5 5~10 11~15 16~20 21 17(33.3) 27(29.7) 2(11.8) 3(50.0) 0(0.0) 49(29.2) 9(17.6) 28(30.8) 5(29.4)) 0(0.0) 1(33.3) 43(25.6) 21(41.2) 32(35.2) 10(58.0) 3(50.0) 2(66.7) 68(40.5) 4(7.8) 4(4.4) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 8(4.8) 1~2 22(43.1) 31(34.1) 9(52.9) 3(50.0) 0(0.0) 65(38.7) 3~4 19(37.3) 29(31.9) 6(35.3) 2(33.3) 2(66.7) 58(34.5) 5~6 10(19.6) 31(34.1) 2(11.8) 1(16.7) 1(33.3) 45(26.8) 51(30.4) 91(54.2) 17(10.1) 6(3.6) 3(1.8) 168(100.0) χ 12.74 df=12 8.71 df=8 < -6> 1 5~10 168 91 (54.2%), 5 51 (30.4%), 11~15 17 (10.1%), 16~20 6 (3.6%), 21 3 (1.8%). (P<.05).
7) 숲활동프로그램에참여하는교사역할. χ 27(34.6) 5(29.4) 6(25.0) 11(22.9) 0(0.0) 49(29.2) 20(25.6) 3(17.6) 7(29.2) 13(27.1) 0(0.0) 43(25.6) 24.5 27(34.6) 8(47.1) 10(41.7) 23(47.9) 0(0.0) 68(40.5) df=12 4(5.1) 1(5.9) 1(4.2) 1(2.1) 1(100.0) 8(4.8) 1~2 36(46.2) 3(17.6) 5(20.8) 21(43.8) 0(0.0) 65(38.7) 9.60 3~4 24(30.8) 7(41.2) 8(33.3) 18(37.5) 1(100.0) 58(34.5) 5~6 18(23.1) 7(41.2) 11(45.8) 9(18.8) 0(0.0) 45(26.8) df=8 78(46.4) 17(10.1) 24(14.3) 48(28.6) 1(0.6) 168(100.0) P<.05 10 78 (46.4%), 48 (28.6%), 24 (14.3%), 17 (10.1%).,, (χ =24.5, P<.05). 8) 숲활동프로그램의교육방법 < -8>., χ 14(24.1) 20(30.8) 6(37.5) 9(31.0) 49(29.2) 19(32.8) 19(29.2) 2(12.5) 3(10.3) 43(25.6) 13.37 21(36.2) 24(36.9) 6(37.5) 17(58.6) 68(40.5) df=9 4(6.9) 2(3.1) 2(12.5) 0(0.0) 8(4.8)
( ), 1~2 24(41.4) 24(36.9) 6(37.5) 11(37.9) 65(38.7) 3~4 23(39.7) 22(33.8) 3(18.8) 10(34.5) 58(34.5) 5~6 11(19.0) 19(29.2) 7(43.8) 8(27.6) 45(26.8) 58(33.9) 65(38.0) 16(9.4) 29(17.0) 168(100.0) χ 4.97 df=6 < -8> (38.0%),,,,., (P<.05). 9) 숲활동프로그램의효과적운영을위한고려사항 < -9>. P<.05, 29(31.5) 2(50.0) 5(20.8) 7(17.1) 6(85.7) 49(29.2) 24(26.1) 0(0.0) 4(16.7) 15(36.6) 0(0.0) 43(25.6) 35(28.0) 1(25.0) 14(58.3) 17(41.5) 1(14.3) 68(40.5) 4(4.3) 1(25.0) 1(4.2) 2(4.9) 0(0.0) 8(4.8) 1~2 37(40.2) 2(50.0) 9(37.5) 15(36.6) 2(28.6) 65(38.7) 3~4 37(40.2) 0(0.0) 6(25.0) 15(36.6) 0(0.0) 58(34.5) 5~6 18(19.6) 2(50.0) 9(37.5) 11(26.8) 5(71.4) 45(26.8) 92(53.8) 4(2.3) 24(14.0) 41(24.0) 7(4.1) 168(100.0) χ 23.9 df=12 9.60 df=8
< -9> 92 (53.8%), 41 (24.0%), 24(14.0%),, (,, ) 7 (4.1%), () 4 (2.3%). (χ =23.9, P<.05). 10) 숲활동프로그램참여시가장염려되는부분 < -10>. P<.05 χ 43(30.5) 3(17.6) 1(25.0) 2(33.3) 49(29.2) 38(27.0) 2(11.8) 2(50.0) 1(16.7) 43(25.6) 56(39.7) 10(58.8) 1(25.0) 1(16.7) 68(40.5) 4(2.8) 2(11.8) 0(0.0) 2(33.3) 8(4.8) 1~2 58(41.1) 5(29.4) 1(25.0) 1(16.7) 65(38.7) 3~4 47(33.3) 8(47.1) 1(25.0) 2(33.3) 58(34.5) 5~6 36(25.5) 4(23.5) 2(50.0) 3(50.0) 45(26.8) 141(82.5) 17(9.9) 4(2.3) 6(3.5) 168(100.0) 19.24 df=9 4.64 df=6 < -10> 141 (82.5%), 17 (9.9%), 6 (3.5%), 4 (2.3%)., (χ =19.24, P<.05). 11) 자녀의 숲활동 참여여부 < -11>.
χ 39(26.4) 10(50.0) 49(29.2) 39(26.4) 4(20.0) 43(25.6) 19.94 66(44.6) 2(10.0) 68(40.5) df=3 4(2.7) 4(20.0) 8(4.8) 1~2 59(39.9) 6(30.0) 65(38.7) 0.73 3~4 50(33.8) 8(40.0) 58(34.5) 5~6 39(26.4) 6(30.0) 45(26.8) df=2 148(88.1) 20(11.9) 168(100.0) P<.05 < -11> 148 (88.1%), (χ =19.94, P<.05). 1) 숲활동프로그램을통해기를수있는아동상. 17(32.7) 3(60.0) 8(21.6) 12(30.8) 9(25.7) 49(29.2) 17(32.7) 0(0) 8(21.6) 11(28.2) 7(20.0) 43(25.6) 17(32.7) 1(20.0) 20(54.1) 12(30.8) 18(51.4) 68(40.5) 1(1.9) 1(20.0) 1(2.7) 4(10.3) 1(2.9) 8(4.8) 1~2 19(36.5) 1(20.0) 15(40.5) 13(33.3) 17(48.6) 65(38.7) 3~4 19(36.5) 2(40.0) 8(21.6) 19(48.7) 10(28.6) 58(34.5) 5~6 14(26.9) 2(40.0) 14(37.8) 7(17.9) 8(22.9) 45(26.8) 52(30.4) 5(2.9) 37(21.6) 39(22.8) 35(20.5) 168(100.0) χ 17.13 df=12 9.60 df=8
< -12> 52 (30.4%), 39 (22.8%), 32 (21.6%), 35 (20.5%), 5 (2.9%).,. (P<.05). 2) 숲활동프로그램을통한기대효과.,. (1),..,,,....... ( C, 2014. 5. 10).....(). ( F, 2014. 5. 14). (,, 2015)
,,,,,,,.,.. 2015 2 24 EBS 37...,...,,,... ( E, 2014. 5. 10)....,,. ( B, 2014. 5. 4).....
(2),....,,,. OO... ()........ ( A, 2014. 5. 16)......().... ( D, 2014. 5. 16) A.. D. (2004) 1, 2,,...
7. 1...... ( G, 2014. 5. 2).. ( A, 2014. 5. 16),,. ( H, 2014. 5. 4) 2...,..,,..
.,, (52.4%), (89.3%)., 1~2. (,,,, 2014)., 2 (48.2%),, (36.9%), (50.6%), 5~10 54.2%. (2011),... 5,820 (, 2014)... (2015),,, 5-6, 3-4, 1-2, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6. (46.4%), (92%) (33.3%)..,.
..,,.. (, 1990).,.,. (30.4%) (2.9%)...,.,,.,....,
(2015),. 92.7% 42.4 25.3 (, 2014.12.09.). 2013 100 60.3 OECD (, 2015.03.25.).... (2004) 1, 2..., (2016 3 28 ).,,,,,.,., (, 2017).., B 200..,
.., (2014).. (1), 155-174. (2011).. (2), 26-46., (2006).. (1), 57-82. (2008)... (2009).., 5(1), 45-66. (2013)... (2015).. (3), 45-65. (2010)..., (2002).., 23(6), 121-137. (2002). :., (2006).. (3), 849-864, (2006).. (1), 49-72. (2014).,,. (4), 85-107. (2011).. (1), 31-48. (2012).. (2), 21-41. (2005)..
(3), 171-187. (2014). 2014. : (2017).,, (2013)... 102(1), 74-81. (2011)... (1990). :. (2003)... (2010). : Dewey Noddings.. 14(6), 273-292. (2005).. (2), 100-119. (2004). :. (2005).. (1), 3-20. (2006). :.,,, (2014). ( ). (4), 29-49.,,, (2015).. (1), 239-267. (2008)... (2012). :, (4), 459-476.,,, (2012).. (4), 119-145.,, (2013).. (2), 343-367. (2008)...,,, (2011).. (2), 69-75. (2009).. 1-18.
(2012). :. (2), 1-26.,, (2013).. (2), 181-198. (2009). 5.. (2014.12.09.) http://www.hankookilbo.com 2017.07.21. (2015.03.25.) http://www.hankookilbo.com 2017.07.21. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Wong, M. M. (1991). The situational and personal correlates of happiness : A cross-national comparison, In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz(Ed), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary(pp. 193-212). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Wardle, F. (2006).,,, :. : 2017.8.6. / : 2017.8.11. / : 2017.9.20.
: :. :, 54.4%, 89.3%.,, 1~2., 2 (48.2%),, (36.9%), (50.6%), 5~10 54.2%. (46.4%), (38.0%),.,,.