Journal of People, Plants, and Environment (인간식물환경학회지)

Society For People, Plants, And Environment (인간식물환경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Resetting the Evaluation Indicators for School Garden Education Service

  • Hong, In-Kyoung (Urban Agricultural Research Division, National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Yun, Hyung-Kwon (Urban Agricultural Research Division, National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Jung, Young-Bin (Urban Agricultural Research Division, National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Mi (Urban Agricultural Research Division, National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Lee, Choon-soo (Department of Agricultural Economics, Suncheon University)
  • Received : 2021.02.24
  • Accepted : 2021.03.22
  • Published : 2021.06.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and objective: The vitalization of urban agriculture has increased various forms of experience-based education using school gardens, which raised the importance of school gardens in terms of value as well as the need to develop an implementation system for education-based agricultural experience service using school gardens. Thus, we reset the evaluation indicators from the previous study to establish objective evaluation indicators that enable quantitative comparison of school garden education services. Methods: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and direct question (DQ) surveys were conducted on 20 experts from October 12 to 19, 2020 after establishing the purpose and subjects of evaluation, and then the weights were calculated using the Expert Choice 2010 program. Results: First, we analyzed the problems of the previous indicators by categorizing the performance indicators and comparing and verifying them with six requirements of valuation. Then, we added 'welfare values' and established sub-indicators accordingly. The importance of value indicator in AHP was in the order of education values (0.544), health values (0.182), welfare values (0.164), environmental values (0.062), and economic values (0.049). The importance of environmental and economic values was relatively low, less than 0.1. The importance of sub-indicators was highest in cultivating character (0.144), followed by enhancing ecological sensitivity (0.141) > promoting mental health (0.134) > cultivating agricultural literacy (0.120) > improving social skills (0.104). And mitigating climate change in environmental values was lowest (0.009). Increase in income was the lowest (0.036). This can be regarded as the expression of change to increase the educational effect based on collective life and the connotative meaning of 'school'. In the case of DQ, the AHP weight and order were the same, but the environmental and economic values were relatively low, and the result was different from AHP weight. For sub-indicators, the importance in DQ was highest in promoting mental health (0.136), followed by promoting physical health (0.085), ]cultivating character (0.082), social integration (0.072), and enhancing ecological sensitivity (0.071). After reviewing related experts, we came up with 5 evaluation indicators and 16 sub-indicators for school garden education service, which are objective evaluation indicators that enable quantitative comparison. Conclusion: In the future, we will validate the socioeconomic values of school garden education services and contribute to revitalizing school gardens by establishing policy alternatives for effective operation and management of school gardens.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study is funded by the Rural Development Administration Project (PJ01364403).

References

  1. Anderson, E.T. 1997. Important distance education practices: A delphi study of administrators and coordinators of distance education programs in higher education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA.
  2. Ansan Urban Agricultural Coalition(AUAC). 2015. Survey on education of school garden in Ansan area for strengthening hands-on environmental education. Ansan, Korea: AUAC.
  3. Cotugna, N., C.K. Manning, and J. Didomenico. 2012. Impact of the use of produce grown in an elementary school garden of consumption of vegetable at school lunch. J. Hunger Environ. Nurt. 7:11-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2012.649668
  4. Green growth committee(GGC). 2012. Green education development plan research; focusing on school garden education. Green growth committee result report, Seoul, Korea:GGC.
  5. Hong, I.K. H.K. Yun, Y.B. Jung, and S.M. Lee. 2020. Derivation of indicators for value assessment of school gardens. J. People Plants Environ. 23(4):433-443. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2020.23.4.433
  6. Hong, U.S. and J.H. Kim. 2017. The effect of the school farm program on the personality of elementary school students. J. Korean Pract. Arts Educ. 23(1):163-186.
  7. Jang, J. 2016. A study on ecosystem services evaluation and promotional plan for the activation of the school farm. Doctoral dissertation, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea.
  8. Jang, J. and C.H. Oh. 2012. Needs analysis of experiential learning program for eco-friendly school farm activation-Target of teachers in elementary school. Korean J. Org. Agric. 20(3):283-296.
  9. Jang, Y.N., S.J. Jeong. K.S. Han, G.M. GIM, I.J. Choi, and J.N. Heo. 2017. Set up and running status of school gardening at elementary schools: Focus on Jeollabuk-do. Korean J. Community Living Sci. 28(4):613-623. http://doi.org/10.7856/kjcls.2017.28.4.613
  10. Jeong, Y.O and J.H. Lee. 2013. The effect of the horticultural activity on the sociality and friend relation of elementary school students. J. Korean Pract. Arts Educ. 26(3):41-58.
  11. Kelmmer, C.D., T.M. Waliczek, and J.M. Zejicek. 2015. Growing minds: The effect of a school gardening program on the science achievement of elementary students. Horttechnology. 15(3):448-452. http://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.15.3.0448
  12. Kim, K.R and Y.O. Jeong. 2008. The effect of vegetable gardening on society among elementary school students. J. Korean Pract. Arts Educ. 21(1):153-165.
  13. Kwack, H.R. and H.C. Park. 2017. Adoption of emotional intelligence education in elementary horticulture education and survey of it's recognition to teachers. J. Korean Pract. Arts Educ. 30(1):107-124. https://doi.org/10.24062/kapae.30.1.107
  14. Lee, C.S., B.H. Lee, and S.R. Yang. 2014. Development of the Agricultural competitiveness index. K. J. of Agri. Management and Policy 41(4):666-700.
  15. Lee, J.S. 2001. Delphi method. Seoul, Korea:Kyoyookg wahaksa.
  16. Lee, W.S. 2017. A study on evaluating the diverse value of urban agriculture and its activation plan. Doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  17. Moon, J.H., S.M. Lee, S.J. Jung, Y.S. Lee, H.R. Kwack, and Y.J. Song. 2012. Effects of container vegetable gardening on the improvement of scientific interest, social ability, and academic achievement for elementary students. J. Korean Soc. People Plants Environ. 15(6):421-428. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2012.15.6.421
  18. Morris, J., M. Briggs, and S. Zidenberg-Cherr. 2000. School-based garden can teach kids healthier eating habits. Calif. Agric. 54(5):40-46. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v054n05p40
  19. Office for Goverment Policy Coordination(OGPC). 2017. 2017 government performance management operation guidelines. Final report. Seoul, Korea:OGPC.
  20. Office for Goverment Policy Coordination(OGPC) and The Korean Association for Policy Studies(KAPS). 2015. A study on the improvement of performance indicators. Final report. Seoul, Korea:OGPC.
  21. Paek, K.W. 2012. A environmental education plan applying school gardening in the elementary school. Master's thesis. Seoul National University of Education, Seoul, Korea.
  22. Rural Development Administration(RDA). 2014. The study on school farm for experiential education in primary school. Suwon, Korea: RDA.