• Korean Journal of Comparative Education
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.103-132
• /
• 2016

This study aims to suggest ways of improving the quality of confirmation hearings for the Secretary of Education in South Korea by: 1) comparing the confirmation process by the presidents in South Korea and the United States; and 2) contrasting procedures and contents of hearings for Education Secretary nominee in South Korea and the United States. As the process of selecting a nominee to be the Secretary of Education started, the Blue House Office of Secretary conducted an investigation on the nominee's personal details, family matters, and etc within a week. The investigation, with very limited time frame, led the selection process to be a mere verification on the nominee's morality. On the other hand, the White House Office of Presidential Personnel carried out a thorough investigation on the nominee collectively with the White House Council, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Internal Revenue Service, taking from two to three months. In terms of contents of the hearings, the members of the ruling party mainly asked the nominee for clarification, and his ideas on certain policies, whereas the opposition party focused mostly on verifying his morality. In addition, the committee members led the hearing whilst strongly expressing their own political ideologies. However, in the case of the hearings in the United States, the committee members did not ask any questions to verify the nominee's morality but questions that could help them to get an understanding of the nominee's experience, professionalism, and perspective on nation- wide issues regarding education and federal education policy. As for the procedural characteristics of South Korean hearings, the Committee on Education conducted the hearing with a week of advanced preparation. However, submission of required reports by the nominee, performing confirmation hearings, and reports on the hearing were not mandatory in order to appoint the nominee as the Secretary of Education. On the contrary, in the United States, the members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension spent about a month preparing for the confirmation hearing. For the nominee to be appointed, submission of reports and the committee's approval on the President's nomination were required. Based on the results, this research suggests that it is important to develop a policy that can strengthen the substantiality of the nomination process, to establish a professional agency for personnel investigation, to make a mandatory submission of personal reports before hearings, to extend the time frame for hearing preparation, to secure enough time slot for nominees to respond, and to increase the member's autonomy.

• Korean Journal of Childcare and Education
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.57-81
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study was to find out the feature of children's play according to a player number restriction rule in the free choice activities. And it is expected that the result of this study will contribute to improving the management of free choice activities. The participants of this study were a homeroom teacher, professor as a co-researcher and 25 4-year-old children of a private kindergarten. The data were collected by observation, children interview and reflective journal of the teacher from July to October in 2014. The results indicated that the children were stressed out with using name cards for presenting center selection, showed overcompetitive behaviors, and frequently violated the rules. The researchers found that the restriction rule had some dysfunctions, which were interferences of moral development, social-emotional development, self-regulation development, preventing safety-accident and free choice behavior. The researcher as a teacher abandoned the player number restriction rule, and observed the children's play. As a result, children's self-regulation abilities on physical space, play and conflicts improved and the teacher changed her strategy when managing free choice activities. Based on the results, the needs of various restriction rules and appropriate methods for applying the rules in free choice activities were further discussed.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.125-149
• /
• 2012

This study explores the formational process of KBS PD's professional identity in the 1970's, focusing on everyday work and workplace for program production. In terms of salary and social-cultural status, a television PD was not a desirable occupation in the 70's. Since the beginning of radio broadcasting, production of culture and education programs had been sub-categorized under Programming Division. Also, it has been claimed in several researches that in the 70's, the production of education and cultural programs had visibly grown owing to the political necessity of policy PR and campaigns, and the introduction of new broadcasting equipment and technologies for producing the mentioned political campaign programs. However, this study argues that the main force that led to such developments was the cultural practices and the production spirits of the KBS PD's. These PD's trained themselves in production workplace from the bottom by assisting film directors and learning from cameramen about the film making and post-production process. Moreover, in the transitional phase from film to magnetic tape recorder, they established themselves as main subjectivities of production by developing Division of Culture and Education as a specialized and independent sector. The "program production spirit and DNA" that evolved from the experiences of working in poor production environment served as a force for developing professional and self identity. However, the culture and education PD's of the 70's were still tied down to the limited roles of simply providing technological and productional 'professionalism' within the hegemonic structure of the strong state. As with the members of any other social domain at the time, PD's had restricted roles to play and putting in effort and competing to create better programs was the only 'freedom' that was allowed. This study argues that under such condition, KBS PD's implemented two strategies to construct their own professional identities: one was to distinguish themselves from official broadcasters, and the other was to distinguish themselves from commercial broadcasters. Unfortunately, ethical practice as a professional became nothing more than an issue of personal morality and broadcasting's public responsibility was lost under the shadows of commercial broadcasting.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.114
• /
• pp.177-212
• /
• 2016

Kants Begriff der Freiheit des Willens ist sehr kompliziert und verwirrend. Denn sowie es Ziel der ${\gg}$Kritik der praktischen Vernunft${\ll}$ ist, die reine praktische Vernunft zu beweisen, liegt der Fokus von Kants Begriff der Freiheit auf der Freiheit von Zwang, wobei Kant eine unbestimmte Haltung zur Freiheit von Notwendigkeit einnimmt und sie dann $schie{\ss}lich$ leugnet. Leibnizens Begriff der Freiheit dagegen hebt die Freiheit von Notwendigkeit hervor, denn er sagt, dass der menschliche Wille nicht nur vom Zwang der Leidenschaft, sondern auch von Notwendigkeit frei sei. Die Struktur von Leibnizens Freiheitslehre unterscheidet sich zwar sehr von der Kants, aber die Charakterlehren beider Denker, in denen die $M{\ddot{o}}glichkeit$ der Vereinbarkeit von Freiheit und Notwendigkeit behandelt werden, weisen viele Parallelen auf. Zudem ist Leibnizens Begriff der Freiheit sehr eindeutig. Daher ist ein Vergleich von Leibnizens und Kants Begriff der Freiheit nicht nur sinnvoll und $f{\ddot{u}}hrt$ zu einem besserem $Verst{\ddot{a}}ndnis$ von Kants Freiheitsbegriff, durch die vergleichende Analyse stellt sich zudem auch heraus, dass auch bei Kant nicht nur Freiheit von Zwang, sondern auch Freiheit von Notwendigkeit $m{\ddot{o}}glich$ ist. Leibniz geht $f{\ddot{u}}r$ seine Freiheitslehre von dem Begriff der Freiheit vom Zwang der Leidenschaft, welcher von allen Rationalisten anerkannt wird, sowie von dem Begriff der Freiheit von der Notwendigkeit, welcher von Spinoza negiert wird, aus. Kant dagegen definiert Freiheit als $Unabh{\ddot{a}}ngigkeit$ von den Naturgesetzen, was diesen Begriff von Anfang an unklar macht. Kant war sich anfangs der Zweideutigkeit dieses Konzepts nicht $bewu{\ss}t$ und hat es undeutlich gebraucht, doch in der Neuauflage von ${\gg}$Die Religion innerhalb der $blo{\ss}en$ Vernunft${\ll}$ erkennt er den Unterschied in den zwei Begriffen der Willensfreiheit, weshalb er bei der Rechtslehre in der ${\gg}$Metaphysik der Sitten${\ll}$ dazu kommt, die Wahlfreiheit zu negieren. Aber in den Abschnitten, wo Kant in der ${\gg}$Kritik der reinen Vernunft${\ll}$ und der ${\gg}$Kritik der praktischen Vernunft${\ll}$ die Vereinbarkeit von Freiheit und Notwendigkeit behandelt, $f{\ddot{u}}hrt$ Kant aus, so wie auch Leibniz, dass der intelligible Charakter des Menschen sich durch wiederholte freie Wahl formt, womit sich $best{\ddot{a}}tigt$, dass auch Kant die Freiheit der Wahl anerkannt hat. Kant leugnet die Wahlfreiheit, weil er der Ansicht ist, dass der Begriff der Freiheit als ein einheitlicher Begriff definiert werden muss. Doch Freiheit muss nicht zwingend einheitlich definiert werden. Da Freiheit von Zwang und Freiheit von Notwendigkeit nicht $widerspr{\ddot{u}}chliche$ Begriffe sind, $k{\ddot{o}}nnen$ sie dem selben Willen gleichzeitig zugeteilt werden. Auch wird erst hierdurch Autonomie $m{\ddot{o}}glich$ gemacht.