• Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science
• /
• v.80 no.1
• /
• pp.72-81
• /
• 1991

This study was carried out to provide necessary information for improving quarrying industry management in Korea. The results of the study are summarized as follows : 1. In aggregate and building-stone quarrying firms the managers over 40 years of age are 97% and 89.1%, the ones above education level of high school are 90% and 85% and the ones not more than 10 years of quarrying experience are 70% and 52%, respectively. Accordingly it can be pointed out that most of the managers of two types of firms are relatively old, have high educational background, while quarrying experiences of building-stone firm managers are longer than that of aggregate firm managers. 2. Most of the management forms are social corporation(60%) for aggregate quarry firms and private management(76%) for building-stone firms. Average areas of permitted stone-pits of aggregate and building-stone quarries are about 2.86ha and 1.66ha respectively. That is, aggregate quarrying firms are carried on a larger scale than building-stone quarrying firms. 3. The yearly average product of aggregate quarrying firms has increased steadily from $88.961m^3$ in 1985 to $144.028m^3$ in 1988, while, in case of building-stone quarry firms, it has significantly increased from $4.155m^3$ to $19.462m^3$ from 1985 to 1987, but reduced to $13.400m^3$ in 1988. Unstable production activities of building-stone quarrying firms may require continuous government support. 4. Major cost items are equipment rental, depreciation, salaries, repair, maintenance for aggregate quarrying firms, and salaries, depreciation, fuel, tax for building-stone quarrying firms. The yearly average rate of return is about 9.7% for aggregate quarry firms and 2.6% for building-stone quarry firms. It can be pointed out that aggregate quarrying firms is better managed than building-stone quarrying firms. 5. The production elasticity of salary for aggregate quarrying firms is 0.495, that of employees is 0.559, and that of capital service is 0.513. The sum of the elasticities is 1.257>1. Fur building-stone quarrying firms, that of employees is 0.492, that of variable costs is 0.192, and that of capital service is 0.498. The sum of elasticities is 1.172>1, thus denotes the increasing returns to scale for both types quarrying firms. 6. The ratio of marginal value product to opportunity cost of empolyees is 2.54, that of variable costs is 3.62, and that of capital service is 1.45, in aggregate quarrying firms. That of employees is 2.47, that is variable costs was 2.34, and that of capital service is 19.67 in building-stone quarrying firms. Therefore the critical factors for more expansion of management scale in aggregate quarrying firms are variable cost and employees, and are capital service in building-stone quarry ing firms. 7. The break-even points of stone sales are about 0.587 billion won and 0.22 billion won in aggregate and building-stone quarrying firms respectively. The optimum sales Level for profit maximization are about 2.0 billion and 0.5 billion in aggregate and building-stone quarry firms respectively.

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.117-134
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to identify the stage of concern, the level of use, and the innovation configuration of Home Economics teachers regarding creativity and personality education in Home Economics(HE) classes. The survey questionnaires were sent through mails and e-mails to middle-school HE teachers in the whole country selected by systematic sampling and convenience sampling. Questionnaires of the stages of concern and the levels of use developed by Hall(1987) were used in this study. 187 data were used for the final analysis by using SPSS/window(12.0) program. The results of the study were as following: First, for the stage of concerns of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, the information stage of concerns(85.51) was the one with the highest response rate and the next high in the following order: the management stage of concerns(81.88), the awareness stage of concerns(82.15), the refocusing stage of concerns(68.80), the collaboration stage of concerns(61.97), and the consequence stage of concerns(59.76). Second, the levels of use of HE teachers on creativity and personality education was highest with the mechanical levels(level 3; 21.4%) and the next high in the following order: the orientation levels of use(level 1; 20.9%), the refinement levels(level 5; 17.1%), the non-use levels(level 0; 15.0%), the preparation levels(level 2; 10.2%), the integration levels(level 6; 5.9%), the renewal levels(level 7; 4.8%), the routine levels(level 4; 4.8%). Third, for the innovation configuration of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, more than half of the HE teachers(56.1%) mainly focused on personality education in their HE classes; 31.0% of the HE teachers performed both creativity and personality education; a small number of teachers(6.4%) focused on creativity education; the same number of teachers(6.4%) responded that they do not focus on neither of the two. Examining the level and type of performance HE teachers applied, the average score on the performance of creativity and personality education was 3.76 out of 5.00 and the mean of creativity component was 3.59 and of personality component was 3.94, higher than standard. For the creativity education, openness/sensitivity(3.97) education was performed most and the next most in the following order: problem-solving skill(3.79), curiosity/interest(3.73), critical thinking(3.63), problem-finding skill(3.61), originality(3.57), analogy(3.47), fluency/adaptability(3.46), precision(3.46), imagination(3.37), and focus/sympathy(3.37). For the personality education, the following components were performed in order from most to least: power of execution(4.07), cooperation/consideration/just(4.06), self-management skill(4.04), civic consciousness(4.04), career development ability(4.03), environment adaptability(3.95), responsibility/ownership(3.94), decision making(3.89), trust/honesty/promise(3.88), autonomy(3.86), and global competency(3.55). Regarding what makes performing creativity and personality education difficult, most HE teachers(64.71%) chose the lack of instructional materials and 40.11% of participants chose the lack of seminar and workshop opportunity. 38.5% chose the difficulty of developing an evaluation criteria or an evaluation tool while 25.67% responded that they do not know any means of performing creativity and personality education. Regarding the better way to support for creativity and personality education, the HE teachers chose in order from most to least: 'expansion of hands-on activities for students related to education on creativity and personality'(4.34), 'development of HE classroom culture putting emphasis on creativity and personality'(4.29), 'a proper curriculum on creativity and personality education that goes along with students' developmental stages'(4.27), 'securing enough human resource and number of professors who will conduct creativity and personality education'(4.21), 'establishment of the concept and value of the education on creativity and personality'(4.09), and 'educational promotion on creativity and personality education supported by local communities and companies'(3.94).