• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.33-48
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this research was to analyze the contents of housing teaching learning studies in Home Economics of secondary schools since 2001. The 22 research, drawn from the database 'riss4u', were analyzed in terms of general information of the paper (studied institution & year, implementation & evaluation, subject of study & size) and specific contents of teaching learning plans (theme, curricula & textbooks, methode & # of lessons, resources). The results showed that most studies were reported during the 7th or the 2007 revised curricula period. All, except one doctoral dissertation, were master's theses from a few universities. In all studies, ranging from 2 to 15 lessons, teaching learning plans were implemented and evaluated in the class of the researcher while some were applied in other schools, too. The theme of the teaching learning plans varied but were concentrated on one out of two content elements and two out of six learning elements. The 2007 revised curriculum seems to be an important turning point, not only reinforcing the analyses of the curricular and textbooks in the analyzing stage but also facilitating the use of various methods for the lessons in the developing stage. Practical problem based model was the most frequently adopted, while cooperative learning and ICT served as fundamental although not always mentioned. Various teaching resources such as UCC, reading materials, PPT were developed for the teacher. Activity sheets were the most frequently used for the students, followed by reading materials. Because teaching learning is an essential core of education, teaching learning studies should be more actively conducted and the variety of subject topics, methods and resources should also be obtained by more researchers.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.163-186
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to analyze the institutional conditions and problems for the transition to the North Korean economic system. As a research method, we first analyzed the legislative processes of 4th stage market reform policies (liberalization, privatization, privatization, and corporation) by major economic transition countries. And we found out the difference with North Korea. Based on this, it analyzed the process of institutionalization of North Korea's 4th stage economic reform policies (7.1 measures, comprehensive market policies, Currency reform, 6.28 policy). According to research, There are three important conditions that can not compare the changes of the North Korean market economy with those of the transition economies. First, the internal and external conditions and environment for the transition of the economic system and the role of the state and civil society are very different. Second, the means and objectives of the policy decision process and the implementation process are different. Third, it differs absolutely in terms of the nature and effectiveness of the nation's political and economic policies. Fourth, the priority, contents, and legislation process of economic policies for economic reform differ considerably from those of North Korea. Especially, when discussing the possibility of transition to the 'Chinese model', it is accompanied a considerable risk. It is because the purpose of market entry of control power in North Korea and their survival network are quite unique. In addition, China's domestic market size, population size, and type of control are quite different from North Korea. A necessary and sufficient condition for the transition of the North Korean economic system is the relaxation of physical control mechanisms and institutions in the market area. Next, it is necessary to make a legitimate institutionalization as well as an entire survey on the illegal ownership market. Based on this, it is necessary to gradually change the dependence of the domestic market on China to South Korea. In other words, this is a paradigm shift in the semi-controlled power exclusion, post-automation and domestic market.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2024

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology is recognized as a key technology that will determine future national competitiveness, competition for AI technology and industry promotion policies in major countries is intensifying. This study aims to present implications for domestic policy making by analyzing the policies of major countries on the start-up of AI companies, which are the basis of the AI industry ecosystem. The top four countries and the EU for the number of new investment attraction companies in the 2023 AI Index announced by the HAI Research Institute at Stanford University in the United States were selected, The United States enacted the National AI Initiative Act (NAIIA) in 2021. Through this law, The US Government is promoting continued leadership in the United States in AI R&D, developing reliable AI systems in the public and private sectors, building an AI system ecosystem across society, and strengthening DB management and access to AI policies conducted by all federal agencies. In the 14th Five-Year (2021-2025) Plan and 2035 Long-term Goals held in 2021, China has specified AI as the first of the seven strategic high-tech technologies, and is developing policies aimed at becoming the No. 1 AI global powerhouse by 2030. The UK is investing in innovative R&D companies through the 'Future Fund Breakthrough' in 2021, and is expanding related investments by preparing national strategies to leap forward as AI leaders, such as the implementation plan of the national AI strategy in 2022. Israel is supporting technology investment in start-up companies centered on the Innovation Agency, and the Innovation Agency is leading mid- to long-term investments of 2 to 15 years and regulatory reforms for new technologies. The EU is strengthening its digital innovation hub network and creating the InvestEU (European Strategic Investment Fund) and AI investment fund to support the use of AI by SMEs. This study aims to contribute to analyzing the policies of major foreign countries in making AI company start-up policies and providing a basis for Korea's strategy search. The limitations of the study are the limitations of the countries to be analyzed and the failure to attempt comparative analysis of the policy environments of the countries under the same conditions.