Exploring Contemporary Position and Outlook for Eco-Early childhood Education through Kindergarten Teachers' Awareness Investigation of Eco-Early Childhood Education in South Korea
YounSun Lee, HeaSoog Jo, SunMiPark
Abstract
This paper covers South Korea's new educational paradigm of early childhood education, Eco-centered Early Childhood Education: emphasizing harmony between human beings and nature for sustainable society. Through reviewing the broad eco-early childhood education debate and exploring kindergarten teachers’ awareness of eco-early childhood education, we tried to understand the real present condition of this program and illuminate the outlook for it in South Korea. We used open questionnaires with 300 teachers and categorized each answer. The results showed that teachers strongly felt this program is required to solve current environmental and educational problems. However, to apply this program to kindergarten it seemsnecessary to find a way not only to immerse it into our ongoing educational curriculum, but also initially to prepare parents, teachers and administrators by helping them establish their own views and attitudes through eco-related education and training. This paper suggeststhat kindergarten teachers already havea high degree of concern about eco-early childhood education,and proposes that it is urgent toconstruct practical programs for teachers and children alike, while considering South Korea's current social situation. In conclusion, in order to move toward a sustainable society, Eco-Early Childhood Education should lay a strong philosophical foundation for practical application in the curriculum.
Introduction
Ever since the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment,humanity’s emphasis on instrumental reason, industrialism andthe concomitant rapid development ofscience hasled to a score of both human and environmental problems. In reason- and science-dominated modern society, not only nature but also human beings arelikely to be alienated. DoBub(2005) concluded that 21C is a time of life crises all over the world. Kim(2001) pointed tothe current significant problem of the declining value of human life. And, due to ongoing endeavorsinthe educational, environmental and social fields, people have become aware of environmental crises. However, environmental and social problems have not been solved with easein spite of widespread social awareness of the dire seriousness of environmental problems.
Education in the modern world has been designed principally to further the conquest of nature and the industrialization of the planet. It has tended to produce unbalanced people tailored to fit the modern economy. In recent years, self-centeredness in education has furtheredthe atmosphere of competition, and our current educational culture has been definedby a competitive society where materialistic values are pursued. This trendseeps down to the field of early childhood education, where the curriculum and daily activities have been given over to increasingly more conceptual things to be ‘learned.’ Our environmental crisis is webbed into capitalism and industrialism, and the most severely injured are children.
In this atmosphere, a search for rudimentary solutions—that is, a search for a change of paradigm from modernism to postmodernism in education—has been undertaken. Current education in our postmodern society must have a different agenda, one which is designed to heal, connect, liberate, create, and most importantly, be life-centered (Orr, 1992). Meanwhile, in Korea, going with the current consciousness of crisis, Eco-Early Childhood Education started in the 1990s with the aims of ‘life-centered curriculum’, ‘community-centered curriculum’ and ‘children’s body·mind·spirit-centered curriculum’ (Lim, 2005). This new paradigm of early childhood education inKoreaclaims to stand for the alternative to standardized, competition-oriented, conventionaland institutional early childhood education (Ha, 2004). In this sense, Eco-Early Childhood Education can be included in the postmodern trend of education.
Eco-Early Childhood Education is based on an ecological worldview. According to the ecological point of view, coexistence of human beings and nature is emphasized and human beings’ruthless exploitation of nature discouraged. The philosophy of Eco-Early Childhood Education is connected with western ecological philosophy. We categorized Western European ecological discourse into three mainstreams: deep ecology, social ecology, and ecofeminism. What these streamshave in common is their insistence on a change from a mechanistic to an organic and ecological worldview; however, they do not agree the on fundamental causes of the current society’s eco-crisis.
First, deep ecologists think anthropocentrism is the underlying cause of ecological destruction (Naess, 1973; Capra, 1980, 1985, 1988; Porritt, 1985). They are skeptical of technological and political fixes proposed by mainstream environmentalists(Kowalewski, 2002). Therefore, deep ecologists claim that the most urgent task is to change our consciousness of nature.Meanwhile, social ecologists dissentfrom the deep ecologists’ view of anthropocentrism. They maintain that human beings have abilities to lead the evolution of nature (Bookchin, 1990). Moreover, they regard ecological problems as social problems derived from repression caused by hierarchyinsocialstrata (Bookchin, 1988). In this sense, ecological problems can not be resolved until the stratificationsystem, which oppresses and exploitsboth human beings and nature, is reformed from the roots up (Park, 2001). In the third category, ecofeministslay the blame for eco-crisis on the stratified patriarchal system whichoppresses‘weak’others such as women and nature. They claim that overbearing patriarchal systemsare based on a dualistic world view anda discriminatory viewpoint(Daly, 1978; Griffin, 1978; Merchant, 1990; Warren, 1996). They conclude that femininity should be the theory and principle from which to overcome the current eco-crisis.
In Korea, ecological discourse has boomed sincethe ‘Han-Sal-Lim declaration’ from Kim JiHa raised fundamental doubts about western-styledevelopment and modernism. His ecological philosophy is rooted on life-centeredness and reinterprets the foundation of ‘the great thought of life’(Yun, 2003). Kim’s interests areas follows: how to recover the community for the sake of both humans and nature, and how to revive nature, women and a sensibilitythat has been oppressed until now. He regards humansas beingscapable not only of destroying but also of conserving nature with responsibility and ethical awareness(Mun, 2006). His ecological discoursehasbthe merit of covering the three angles of deep ecology, social ecology and ecofeminism.
At home and abroad,ecological discourses provide early childhood teachers and educators with a philosophy of Eco-Early Childhood Education, a wayto change and overcome the environmental crisis through education. When we look at the national curriculum for early childhood education, the program is child-centered and, eventually, anthropo-centered. ‘Child-centered’ means emphasizingthe value of childrenmore than the value of nature. This philosophy permits the utilization of the environment for children’s growth and development, and children who have grown in this atmosphere may consider the environment as an object for utilization and exploitation when they became adults (Lim, 2005). What is worse, current society puts weight on knowledge and technology for global competitiveness; therefore, the educational system is focused only on intellectual growth. This pursuit of unbalanced developmentmakes children’s bodies, minds and spirits get sick(Lim, 2002).
As one way to solve both environmental and educational problems aggressively, some scholars and teachers have conceded the need for Eco-Early Childhood Education Program. With increasing concern aboutEco-Early Childhood Education, a number of relevant books have been published recently(Ha, 2004; Kwan, 2005; Lim, 2005; Seo, 1999). To understand the current position of Eco-Early Childhood Education and furthermore to prospect its future, it is necessary to investigate the awareness of teachers, educators and parents. In spite of the ten-year history of Eco-Early Childhood Education studies, most of these studies have concentrated on the development of programs and there have been few studies of early childhood teachers’ awareness or understanding of eco-early childhood education. Therefore it is valuable to assess the real condition of this programby sounding the awareness of in-service early childhood education teachers.
This paper explores kindergarten teachers’ awareness of Eco-Early Childhood Education by open questionnaire and in-depth interview; itilluminates the current position in Korea, and then attempts to find the right direction for Eco-Early Childhood Education.
The research questions we investigate in this study are as follows.
1. Do kindergarten teachers need Eco-Early Childhood Education? What for?
2. What is the kindergarten teachers’ thinking abouttheir role and qualificationsinimplementing Eco-Early Childhood Education?
3. What are problems and improvements when kindergarten teachers apply Eco-Early ChildhoodEducation Program intheirkindergarten classroom?
What is Eco-Early Childhood Education?
Eco-early Childhood Education is derived from South Korea’s voluntary and traditional educational background, which is against the destruction of the environment, capitalism, industrialism and cognitive-centered education of children. However, eco-early childhood education puts together the mainstream of world’s ecological philosophy, such as deep ecology and social ecology, rather than an original and totally new educational paradigm forSouth Korea. The purpose of this paper is not to introduce this educational practice, therefore the following introduction about Eco-Early Childhood Education will coveronly briefly the principles, objectives & goals, curriculum & activities, and programs.
First, Eco-Early Childhood Education is in principle a life-centered, community-centered and body-, mind-,and spirit-centered early childhood education. It seeks harmony between nature and human beings, orients children’s meaningful and voluntary play and raises childlike children.
Second, the goals of this educational philosophy consist of two components: one is for a desirable world and the other is for “happy and joyful” children. The former goal is to make aworldin which nature and human beings are not separated (life community), a world in which human beings live together (human community) and a world in which children can grow up happily (children community). The latter goal is to raise children who can live together with others including nature, human beings and communities. According to these goals, the image of children of eco-early childhood education is children who have Sinmyong (a Korean word, which expresses the state of full happiness, enthusiasm and involvement).
Third, the curriculum and activities of Eco-Early Childhood education are not strictly organized into daily schedules. General programs are as follows, although children can choose voluntarily what they want every morning.
<Table 1> Programs of Eco-Early Childhood Education
Programs / ContentsExchange between Cities and Rural communities / Farm stay, experiencing farming, visiting organic products processing plants, and sending thank you-letters to farmers
Outdoor Activity Program / Providing plentiful time for outdoor activities to stay together with nature
Walking Program / Giving enough opportunity to walk for city-dwelling children. Almost every morning and afternoon, regardless of weather, children, teachers, parents and volunteers take walks.
Gardening Vegetable Program / Raising ecological sensibility and having children feel grateful for nature and food.
Interaction between The Elderly and Children / Inter-Generational program. Grandparents give full play to their abilitywith children.
Seasoning Customs Program / Following season and traditional customs. For example, on Thanksgiving Day, children and teachers share the pleasure of a harvest.
Meditation Program / Escaping from their busy daily schedule helps children meet themselves.
Food Program / Avoiding fast food and eating organic foods. Making proper eating habits
Temperance and Saving Program / Helping children recognize and practice the economy of cycling in the ecosystem. Ex.:A yard sale by barter, separating garbage for collection, making compost with food waste etc.
Fingertip Handcraft Program / Play with fingertips. Ex.:Making finger exercises, folding paper, cat’s-cradle, sewing etc.
Korean traditional physical exercise play / Play to build up a healthy body for supple movement. Especially applies Korean traditional gymnastics to this play. Includes the expression of animal shapes such as a fish, a duck, a rabbit etc. and breathing.
Ecological art program / Nature is a good medium for art in this program. Expression of relationship between nature and human and the change of nature and physical circulation as time passed. Working after experiencing in nature through outdoor play, walking, and vegetable gardening etc.
Research Method
1. Participants
300 kindergarten teachers were randomly selected with consideration to teachers’ careers and types of kindergarten—public and private—in the region of Busan and Ulsan. The characteristics of participants are represented in <Table 2>.
<Table 2> Characteristics of Participants
Content / Number(%)The Type of Kindergarten / Public / 76(35.35)
Private / 139(64.65)
School background / 2-year college / 123(57.20)
4-yearuniversity / 64(29.76)
Graduate school / 28(13.04)
Teaching career / Under 1 year / 53(24.65)
Over 1 year–under 5 years / 57(26.51)
over 5 years-under 10 years / 71(33.02)
Over ten years / 35(16.22)
According to the results of preliminary research, almost 70% of kindergarten teachers had experience in Eco-Early Childhood Education and 30% of them already have applied this program into their curriculum. Table 3 shows that result.
<Table 3Experience of Eco-Early Childhood Educationand Type of Experience (N=215)
Type of Experience / N(%)Experienced / Participation in Eco-Early Childhood Education Conference / 5(2.33)
Courses in University/Graduate School / 8(3.72)
Doing Eco-Early Childhood Education Program in kindergarten / 71(33.02)
Participationin Teacher Training for Eco-Early Childhood Education / 16(7.44)
Literatures and Books / 6(2.79)
Ecological experience such as gardening vegetables, visiting farm and farm stay / 35(16.30)
Other Opinions / 13(3.84)
Inexperienced / 66(30.70)
Total / 215(100.0)
2. Research Instrument
Revised Lim & Kim(2000)’s and Lim & Yun (2006)’s questionnaire were used. All questions are open and through the preliminary survey with 20 kindergarten teachers and interview, each list was adjusted. Fifteen (15) questions were answered; however, in this paper only few questions would be covered. Table 4 lists the content of questionnaire.
<Table 4> Content of Open Questionnaire of Eco-Early Childhood Education
Category / QuestionsExperience / Have you ever experienced Eco-Early Childhood Education?
Necessity / Do you think Eco-Early Childhood Education is required? And if needed, Why?
The Role and Qualificationsfor teaching Eco-Early Childhood Education / What is the role of Eco-Early Childhood Education and what should teachers’ qualifications be?
Possible Problems and improvements / What is the most significant problem to apply Eco-Early Childhood?
And suggested improvements?
3. Datacollection
This data was collected from early June to late August, 2006, by visiting each kindergarten. All questionnaires were returned within ten days, researchers revisited kindergartens with consideration of open questionnaire. After withdrawing and analyzing, we selected 15 kindergarten teachers and interviewed them. Interview focused on the reasons for their answers.
4. Data Analysis
Among 300, 215 responded, with a withdrawal rate of 71.7%, and we excluded non-response. Flanagan(1954)’s analysis method of critical incident report was used.
Open Coding: most data was coded.
Categorical Coding: According to the result of Open Coding, categorized small parts by similarity. Some response difficult to categorize belongs to ‘Other Opinion’.
Research Results
The Result of Investigation on Awareness of kindergarten teachers of Eco-Early Childhood Education was as follows.
1. Do kindergarten teachers need Eco-Early Childhood Education and What For?
<Table 5> Kindergarten teachers' awareness of Necessity ofEco-Early Childhood Education(N=215)
Lists / N(%)To overcome problems raised from children's city life / 68(31.63)
To maintain children's sound body and spirit / 38(19.67)
To provide a hands-on experience / 15(6.98)
To keep our tradition and wisdom of ancestors / 12(5.58)
To conserve environment / 9(4.19)
To recover humanity / 10(4.66)
To utilize nature as an instrument of children’s learning / 10(4.66)
Alternatives to learning oriented education / 6(2.79)
Other Opinions / 20(9.31)
Not needed / 4(1.86)
Non-response / 12(5.58)
Total / 215(100.00)
Most of the respondents perceived the necessity of eco-early childhoodeducation; only 1.86% dissented from that view. Their reasonsfor why it is needed are as per Table 5, the highest response being ‘to overcome problems raised from children’s city life’(31.63%)—for example, to awaken children to the importance of nature. Thirty-eight (38) teachers(19.67%) believed that eco-early childhood education is essential ‘to maintain children’s sound body and spirit’, fifteen (15) of them(6.98%) answered ‘to provide a hands-on experience’(6.98%), twelve (12) teachers (5.58%) responded‘to keep our tradition and wisdom of ancestors’, and ten (10) of the respondents(4.66%) answered ‘to utilize nature as an instrument of children’s learning’ and ‘to recover humanity’, respectively. Six (6) teachers(4.66%) thought that it serves as alternatives to learning-oriented education. Other responses included ‘to make them realize the value of small things’, ‘for children’s safety and healthy play culture’, ‘to keep Korea’s identity’ and so on.
In the interview, some teachers strongly indicated that they believed children these days have serious problems of body and mind.
Recently, children who live in a city usually seem to stay inside and do not have enough opportunity to play outside around nature. Children are not likely to express their energy and remove their stresses. More severe, the only thing that they can see outside is asphalt-paved roads and cement structures. They don’t have any opportunity to encounter nature. I think this context makes them very unhealthy. That’s why today’s children suffer a lot of illness in their body and mind
(K teacher, interview, 14 August, 2006).
2. What is kindergarten teachers’ thinking about the role and qualification of Eco-Early Childhood Education teacher?
<Table 6> Kindergarten teachers’ awareness of role and qualification of eco-early childhood education (N=215)
Higher category / Lower category / N(%)Role of and qualification for
Eco-Early Childhood Education / Ecological and Eco-Early Childhood Education curricular knowledge / 35(16.28)
Ecological consciousness and attitude / 29(13.50)
Ecological Sensibility / 19(8.74)
Awareness and interestedness in Eco-Early Childhood Education / 6(2.79)
Abundant Ecological experience / 5(2.33)
Ability to integrate National curriculum into Eco-Early Childhood Education / 4(1.86)
Role of and qualification for Early Childhood Education / Endeavour / 22(10.23)
Patience, responsibility / 12(5.59)
Openness / 10(4.65)
Guidance, researcher attitude, / 9(4.19)
Care and love / 3(1.41)
Understanding Community / 3(1.41)
Professionalism / 1(0.47)
Other opinions / 61(19.57)
No response / 15(6.98)
Total / 215(100.00)
Questions were open, so respondents answered about the role for and qualifications of teachers for Eco-Early Childhood Education teacher with their own voices. Their answers can be divided into two parts, one for kindergarten teachers’general role and qualifications—we usually inform early childhood teachers’about their requisite qualificationsfor student-teaching program—; the other is related with Eco-Early Childhood Education teachers. Of two possible, over half (57.21%) of the teachers responded the role and qualification of Eco-Early ChildhoodEducation teacher. This category contained sub-items such as ‘ecological and eco-early childhood education curricular knowledge’ (16.28%), ‘ecological consciousness and attitude’ (13.5%), ‘ecological sensibility’ (8.74%) in order of rate. In the category of general role and qualification, teachers’endeavor (10.23%) was the most important role, followed by, in order, patience and responsibility (5.59%), openness (4.65%), guidance and researcher attitude (4.19%), care and love (1.41%), understanding community (1.41%), and professionalism (0.47%).