1988學年度 學生生活硏究所 活動報告 및 課題

相談部 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1989 學生指道硏究 Vol.6 No.-

韓日間 大學生들의 老人扶養에 關한 態度 考察

李鉉雨 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1991 學生指道硏究 Vol.7 No.-

本 硏究의 目的을 達成하기 위하여 집중적으로 調査하고자 한 內容은 10個 문항이였으며, 各 문항 마다 被驗者들이 자유 선택할 수 있는 큐를 제시하였다. 또 本 硏究에 投入된 硏究對象 人員은 韓國 學生이 약 500명 이였으며 日本 學生이 300명 정도 였다. 對象 標準은 無選으로 하였으며 道具製作은 外國문헌을 참작하여 硏究者가 自作하였다. 結果에 대한 統計處理는 백분율을 환산하여 비교 분석하였다. 統計過程에 不良한 應答者의 說問紙는 除外 하고 可能한 正確한 結果를 얻으려는데 最善을 다 하였다. 正確한 差의 分析이 事例 별로 檢證 되지 않아 약간의 맹점이 있을 수 있겠으나 內容上의 反應 빈도에는 正確한 結果가 나타났음을 自認하면서 本 硏究의 結論을 맺을까 한다.

自我槪念과 成積과의 關係에 關한 硏究 : 釜山水産大學生을 中心으로

李鉉雨 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1983 學生指道硏究 Vol.3 No.-

The purpose of this research is to investigate the relation between college students' self-concept and their school achievements. The result of this research will be able to help college students to have confidence in resolving their present problems and to understand the relevance between their self-concept and school achievements. This will be also able to provide necessary materials for the determination of their future career. Problem 1. Is there any difference between male and female college students' school achievements and their self-concept? As the result of CR-test, there was not any meaningful difference between school achievements and self-concept in their two groups of college students, but there was high difference in such factors as I(P 0.01), Ⅱ(P 0.005), A( P 0.001), C (P 0.005), D (P 0.001) among the factors of self-concept. Problem 2. Is there any correlation between male and female college student's school achievements and their self-concept? As the result of correlation between them, there was any correlation in their school achievements and their self-concept, but there appeared a lower correlation in SC (-0.22), TP (-0.22) for only female students. Problem 3. Is there any difference between TP factors of self-concept and school achievements in upper and lower group? First, there appeared a meaningful difference in TP factor for male student between upper group and lower group as a level of 0.1%, but there was no difference in school achievements. Second, In case of female students' group, there appeared meaningful difference in TP factor between upper group and lower group as a level of 0.1%, but there was no difference in their school achievements. Third, in case of school achievements, there was a high difference (P 0.005) between male and female students who belonged to upper group TP factor, but no difference in male and female students' lower group. Fourth, there equally appeared a meaningful difference (P 0.001) in factor between male student's upper group and female student's lower group, but there was no difference in school achievements of the two groups.

대학 학생생활연구소의 운영실태에 관한 조사연구

이경준,이주형 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1991 學生指道硏究 Vol.7 No.-

1988學年度 新入生 實態調査 分析

李瓊埈,李鉉雨,李周衡 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1989 學生指道硏究 Vol.6 No.-

1990학년도 신입생 실태조사 분석

이경준,정민정 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1991 學生指道硏究 Vol.7 No.-

1991학년도 신입생 실태조사 분석

전경갑,고영삼 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1992 學生指道硏究 Vol.8 No.-

사회적 합의형성에 있어서 하버마스 의사소통 행위론의 가능성과 한계성

전경갑 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1992 學生指道硏究 Vol.8 No.-

The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive examination on the possibilities and limitations of Habermas' theory of communicative action and show its significance for consensus-building and social integration. For this purpose this study focuses on clarifying the following four specific questions : (1) What is the underlying meaning of the notion of critique, common to major works of the preeminent members of the Frankfurt School such as Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and Habermas? (2) What is the nature of Habermas' disagreements with the first generation of critical theorists? (3) What is the meaning of Habermas' thesis that the life-world of communicative rationality is increasingly colonized by the penetration of purposive rationality? (4) What does Habermas mean by the idea of universal pragmatics and what is its significance for consensus-building in such a conflictridden society as Korea? The concept of critical theory combines, at least, two meanings of the word critique which were developed in German philosophy, notably by Kant, Hegel and Marx. One retains the Kantian sense of self-reflective examination of the limitsand validity of knowledge and signifies the testing of legitimacy ; the other meaning goes back to the young Hegelians' attitude to the opposition of theory and practice and therefore signifies negation. In short, the underlying meaning of the notion of critique is the intervention of reason in the concrete circumstances of socio-historical reality and the realization of emancipation of humanity from structural constraints. The Frankfurt School of Horkheimer and Adorno remained totally unimpressed by the postitive aspects of Marxism, namely the idea of the prolitariat as a metasubject and the concept of the vanguard party as the surrogate for Hegelian Absolute Spirit. The only possible course open to them was negation of the status quo and the critical reflection on reified social consciousness. In expressing this scepticism, they are certaninly legitimate heirs of Nietzsche. Habermas' disagreement with the first generation of the School is that he has still undiminished hopes of overcoming reification and dealienation mainly through recovering communicative rationality. Habermas categorically distinguishes the two types of rationalization. The former takes place according to technical rules, while the latter according to social norms which define mutual expectations of interaction. With increasing tendency of state intervention and the rapid progress of science and technology today, the everyday life-world of communicative action is progressively subjected to the imperatives of the dynamic of advanced industrial society. This is what he called the colonization of life-world by penetration of purposive rationality. According to Habermas, the locus of conflict and crisis of the advanced industrial society is not the economic base. It is rather the realm of politics and culture. To overcome this crisis and conflict, he argues, the capacity to engage in self-reflection and communication must be effectively raised. The idea of universal pragmatics with the validity claims of comprehensibility, truth, sincerity and rightness is of great significance for social integration.

1992학년도 신입생 실태조사 분석

박영병,고영삼 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1993 學生指道硏究 Vol.9 No.-

成積과 性格 및 家庭環境과의 關係에 關한 硏究

金仁鎔 釜山水産大學校 學生生活硏究所 1985 學生指道硏究 Vol.4 No.-

The Purpose of this study is to investigate the relation between college students' school achievements and their personality and home environment. The results of this study are as follows, Ⅰ. Personality and School Achievements (1) Correlation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personality Correlation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- male Social Relation(UG) 0.32 〃 (LG) -0.48 Adjustment to reality(UG) 0.24 Emotional stability (UG) -0.22 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- female Conformity(UG) -0.28 Adjustment to reality(UG) -0.24 Emotional stability(UG) -0.36 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Meaningful Difference between correlations -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Group Personality M.D. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- upper-lower male Social Relations 3.35(P<.001) female Emotional Stability 2.43(P<.05) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- male-female upper lower Social Relations 3.82(P<.001) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Home Environment and School Achievements (1) Correlation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Home Environment Correlation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- male Social Upward Tendency(UG) 0.45 〃 (LG) 0.34 Wealth Orientation (UG) -0.27 〃 (MG) -0.30 Attitude (LG) -0.35 Unity (MG) -0.24 〃 (LG) -0.28 Achievement (UG) 0.81 Openness (LG) -0.52 Intimacy (LG) -0.29 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- female Wealth Orientation (MG) -0.28 Role Expectancy (MG) -0.25 〃 (LG) 0.95 Attitude (UG) -0.44 〃 (MG) 0.28 〃 (LG) 0.35 Achievement (MG) 0.31 Intimacy (UG) 0.40 〃 (LG) 0.68 Autonomy (UG) 0.47 〃 (MG) 0.51 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Meaningful Difference between cofrelations -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Group Home Environment M.D. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- male-female Social Upward Tendency(LG) 2.24(P<.05) Attitude (UG) 2.56( 〃 ) Unity (MG) 2.05 Role Expectancy (LG) 14.61(P<.001) Achievement (UG) 5.10 ( 〃 ) Openness (LG) 2.38(P<.05) Autonomy (UG) 3.95(P<.001) 〃 (MG) 3.83 ( 〃 ) Intimacy (LG) 4.52 ( 〃 ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- upper-middle Attitude (female) 4.00(P<.001) Achievement (male) 5.19( 〃 ) Openness (female) 3.33( 〃 ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- middle-lower Role Expectancy (female) 6.97(P<.001) Openness (male) 1.97(P<.05) Intimacy (male) 2.45 ( 〃 ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- upper-lower Attitude (female) 30.7(P<.01) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- UG : upper Group MG: middle Group LG : lower Group M.D : Meaningful difference