Analysis of Perceptions and Requirements for Creative Experiential Activity Curriculum for the Revision of Special Education in South Korea

Abstract

This study investigates the perspectives of key stakeholders—teachers, principals, and parents of students with disabilities—regarding the 2022 Revised Curriculum, which integrates sustainability and climate change education into the Creative Experiential Activity (CEA) curriculum in special education. It focuses on their perceptions and needs for improving CEA to reflect hands-on learning and sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly in areas like ICT integration and social inclusion. Through a focus group interview (FGI) and the KJ method of analysis, key themes were derived and organized into six levels to structure the transcripts. The teacher group identified 69 perceptions and 73 needs, with main themes related to ‘extracurricular operation status’, ‘evaluation of extracurricular activities’, and ‘experience activities’. Their needs highlighted ‘suggestions for the revised curriculum’ and ‘expectations for new activities’. The school expert group recognized 37 issues and expressed 74 needs, focusing on incorporating ICT and SDGs, particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) into the revised curriculum. The parent group, with 58 recognitions and 56 needs, expressed perceptions of extracurricular activities in terms of ‘related knowledge’, ‘negative emotions’, ‘school status’, and ‘positive attitude toward their child’s participation’. Their primary needs included ‘request for student guidance’, ‘expectation for successful social integration of children (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being)’, and ‘opportunities for participation in education’. Furthermore, this study addresses gaps previously unexamined in the field of special education by analyzing the distinctive needs of special education settings and proposing concrete solutions to address these unmet needs. The findings underscore the necessity of tailoring educational content to the diverse needs of students with disabilities, promoting inclusive practices that align with SDGs and reflect the evolving educational landscape in special education.

1. Introduction

The Korean Ministry of Education officially announced the “2022 Revised Curriculum” on 22 December 2022, under Ministry of Education Notice No. 2023-33, marking a significant shift in national educational priorities. The new curriculum aims to nurture students as “proactive individuals with inclusivity and creativity”, a response to the rapidly changing demands of the globalized world and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. As the landscape of education continues to evolve, the importance of fostering academic skills and creative, social, and adaptive skills has come to the forefront of national education policies worldwide [1].

This revision aligns Korea with global trends in education, which increasingly emphasize holistic development, critical thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability. Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that participation in extracurricular activities among students with disabilities yields significant benefits in terms of motivation, social inclusion, and long-term academic outcomes. One qualitative study explored the motivations behind extracurricular involvement among students with severe disabilities, revealing that personal and social motivational factors play pivotal roles [2]. Another study highlighted the critical influence of integrated extracurricular activities under a specific program in fostering positive attitudinal and behavioral changes among non-disabled students toward their peers with intellectual disabilities [3]. In a quantitative analysis, research found a statistically significant correlation between participation in high school extracurricular activities and the likelihood of postsecondary completion for students with disabilities [4]. Furthermore, research demonstrated a close link between extracurricular participation and the necessity for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) tools among students with intellectual disabilities, emphasizing the role of these tools in fostering more significant engagement [5]. A study conducted in Russia underscored the vital role of teacher–parent collaboration while simultaneously critiquing the insufficient support systems for extracurricular activities in special education [6]. Lastly, research from Japan argued for the essential role of special activities for students with intellectual disabilities, advocating for sustained opportunities that enable a broader spectrum of experiential learning [7]. These studies underline the global significance of ensuring access to extracurricular activities for students with disabilities while highlighting the need for enhanced support frameworks to maximize their potential benefits.

The core tenets of the 2022 Revised Curriculum focus on enhancing foundational literacy in areas such as language, mathematics, and digital skills while promoting community competencies, especially those related to sustainability and civic responsibility [8]. In particular, the Creative Experiential Activity (CEA) curriculum was revised to reflect the importance of hands-on learning experiences, encouraging students to actively participate in their communities and tackle real-world challenges like climate change and sustainability. This change reflects international trends, such as the incorporation of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) into school curricula worldwide. Participation in this research positions researchers at the forefront of this global initiative [9].

The revised CEA curriculum emphasizes hands-on learning experiences, where students actively participate in sustainability-related projects such as school-based environmental protection activities, recycling programs, and climate change workshops. It includes new priorities such as integrating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). For instance, students engage in community projects to reduce carbon footprints and learn how to apply sustainable practices in their daily lives, such as energy conservation and waste management. These activities foster environmental awareness and provide opportunities for students to develop practical teamwork, leadership, and critical thinking skills.

This study aims to analyze the perceptions and requests of teachers, principals, and parents of students with disabilities regarding the 2022 revisions to the CEA curriculum. By focusing on the specific improvements needed, especially in areas such as ICT integration and SDG alignment, this study seeks to identify how the curriculum can better meet the diverse needs of students in a rapidly changing educational environment [10].

2. Theoretical Background

The Creative Experiential Activity (CEA) curriculum in Korea has undergone several revisions. Before 2009, the CEA model focused on knowledge transmission, with limited attention to students’ creativity and autonomy. The 2009 revision shifted towards student-driven activities and experiential learning, fostering problem-solving, social interaction, and critical thinking and significantly enhancing Korea’s education quality. The 2022 Revised Curriculum, which is aimed at promoting proactive, inclusive, and creative individuals, emphasizes core competencies such as language, mathematics, digital literacy, and community engagement. The incorporation of ESD into the CEA curriculum is particularly significant as it aligns the curriculum with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) [1,8]. However, an analysis of country-specific research trends on SDGs published between 2020 and April 2024 found relatively few studies focusing on Korea in the economic, environmental, and social fields compared to countries such as China, Italy, the USA, and the UK [11]. There is a lack of research on Korean education reflecting sustainable development. Most studies adopt quantitative research methods and focus on general education rather than special education. For example, one study [12] found that early childhood teachers’ active use of IT media and efforts to improve computational thinking positively impacted education. Another study [13] developed standardized educational data sets, categorized by grade level, that could be utilized in primary and secondary school curricula to enhance the effective and sustainable use of AI and data analysis competencies.

Building on Dewey’s experiential learning theory, which emphasizes learning through experience, and Vygotsky’s social development theory, which focuses on the importance of social interaction in learning, the CEA curriculum encourages hands-on, student-driven activities [14,15]. This theoretical foundation positions CEA as a practical approach to achieving holistic education, where students develop academic skills, social responsibility, and environmental awareness. The revised CEA curriculum integrates these theoretical perspectives by encouraging experiential learning through real-world problems, fostering students’ autonomy and critical thinking [9,10].

Internationally, countries such as Finland and Singapore have embraced similar education reforms emphasizing experiential learning, problem-solving, and sustainability education [16,17]. For example, Finland’s focus on phenomenon-based learning aligns with Korea’s CEA goals, where students learn by engaging with broad, real-world issues often linked to sustainability [16]. Similarly, Japan’s education system encourages community involvement and interaction between students with and without disabilities, fostering a sense of social inclusion. By contrast, China needs help with segmented curricula and closed school management, which has limited students’ social adaptation skills. However, progressive schools like Ningbo Damin School are bridging this gap by integrating real-life experiences with classroom learning to enhance student independence and life skills [18,19].

The 2022 CEA curriculum revision addresses critical challenges identified in previous versions, including operational issues such as rigid teaching methods, disconnected curricula, and excessive teacher workload [20,21]. These challenges, along with insufficient community linkage and budgetary support, have hindered the effectiveness of the CEA curriculum. Furthermore, the emphasis on entrance exams in Korea has contributed to the perception that non-curricular activities, including the CEA, are non-essential [22]. The revised curriculum aims to integrate volunteer activities, autonomy, and career exploration by addressing these concerns, creating a more holistic and inclusive framework for students and teachers.

Moreover, the revised curriculum seeks to enhance students’ sustainable literacy by aligning its activities with specific SDGs. Through practical engagement in community service and environmental protection, students not only contribute to SDG 13 (Climate Action) but to SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) by learning to protect ecosystems and biodiversity through school-based projects [10]. These hands-on activities, embedded within the curriculum, foster a deeper understanding of sustainability challenges, preparing students to become responsible global citizens.

By embedding sustainability goals and experiential learning in the curriculum, Korea’s revised CEA aligns with national education priorities and global movements toward sustainable development. Through this approach, the curriculum supports SDG 4 (Quality Education) by providing inclusive and equitable education that empowers students with the knowledge and skills necessary to address future challenges.

Based on the necessity and background of this study, the primary aim is to analyze the perceptions and requests of teachers, principals, and parents concerning the CEA in special education in South Korea. Specifically, this study seeks to gather their insights regarding the 2015 CEA curriculum and their expectations for the 2022 revision. The goal is to propose developmental strategies that ensure the new CEA curriculum aligns with both the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the educational needs in the field. The specific objectives are as follows:

What are teachers’, principals’, and parents’ perceptions of the 2015 CEA and the requests for revising the 2022 CEA curriculum?

What are the main points and implications for developing the CEA curriculum through the interview?

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Participants

Reputational case selection was employed in this study to identify and select participants through recommendations from experts with extensive experience in special education. The goal was to explore the perceptions of special education teachers, school administrators, and parents of students with disabilities regarding the Creative Experiential Activity (CEA) curriculum. Participants were recruited based on recommendations from relevant professionals, with the selection criteria including the following: (1) teachers, principals, or vice-principals with at least five years of experience in special education; (2) direct involvement with the CEA curriculum; (3) parents, having a child who participated in CEAs; and (4) the cognitive ability to clearly articulate opinions on curriculum improvements.

A total of ten participants were selected and divided into three groups: four special education teachers, three principals and vice-principals, and three parents of students with disabilities. These participants represented key stakeholders with distinct perspectives on the CEA curriculum. Focus group interviews (FGIs) were conducted for each of the three groups, lasting between 60 and 80 min. All participants were informed of the materials and survey contents in advance, allowing for in-depth qualitative questioning. Despite the relatively small sample size, data saturation was reached. The participants actively implemented and evaluated the CEA curriculum, providing rich and detailed insights into their perceptions and needs.

In qualitative research, there is only one answer to how many interviews are enough. Experts in the field argue that the appropriate sample size depends on various factors, including the nature of the research, epistemological considerations, and practical constraints [23,24,25]. Although the opportunity to recruit additional participants was available, recruitment was stopped after ten interviews, as significant data saturation and a high level of consensus among the participants were observed. Despite the small sample size, the emphasis on deep discussions provided valuable insights, making this approach well-suited to exploring the experiences and opinions of the participants, which aligns with the objectives of this study.

This study is part of research commissioned by the Ministry of Education of Korea. According to domestic law, it qualifies as having minimal risk to the subjects and the public, thus exempting it from domestic IRB. However, FGIs were conducted with the consent of the research participants. Written consent for the research and recording was obtained before the interviews. Details are provided in <

Table 1. Research Participants.

No.	Name	Sex	Category	No.	Name	Sex	Category
1	S◯◯	F	teacher	6	L◯◯	M	principal
2	P◯◯	M	teacher	7	P◯◯	M	vice-principal
3	K◯◯	F	teacher	8	L◯◯	F	parent
4	L◯◯	F	teacher	9	L◯◯	F	parent
5	L◯◯	F	principal	10	L◯◯	F	parent

>.

3.2. Data Collection

All interviewees provided written consent for the study and recording before participating. The interviews, conducted in group settings, averaged 71 min each. The interview questions ranged from general topics such as “the extent of use and satisfaction with CEA” to more specific issues like “opinions on excluding the volunteering area”. These interviews followed an unstructured format, allowing follow-up questions to delve deeper into the participants’ responses when necessary. The interview guide was developed through preliminary interviews (2 rounds) and continuously revised by the authors. Non-verbal communication (sighs, tears, tone changes, etc.) and subtle pauses between questions and answers were noted in real time to enhance data sensitivity. Transcriptions were made on the same day as the interviews, with the researcher repeatedly listening to the recordings to correct any omissions or errors. The transcribed data were organized into Excel files, resulting in 468 lines for field teachers, 267 for principals and vice-principals, and 364 for parents. To ensure the reliability of the original data, 20% of the randomly selected data were compared with the recordings to verify accuracy. This process allowed researchers to confirm the content and provide feedback, ensuring the reliability of the data through verification and re-verification.

3.3. Data Analysis

The KJ Method is a qualitative research technique that helps organize and integrate information while minimizing researcher bias and structuring the qualitative research content. Over time, its application expanded to fields like education and language learning [26]. The method involves four stages: label extraction, grouping, diagramming, and narrativization [27]. This process clarifies data and helps derive new insights. Its effectiveness in data analysis makes it valuable for studying educational phenomena in Korea. The KJ method helps organize and integrate related content while excluding researchers’ preconceptions [26]. As shown in [Figure 1], the first stage, ‘label extraction’, involves writing sentences or nouns related to the topic [28]. The ‘label extraction’ process divides the speech of the material into a minimum unit to include only one topic and writes what the material means in a single sentence or noun.

In the book introducing the KJ method [27], Kawakita insisted on extracting a label in a single line rather than in noun form when writing a label to prevent distortion of the original data content due to conceptualization. However, as the KJ method is widely used in various fields, there is now a flexible approach that allows for the extraction of labels in a more concise form, such as using nouns or symbols, depending on the need to present concepts [29]. The second stage, ‘grouping’, involves gathering the labels created in the previous stage, grouping similar content, and creating a name tag for each group. The third stage, ‘diagramming’, involves arranging the groups spatially to visualize stable groupings. The final stage, ‘narrativization’, consists of explaining the diagrams in writing or presenting them orally.

Analysis for this study was conducted following the procedures mentioned above, using terms provided by the participants. From labeling to the describing stage, the corresponding author carried out the process independently. To enhance the reliability and validity of the analysis, the derived sub-content, appropriateness of the labels, and overall grouping were reviewed and revised by two colleges that have published academic papers using the KJ method several times. The analysis continued until the categories of information could no longer be included in higher-level groups, and the final groups were organized into ten or fewer themes, which were then diagrammed.

4. Research Results

Analysis of interview content regarding the CEA in special schools revealed 367 labels, structured as follows: 142 labels from special education teachers, 111 from school experts, and 114 from parents of students with disabilities. Each group was structured from single labels to six-level groups. As shown in [Figure 2], single labels were represented by a left-centered dot without a line, first-level groups by thin dotted lines, second-level groups by thick dotted lines, third-level groups by thin solid lines, fourth-level groups by thick solid lines, fifth-level groups by double thick solid lines, and sixth-level groups by thick solid lines on the outside and thin solid lines on the inside. Group labels were expressed as sentences up to the first level, while labels from the second to the sixth levels were expressed as nouns for more explicit conceptualization. Sub-groups with ten or more labels were depicted in detail. To describe the analysis results, Korean document symbols were used for convenience: single label ‘　’, first-level group { }, second-level group [ ], third-level group 「」, fourth-level group 『 』, fifth-level group 〚 〛, and sixth-level group 《 》.

4.1. Special Education Teachers

The FGI results from special education teachers revealed 142 labels regarding their perceptions and requests for CEA. As shown in [Figure 3], the perceptions of CEA comprised 69 labels structured into six levels. The most common examples included four main groups: 『Status of CEA Operation (40)』, 〚Evaluation of CEA Teacher’s Guidebook (24)〛, [Positive Evaluation of 2015 CEA Curriculum (3)], and {Community Activities Depend on Teachers’ Efforts (2)}.

This is not a subheading. Please revise it as regular text. For 『Status of CEA Operation (40)』, the most frequently mentioned sub-example was the detailed operation status for elementary, middle, and high school levels, represented as 「Operation Status by School Level (28)」. Other sub-examples included [Difficulties in CEA Operation (10)], such as {Prioritizing Essential Educational Content Over CEA (6)} and {Difficulty in Securing CEA Hours (3)}. {CEA’s management through the school’s NICE system (2)} was also mentioned.

For 〚Evaluation of CEA Teacher’s Guidebook (24)〛, this group was divided into 『Positive Evaluations (19)』 and [Negative Evaluations (5)]. Positive evaluations highlighted the guidebook’s utility in both activities and regular class hours and evaluations, while negative evaluations were fewer and less significant. Other sub-examples included [Positive Evaluations of 2015 CEA Curriculum (3)] and {Community Activities Depend on Teachers’ Efforts (2)}.

Teachers’ Requests for CEA: Teachers’ requests for CEA, as shown in [Figure 4], were composed of 73 labels structured into five levels. One special education teacher mentioned, “Even though time is allocated for CEA activities, securing additional time to tailor these activities to students’ individual goals is challenging. Moreover, guiding students to achieve their individualized goals while participating in CEA activities significantly burdens teachers”. In the context of individualized education plans (IEPs), where achieving goals aligned with each student’s developmental pace is critical, CEAs involving group participation may not provide the individualized attention required. For instance, in activities that involve ICT, some students may require assistive technologies or individualized support, resources that may not be fully available within the standard curriculum. This underscores the need for further discussion and improvement in effectively integrating CEAs with individualized education plans.

For 『Suggestions for Revised Curriculum (70)』, sub-examples included [Suggestions for Reorganizing Activity Systems by Area (32)], such as [Creating New Units for Future Adaptation Skills (11)], [Reclassifying Areas due to the Removal of Volunteering Activities (8)], and [Reorganizing Areas with the Addition of Communication Activities (5)]. Other suggestions included [Suggestions for Setting Overall Goals for CEA (13)], like {Reviewing CEA Goal Setting (4)}, {Requiring Skills Necessary for the Future Society (3)}, and [Suggestions for Structuring Sub-Contents by Area (10)], such as {Ensuring the Independence of CEA Content (4)} and {ICT Activities Can Be Composed of Various Sub-Contents (3)}.

For [Requirements for Reflecting Students’ Disability Characteristics (6)], sub-examples included {Elementary Students with Severe and Multiple Disabilities Need Daily Life-Related Activities (2)} and {A Suitable Curriculum Should Be Structured for Special Education Students (2)}. For [Requests for Teaching and Learning Methods (6)], sub-examples included {Supporting Teachers to Make Teaching Easier with the Revised CEA Curriculum (4)} and {Designing Guidebook Activities to Connect with Curricula (2)}. It is necessary to secure the number of CEA hours in the sense of guaranteeing autonomy by reflecting the reality that it is difficult to {Need to Secure CEA hours (3)} is also included in the subgroup of the suggestions for the revised curriculum.

4.2. Principals and Vice-Principals

The FGI analysis results from principals and vice-principals of special schools revealed 111 labels, structured into six levels regarding their perceptions and requests for CEA. As shown in [Figure 5], perceptions of CEA consisted of 37 labels divided into two main groups: 〚Perceptions of CEA (37)〛, with sub-groups of 『Status of CEA Operation (33)』 and [Evaluation of Teacher’s Guidebook (4)].

The sub-examples for each group are as follows: For 〚 Perceptions of CEA (37)〛: 『Status of CEA Operation (33)』 they have included detailed sub-examples such as 「CEA Status (23)」, which encompassed {Eco-Transition Activities Mainly Conduct Environmental Protection Activities (11)} and {Various Activities Were Conducted Through Community Linkages (5)}. Another sub-example, [Vocational Curriculum Status (4)], included {Information and Communication Technology Education conducted Smoothly through Team Teaching (3)}. Additionally, [Actively Collecting Parental Opinions (6)] consisted of {Providing Opportunities for Experiential Activities by Area (4)}. The group [Evaluation of Teacher’s Guidebook (4)] comprised negative and positive evaluations. The negative evaluation included {Dissatisfaction with the teacher’s Guidebook (2)}, while the positive evaluation included {USB Materials from a High-Utilization Guide Book (2)}.

On the other hand, principals and vice-principals had 74 labels for their requests regarding CEA, as shown in [Figure 6]. The most frequently mentioned sub-category was 〚Requests for Revised Curriculum (37)〛. Detailed examples included the need to introduce new topics, such as sustainable development education (SDGs), which encompasses ecological activity education and education for responding to the climate crisis, as well as information and communication technology education, represented by 「Requests for Activity Topics (12)」.

Additionally, there was opposition to excluding volunteering activities from CEA in special schools, unlike general schools. They emphasized the need to guarantee the uniqueness of the special school curriculum by presenting topic activities tailored to the diverse situations of students with disabilities based on their type and level of disability, represented by 「Ensuring the Uniqueness of Special School Curriculum (10)」. Moreover, they argued that overlapping content with other subjects is not a significant issue and that activities linked to the community should be included, represented by 「Requests for Curriculum Content (8)」. One school administrator noted, “Thanks to community collaboration, students have been able to experience various activities outside the classroom. However, the curriculum still does not address ICT integration and sustainability”. This statement highlights the administrator’s emphasis on the importance of community involvement and the need to enhance ICT integration and sustainability education further. This suggests that school administrators see a need for deeper engagement with these topics in the curriculum to ensure a more comprehensive educational experience.

Furthermore, [Requests for Overall Goals (7)] highlighted that while it is essential to impart timely and relevant qualities required in the current era to students in special education settings, expecting students to achieve high-level overall goals is not desirable. They also mentioned that certain concepts, such as global citizenship, should be included in the curriculum.

Requests for enhancing teacher competence (30) consisted of requests for the CEA teacher’s guidebook (23) and the expansion of teacher training on CEA utilization (7). The main sub-groups were as follows for the 「Requests for the CEA Teacher’s Guidebook (23)」. First, [Requests for the fidelity of the guidebook materials (7)] means teachers expressed a desire to provide a substantial amount of material with diverse content, allowing them to select the most suitable. Second, through [Improve the utilization of the guidebook (7)], teachers wanted the guidebook contents to be directly applicable to activities without needing additional preparation and for the guidebook to be convenient to use; and there were requests for the guidebook to accommodate different educational levels for students with disabilities and to include content for students with severe disabilities (6). Other sub-examples included in the guidebook should present related information (2), and a single label was also included, ‘There should be continuity between elementary and secondary CEA activities (1)’, which means transfer education.

Another significant group, the [Expansion of teacher training on CEA utilization (7)], included opinions that teacher training is necessary to increase the usability of CEA textbooks and guidebooks. This training should be conducted face-to-face for all field teachers and focus on practical methods for using the guidebook rather than theoretical training.

4.3. Parents

The FGI analysis results from parents of students with disabilities revealed 114 labels, structured into six levels regarding their perceptions and requests for CEA. Perceptions of CEA among parents consisted of 58 labels, forming four groups as shown in [Figure 7]: 「Knowledge of CEA (25)」, 『Negative Emotions (12)』, 『School Status (11)』, and 「Positive Evaluation of Children’s Participation in CEA (10)」.

Firstly, 「Knowledge of CEA (25)」 indicated the parents’ level of understanding of CEA. This included the group [Understanding of CEA (21)], which reflected parents’ recognition of the diversity of activities, distinguishing CEA from other subjects and identifying it as activities aimed at finding students’ aptitudes. Another group, {Parents Do Not Accurately Know About CEA (4)}, indicated a low level of understanding of CEA among some parents. Secondly, 『Negative Emotions (12)』 encompassed several sub-examples: [Overall Dissatisfaction with CEA (8)], which included opposition to the exclusion of volunteering activities and the sentiment that schools are not welcoming parental involvement in CEA; and 「Complaints about the difficulty of individual student applications (3)」, which expressed concerns such as the difficulty of receiving individual support in special schools. It also included, ‘It is worrisome that parents’ indifference to school life increases as their children grow up. (1)’. Thirdly, 『School Status (11)』 included 「CEA-Related Status (7)」 and {Students of all different degrees of disability (2)}. In addition to these groups, two single labels were also included. The content of each label is that it is difficult for students to move alone and that elementary schools, in general schools, operate special classes in one class. Lastly, [Positive Evaluation of Children’s Participation in CEA (10)] indicated that parents perceived their children as enjoying and being satisfied with CEAs and recognized their importance.

On the other hand, the requests of parents regarding CEA, as shown in [Figure 8], consisted of 56 labels grouped into five main categories: 『Requests for Student Guidance (25)』, 「Requests for Directions of CEA Revision (10)」, 「Expectations for Successful Social Integration of Children (10)」, 「Curiosity about CEA Operation (8)」, and {Parents Need Opportunities to Participate in School Education (3)}.

Firstly, 『Requests for Student Guidance (25)』 included three sub-groups: 「Requests for External Activities (13)」, which highlighted the need for active support from both administrators and teachers for external experiential activities; [Requests for Educational Support Based on Disability Type and Level (9)], which emphasized the necessity for individualized education and career guidance tailored to the characteristics of autism and the diversity of parental requests based on the severity of the child’s disability; and the opinion that {Opposition to the mandatory placement of students with severe disabilities in inclusive classes in school (3)}, advocating against mere physical integration. Secondly, 「Requests for Directions of CEA Revision (10)」 consisted of three sub-groups: [Differentiation from Other Subjects (4)], which called for the inclusion of AI-related topics as part of activities aimed at fostering future social competencies; [Requests for Activity Topics to Foster Future Societal Competence (4)]; and the view that {Current Overall Goals of CEA Should Be Revised (2)} to address the issue of demanding high-level competencies. Thirdly, 「Expectations for Successful Social Integration of Children (10)」 comprised [Requests for Expanding Daily Living Independence Skills (5)], indicating the need for daily living activities, especially for children with lower cognitive function, and {Hoping CEA Will Help Disabled Children Achieve Independence in the Community (5)}.

A parent commented, “I wish my child had more opportunities to engage in hands-on activities to interact with society rather than learning only in the classroom. There are especially too few experiential learning opportunities in high school”. As this quote suggests, parents desire more opportunities for their children to participate in experiential, hands-on education that fosters social interaction, reflecting their perception that such opportunities are lacking, particularly in middle and high school. While theoretical instruction on environmental issues is well-covered in classes, practical engagement in environmental protection activities or collaborative community projects remains limited. Parents expressed a desire for their children to have more chances to apply what they have learned through direct involvement in such activities.

Fourthly, 「Curiosity About CEA Operation (8)」 was made up of unresolved questions from parents, such as [Concerns About the Development of CEA Guidebooks Suitable for All Disability Levels (4)] and {Curiosity About the Content of Daily Living Activities (4)}.

Fifthly, {Parents Need Opportunities to Participate in School Education (3)} reflected the belief that parents should be considered equal partners, not just helpers, and that informing parents about the CEA curriculum would lead to a more diverse range of opinions and, consequently, better educational outcomes.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

This study conducted qualitative research with ten participants, including three groups of teachers, principals of special schools, and parents of students with disabilities, to gather opinions on the Creative Experiential Activity (CEA) curriculum. The primary aim was to identify the needs and perceptions of these stakeholders and align the CEA curriculum with relevant sustainable development goals (SDGs) in the context of special education. In recent years, incorporating SDGs into educational systems has gained significant traction across various disciplines [30,31]. However, special education remains underexplored in aligning curricula with these global goals. This study addressed this gap by focusing on how the CEA curriculum can be improved to serve students with disabilities better.

Field-based educators and classroom teachers generally evaluated the CEA teacher’s guidebook positively, particularly appreciating its utility in regular class hours and extracurricular activities. However, their primary concern centered around balancing CEA with the request for core educational content and securing sufficient instructional time to implement CEA fully. Teachers emphasized the need for restructuring CEA systems to accommodate the specific needs of students with disabilities, calling for clearer goal-setting and more autonomy within the curriculum. One special education teacher noted, “The challenge is not just about time management; it is about ensuring that CEA align with the individualized needs of our students. We often feel like we are compromising on one or the other”. This quote highlights the tension teachers feel between implementing CEAs and meeting the specific needs of students with disabilities, adding depth to the practical concerns in the results. This group focused heavily on practical implementation issues, such as managing CEA hours and aligning the curriculum with students’ individualized education plans [32,33].

By contrast, principals and vice-principals highlighted the smooth operation of CEAs through established community linkages, which they considered essential for fostering student participation in real-world experiences. They emphasized the role of community involvement and parental feedback in shaping the CEA program, suggesting that active collaboration with external partners could enhance the quality of activities. One school administrator noted, “CEA work well when we have strong support from the community, but without sufficient resources, it is difficult to maintain quality, especially in integrating newer topics like sustainability and digital literacy”. This statement provides a more resource-focused perspective, emphasizing the dependency on external support for the success of CEA, which contrasts with the earlier focus on community partnerships alone. However, like teachers, they also expressed concerns about integrating ICT and sustainability-related topics within the curriculum. Unlike teachers, principals and vice-principals focused more on the overall structure and the linkages between schools and communities rather than specific curricular constraints [34,35].

Parents voiced more robust demands for experience-based activities, reflecting their desire for their children to engage in more hands-on, practical learning beyond the classroom. They appreciated the flexibility of the CEA curriculum but were dissatisfied with the limited range of experience-based educational activities offered, particularly at the middle and high school levels. Parents also emphasized the need for more tailored CEA resources that cater to the varying disability levels of students. “My child thrives in hands-on activities, but the current CEA program does not offer enough opportunities, especially as they get older. We need more structured programs that encourage independence and real-world skills”.—Parent D. This quotation adds a new dimension to the parental perspective, focusing on the need for more structured and skill-building activities. It aligns with the results’ discussion of experiential learning deficits. They were concerned that the current curriculum does not sufficiently address the individualized needs of their children. Parents placed a higher value on life skills training and activities that promote independence and social integration than teachers and principals, reflecting a more student-centered concern [36,37].

In summary, while all three groups recognized the value of the CEA curriculum, their perspectives diverged based on their roles and priorities. Teachers focused on practical implementation and curricular autonomy, principals and vice-principals emphasized community collaboration and operational efficiency, and parents were most concerned with expanding experiential learning opportunities and ensuring that the curriculum meets the individual needs of students with disabilities. These differences underscore the need for a multi-faceted approach to further revisions of the CEA curriculum.

Further curriculum revisions could enhance the CEA program in several areas. Future revisions may focus on expanding the integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and deepening experiential learning opportunities. Additionally, the curriculum could include more activities that prepare students for the challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These ongoing revisions will ensure that the CEA curriculum remains responsive to the evolving needs of students with disabilities, equipping them with both academic and practical skills necessary for success in an increasingly complex world.

In South Korea, the Fourth Industrial Revolution plays a significant role in shaping educational priorities. As the country continues to lead in technological advancements, the integration of ICT, artificial intelligence (AI), and other emerging technologies into the curriculum has become essential. The revised CEA curriculum aims to equip students with the skills necessary to thrive in this new digital age, preparing them for future careers and societal challenges. By aligning the CEA curriculum with the principles of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, South Korea’s education system can ensure that students with disabilities are well-prepared for the rapidly evolving technological landscape [38].

On an international level, the findings from this study offer valuable insights into how experiential learning and the integration of sustainability and technological skills can benefit students with disabilities. The CEA curriculum, emphasizing hands-on, community-based learning, aligns with global educational trends focusing on inclusivity, sustainability, and developing 21st-century skills. These findings can serve as a reference for other countries seeking to reform their special education curricula to better address the needs of students with disabilities in a rapidly changing world. Additionally, the focus on integrating sustainable development goals (SDGs) into the curriculum reflects global efforts to provide equitable and inclusive education for all, a challenge many educational systems face worldwide. By sharing these insights internationally, Korea’s experiences with the revised CEA curriculum can inform similar efforts in other academic contexts, contributing to a global discourse on inclusive and sustainable education.

Based on these interview results, the following recommendations for the 2022 revised CEA curriculum are proposed:

• Autonomy and self-governance areas should be reviewed to eliminate any overlap with social studies and daily activities. To promote students’ autonomous choices and participation, diverse experiential options should be provided based on students’ learning styles and expression methods. Experience-based education can broaden thinking and encourage voluntary participation, supporting SDG 4 and SDG 9 by helping students develop digital and practical skills for future societal participation [39]. Additionally, ensuring that teachers have the autonomy to facilitate various experiential activities inside and outside the classroom will empower students to engage in learning thoroughly.
• Volunteer activities should be restructured from the area to the activity level and reorganized into autonomy, self-governance, club activities, and career exploration. This reorganization should consider the context of special education, ensuring that SDG 4 is fully implemented for all students, including those with severe disabilities. Career activities should be differentiated from vocational subjects to deepen students’ understanding of career concepts, offering practical experiences in the community through cooperation among schools, families, and the broader community.
• For students with severe and multiple disabilities, activities in the autonomy and self-governance area should reflect their diverse needs, including using assistive technologies and alternative communication methods. Flexible seating arrangements and participation in community activities should be promoted to ensure equal access to education, supporting SDG 4 and SDG 10. Furthermore, involvement in school-based extracurricular activities enriches students’ overall school experience, fostering the development of social skills, teamwork, and self-esteem. These extracurricular activities can also align with SDG 13, promoting awareness of climate action and sustainability practices [39].

While this study provides valuable insights into the perceptions and needs related to the revised CEA curriculum, future research could expand by including a more extensive and more diverse sample of participants. For instance, exploring how the CEA curriculum is implemented in different educational settings, such as mainstream schools or international contexts, could provide a broader understanding of its effectiveness. Additionally, longitudinal studies that track the long-term impact of the CEA curriculum on students with disabilities would be beneficial in assessing the curriculum’s ability to foster skills necessary for life and work in the 21st century. Further exploration of integrating emerging technologies, such as AI and virtual reality, in the CEA curriculum could also open new avenues for experiential learning.

This study has several limitations. First, the relatively small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of special education stakeholders. Expanding the participant pool in future research to include stakeholders from different geographic regions, socio-economic backgrounds, and school types could help validate the findings on a larger scale. Additionally, the focus on the South Korean educational context may limit the applicability of the findings to other countries or educational systems. Investigating how the CEA curriculum can be adapted to other national contexts could provide broader educational implications. Moreover, while the qualitative nature of the research offers in-depth insights, it restricts the ability to quantitatively assess the overall impact of the CEA curriculum. Future studies should consider using mixed-methods approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive evaluation of the curriculum’s effectiveness. Quantitative surveys could measure satisfaction and perceived outcomes across a larger sample, while qualitative interviews would offer deeper insights into the challenges and successes experienced by different stakeholder groups. This combined approach would enable cross-validation, improving the robustness and replicability of the findings.

In conclusion, the 2022 revised CEA curriculum should distinguish itself from other subjects by focusing on critical educational content that aligns with SDGs. It should ensure that students with disabilities can access a quality education, enjoy improved health and well-being, and integrate successfully into society, supporting SDG 4, SDG 3, SDG 10, and SDG 16. By fostering sustainability literacy and encouraging the development of essential skills for the future, the revised CEA curriculum can contribute to creating a more inclusive and sustainable world for students with disabilities.