직업훈련 부정 예방교육을 통한 훈련시장 정화 인식도 차이 분석

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze how much the training market has been purified through fraud prevention education of technical and vocational education and training and to analyze the level of perception and differences between local governments and training institutions. To this end, a measurement tool for recognition of the purification of the training market was developed, and effective response data (respectively 70 people and 227 people) from local authorities and training institutions were collected, and was analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-test. The main results of this study were as follows. First, the overall recognition of purifying the training market through preventive education was very high at 4.38. By sub-factor, prevention activity practice (4.46), understanding and awareness of fraud training (4.41), prevention of fraud training (4.36), and decrease in fraud behavior (4.27) were all high in order. Second, the job center, which manages and supervises training institutions according to stakeholders, responded with 4.13 (3.87～4.13), while the training institutions under the administrative management of the job center answered 4.50 ( 4.39～4.61) was perceived much higher. Depending on whether it is an administrative subject that conducts supervision and prevention education for fraud training, and whether it is a management subject receiving administrative management from him, it will be possible to confirm the difference in the level of recognition of purification in the training market according to each role and position. Third, as a result of analyzing qualitative response data to changes in training institutions, the recognition of the training market purification was categorized in the same way as the constituent factors, and additional categorization such as deliberate fraud training was conducted. Three of the four components (understanding of unjust training and awareness of awareness, practice of preventive activities, prevention of unfair training) were able to confirm the same perspectives of local authorities and training institutions, but the remaining one factor (reducing fraud training) and deliberate fraud training were categorized only by the response data from the local authorities because there was no other opinion data from the training institutions. This does not mean that the three factors are perceived from the same perspective and the other one and the additional categorization are differently perceived by the local authorities and training institutions. It can be interpreted as the difference from recognition by setting the range and degree of training market purification differently according to the role and position of each institution.