예비청소년지도사의 청소년 기관실습 성과측정 도구개발 연구

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop the criterion that can measure the performance of youth field practice, and to examine their validity. For this study, practice outcome of youth field practice was defined as achievement of a goal on practice satisfaction and goal for overall youth field practice, and 59 preliminary questions were prepared according to previous studies. As for prepared preliminary questions, appropriateness and contents validation were reviewed by 14 youth field instructors who currently worked in the youth field and 1 professor in the related area, and 53 questions were finally chosen. Selected preliminary questions were used to implement the preliminary investigation on 30 preliminary youth field instructors who currently worked in youth field academic department and had an experience of practice to confirm the appropriateness of reactions of respondents and questions. Afterwards, after reflecting feedback from preliminary investigation and selecting final questions, survey questions were received from 265 preliminary youth field instructors who currently worked in youth field academic department and had an experience of practice in youth field, and survey responses from 251 instructors were analyzed through the question outlier test. Question analysis and factor analysis resulted in five factors describing 65.369 % of the total variance. A total of 33 questions of the youth field practice outcome criteria, consisting of 12 items corresponding to satisfaction level of institutional support for practice, 7 items corresponding to 'satisfaction with relationship with practice instructors',8 items corresponding to 'self-evaluation', 4 items corresponding to ‘understanding level of institution’, and 2 items corresponding to 'satisfaction of practice instruction', were developed. The internal consistency coefficient of the outcome scale for youth field practice was high as .962 for the total items. The internal consistency coefficient by sub factors were .929 for the practice support satisfaction factor of the institution, .927 for the relationship satisfaction factor with the practice instructors, .899 for the self-evaluation factor, .822 for the institution understanding level factor, and .759 for the satisfaction factor of practice instruction. This study is meaningful that it has defined the practice outcome of youth field practice and developed related criteria when there have not been studies actively conducted on them. In addition, this study is also meaningful that it can be a criterion for self-evaluation of trainees after youth field practice as criteria have been developed based on practice satisfaction and achievement of a goal for practice. However, this study is limited that it has not verified the appropriateness of practice outcome measuring model in youth field practice, and practice outcome might differ depending on subjective judgment of trainees. Therefore, it seems that follow-up studies need to proceed the research for validation and develop objective criteria on the practice outcome in youth field practice.