An Analysis on the Differences in Recognition of the Training Market Purification through Fraud Prevention Education of Technical and Vocational Education and Training

이 연구의 목적은 직업훈련 부정 예방교육을 통하여 훈련시장이 얼마나 정화되었는지 행정당국인 지방관서와 훈련을 실시하는 기관의 인식 수준과 차이를 분석하는 데 있다. 이를 위해 훈련시장 정화 인식에 관한 측정도구를 개발하고, 지방관서와 훈련기관 담당자의 유효 응답자료(각 70명, 227명)를 수집하여, 기술통계와 t-검정을 이용하여 분석하였다. 이 연구의 주요 결과는 첫째, 예방교육을 통한 전체적인 훈련시장 정화 인식도는 4.38로 매우 높았다. 하위요인별로 예방활동 실천(4.46), 부정훈련 이해도 및 경각심(4.41), 부정훈련 예방(4.36), 부정행위 감소(4.27) 순으로 모두 높았다. 둘째, 이해 관계자에 따라서 훈련기관을 관리하고 지도감독하는 고용센터는 예방교육을 통한 훈련시장 정화 인식도를 4.13(3.87~4.13)으로 응답한 반면, 고용센터의 행정관리를 받고 있는 훈련기관은 4.50(4.39~4.61)으로 훨씬 더 높게 인식하였다. 이는 부정훈련에 대한 지도감독 및 예방교육 등을 실시하는 행정주체인지, 그로부터 행정관리를 받고 있는 관리대상인지에 따라서 각 역할과 처한 입장에 따라서 훈련시장 정화 인식도의 수준 차이를 확인할 수 있을 것이다. 셋째, 훈련기관의 변화에 대한 질적 응답자료를 분석한 결과, 훈련시장 정화 인식도 구성요인과 동일하게 4가지 범주화와 고의적인 부정훈련 등 추가적인 범주화가 이루어졌다. 4가지 구성요인 중 3가지(부정훈련 이해도 및 경각심, 예방활동 실천, 부정훈련 예방)는 지방관서와 훈련기관의 동일한 관점을 확인할 수 있었으나, 나머지 1개 요인(부정훈련 감소)과 고의적인 부정훈련 등은 훈련기관의 기타의견 자료가 없어 고용센터의 응답자료 만으로 범주화가 이루어졌다. 이는 지방관서와 훈련기관이 인식하는 훈련시장 정화에 대해 3가지 요인은 동일한 관점으로 인식하고, 나머지 1개 요인과 추가적인 범주화 사항은 다르게 인식한다는 의미가 아니라, 각 기관의 역할과 입장에 따라서 훈련시장 정화의 범위와 정도를 다르게 설정하여 인식함에서 오는 차이로 해석할 수 있을 것이다.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.