招聘校長制와 循環校長制 學校間의 敎師職務滿足度 差異分析 = Analysis on Differences in Job Satisfaction between Teachers from Schools under the Principal-Invited and Principal-Circulated Systems

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 招聘校長制 學校와 循環校長制 學校間의 敎師職務滿足度수준을 알아보고, 그 差異를 분석하여 招聘校長制의 制度的보완에 도움을 주는 기초 資料를 제공하기 위한 연구이다. 이러한 연구목적을 달성하기 위한 硏究問題는 다음과 같다.
가. 硏究問題
(1) 招聘校長의 학교경영에 대하여 교사들이 지각하는 職務滿足度는 어떠한가?
(가) 職務滿足度의 水準
(나) 敎師 背景變因(성, 직위, 연령, 교직경력, 학교규모)별 職務滿足度 差異
(2). 循環校長의 학교경영에 대하여 교사들이 지각하는 職務滿足度는 어떠한가?
(가) 職務滿足度의 水準
(나) 敎師 背景變因(성, 직위, 연령, 교직경력, 학교규모)별 職務滿足度 差異
(3). 招聘校長制 學校와 循還校長制 學校間의 敎師職務滿足度에서 어떤 差異가 있는가?
(가) 敎師職務滿足度의 差異
(나) 敎師 背景變因(성, 직위, 연령, 교직경력, 학교규모)별 職務滿足度 差異
나. 硏究方法
표집은 부산광역시, 울산광역시, 경상남도 김해시의 招聘校長制와 循環校長制 學校 교사 715명을 표집하여 질문지를 배부하고 687명을 회수하였으며, 회수율은 96.08%이었고, 사용 질문지는 655명으로 사용비율은 95.34%이었다.
본 연구에서 사용한 도구는 「교사의 職務滿足에 관한 질문지」로 대한교육연합회의 “교원의 職務滿足度에 관한 분석적 연구”를 참고하여 제작하였다.
도구의 타당도를 검증받기 위하여 교장 2명, 장학사 2명, 교수 2명의 자문을 받고 의견을 수렴하여 지도교수의 감수를 받아 내용타당도를 높였으며 신뢰도는 교사 48명을 대상으로 2주간의 간격으로 재검사한 것으로 재검사 신뢰도계수는 r =.996이었으며, Cronbach α는 .82이었다.
자료의 처리는 SAS통계 팩키지(package)를 이용하여 전산처리 하였으며 硏究問題의 성격에 따라 平均과 標準偏差를 산출하고, 차이검증을 위하여 t검증과 F검증을 하였다.
다. 硏究結果
이러한 분석으로 얻어진 硏究結果는 다음과 같다.
(1) 招聘校長制 學校와 循還校長制 學校의 敎師職務滿足度 전체 수준은 招聘(M=3.09), 循環(M=3.01)로 보통의 수준으로 나타났고, t=3.20, p<0.01의 수준에서 유의한 差異가 나타났으며, 循還校長制 學校보다 招聘校長制 學校의 敎師職務滿足度가 높았다.
(2) 招聘校長制 學校와 循還校長制 學校의 敎師職務滿足度 요인별 수준과 差異는 다음과 같다.
(가) 인간관계는 招聘(M=3.31) 循環(M=3.19)로 나타났고, t=2.54, p<0.05의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타내었다.
(나) 담당직무는 招聘(M=3.28) 循環(M=3.09)로 나타났고, t=5.27, p<0.001의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타내었다.
(다) 근무환경은 招聘(M=2.99) 循環(M=2.89)로 나타났고, t=2.24, p<0.05의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타내었다.
(라) 보상체제는 招聘(M=2.67) 循環(M=2.70)으로 나타났으며, t=-0.53으로 유의한 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
(마) 전문성 신장은 招聘(M=3.29) 循環(M=3.25)로 나타났으며, t=1.02로 유의한 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
(바) 행정체계는 招聘(M=3.06) 循環(M=2.95)로 나타났으며, t=2.42, p<0.05의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타내었다.
(사) 인정지위는 招聘(M=2.97) 循環(M=2.93)으로 나타났으며, t=0.87로 유의한 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
招聘校長制 學校와 循還校長制 學校間의 敎師職務滿足度에서 담당직무가 p<0.001의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타낸 것은 招聘校長의 학교경영이 교사들의 직무수행에 보다 긍정적인 영향을 미치고 있음을 나타낸 것이라 할 수 있다.
또, 인간관계, 근무환경, 행정체계가 p<0.05의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타낸 것도 招聘校長의 학교경영은 교직원과의 인간관계와 교사의 근무환경, 행정의 체계에서 循環校長보다 더 긍정적인 영향을 미치고 있음을 나타내는 것이라 할 수 있다.
(3) 교사 背景變因別로 招聘校長制 學校와 循還校長制 學校의 敎師職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과는 다음과 같다.
(가) 남자교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=3.25), 循還(M=3.03)으로 나타났고, 보통의 수준이었으며, t=3.73, p<0.001의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타내었고, 招聘校長制 學校남자교사들이 職務滿足度가 높음을 알 수 있었다.
(나) 여자교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=3.04), 循還(M =3.00)으로 나타났고, 보통의 수준이었으며, t=1.22로 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
(다) 평교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=3.04), 循還(M=3.01)로 나타났고, 보통의 수준이었으며, t=1.00으로 유의한 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
(라) 부장교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘校長制(M=3.26)는 보통의 수준이고, 循還校長制(M=2.99)는 안그런편이다의 수준이었으며, t=4.89, p<0.001의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타내었고, 聘校長制 學校의 부장교사들이 職務滿足度가 높았다.
(마) 20대 교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘校長制(M=3.05)는 보통의 수준이고, 循還校長制(M=2.99)는 안그런편이다의 수준이었으며, t=0.73으로 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났고, 招聘校長制 學校가 循還校長制 學校보다 職務滿足度가 높았다.
(바) 30대 교사의 職務滿足度 비교 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=2.99), 循還(M=2.94)로 모두 안그런편이다의 수준이었으며, t=1.20으로 유의한 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났고, 연령이 30대 교사인 경우, 招聘校長制 學校가 循還校長制 學校보다 職務滿足度가 높음을 알 수 있었다.
(사) 40대 교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=3.14), 循還(M=3.07)로 모두 보통의 수준이었으며, t=1.20으로 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났고, 招聘校長制 學校가 循還校長制 學校보다 職務滿足度가 높았다.
(아) 50대이상 교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=3.26) 循環(M=3.00)으로 모두 보통의 수준이었으며, t=3.33, p<0.01의 수준에서 유의한 差異가 나타났고, 招聘校長制 學校교사들이 職務滿足度가 높음을 알 수 있었다.
(자) 교직경력 10년미만 교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘校長制(M=3.10)는 보통의 수준이고, 循還校長制(M=2.94)는 안그런편이다의 수준이었으며, t=2.75, p<0.01의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타내었고 招聘校長制 學校교사들이 職務滿足度가 높았다.
(차) 교직경력 10년-20년이하 교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=2.98), 循還(M=2.97)로 모두 안그런편이다의 수준이었으며, t=0.27로 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
(카) 교직경력 21년이상 교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=3.22), 循還(M=3.08)로 모두 보통의 수준이었으며, t=3.15, p<0.01의 수준에서 유의한 差異를 나타내었고, 招聘校長制 學校교사들이 職務滿足度가 높았다.
(타) 학교규모가 12-24학급이하 교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘(M=3.11), 循還(M=3.04)로 모두 보통의 수준이었으며, t=1.38로 差異가 없는 것으로 나타났고, 招聘校長制학교가 循還校長制학교보다 職務滿足度가 높았다.
(파) 학교규모가 25학급이상 교사의 職務滿足度 差異를 비교한 결과를 보면, 招聘校長制(M=3.09)는 보통의 수준이고, 循還校長制(M=2.98)는 안그런편이다의 수준이었으며, t=3.30, p<.001의 수준에서 유의한 差異가 있었고, 招聘校長制 學校교사들이 職務滿足度가 높았다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to provide information for the institutionalization of the principal-invited system and materials for the establishment of the policy of personnel affairs for teachers by investigating the difference in job satisfactions between teachers from schools having the invitation system and those having the principal-circulated systems.
For the purpose, the study raised the following questions.
First, how do teachers feel satisfactory about their jobs in schools led by invited principals ?
Second, how do teachers feel satisfactory about their jobs in schools led by circular principals ?
Third. what difference is in job satisfaction between teachers from schools having the principal invitation system and those having the principal circulation system?
715 teachers were sampled from schools employing either of the two systems located in Pusan, Ulsan and Kimhae, South Kyungsang Province, were given questionnaires. Out of the documents, 655 were returned and analyzed.
The means for the study was 「The Questionnaire on Teachers' Job Satisfaction」, prepared by referring to "Analytical Research on Teachers' Job Satisfaction" published by the Korean Association of Education.
The collected data were processed using SAS Statistics Package. Their means and standard variations were calculated according to each of the above questions. Then their differences were analyzed through SAS/ PROC, t-test, f-test and SAS/ PROC ANOVA. The results of the analysis can be summarized as follows.
First, it was found that Mequaled 3.09 (M=3.09) in terms of job satisfaction of teachers from schools employing the principal invitation system while 3.01 (M=3.01), teachers from those employing the principal circulation system.
Second, there were significant different points between schools employing the principal invitation and principal circulation systems (t=3.20, p<0.01).
Third, there were the following differences between the two groups of teachers according to job satisfaction-related factors.
(1) In terms of human relations as a factor, Mequaled 3.31(M=3.31) under the invitation system while 3.19 (M=3.19) under the other system. In relation, there was a significant difference between the two systems with t=2.54 and p<0.05.
(2) In terms of tasks as a factor, Mequale d 3.28 (M=3.28) under the invitation system while 3.09 (M=3.09) under the other system. In relation, there was a significant difference between the two systems with t=5.27 and p<0.001.
(3) Concerning working conditions as a factor, M was 2.99 (M=2.99) under the invitation system while 2.89 (M=2.89) under the other system. In relation, there was a significant difference between the two systems with t=2.24 and p<0.05.
(4) In regard to the factor of the reward system, M was evaluated as 2.67 (M=2.67) under the invitation system while 2.70 (M=2.70) under the other system. In relation, there was no significant difference between the two systems with t=-0.53.
(5) Regarding specialization as a factor, M was found as 3.29 (M=3.29) under the invitation system while 3.25 (M=3.25) under the other system. In relation, there was no significant difference between the two systems with t=1.02.
(6) For the system of educational administration as a factor, M was calculated as 3.06 (M=3.06) under the invitation system while 2.95 (M=2.95) under the other system. In relation, it was found that a significant difference existed between the both systems with 2.42 and p<0.05.
(7) In terms of recognition as a factor, Mequale d 2.97 (M=2.97) under the principal invitation system while 2.93 (M=2.93) under the other system. Between the two system, no significant difference was seen with t=0.87.
And fourth, differences in job satisfaction between teachers from schools employing the principal invitation and principal circulation system were found as follows according to the teachers' background elements.
(a) Concerning job satisfaction of male teachers, M was 3.25 (M=3.25) under the invitation system while 3.03 (M=3.03) under the other system, indicating their job satisfaction was at moderate levels. There was a significant difference between those teachers under the two systems with t=3.73 and p<0.001. Male teachers lead by invited principals showed a higher level of job satisfaction than those by circular principals.
(b) In terms of job satisfaction of female teachers, M was evaluated as 3.04(M=3.04) under the system of principal invitation while 3.00(M=3.00) under the other system, suggesting their job satisfaction was at moderate levels. It was found no significantly different between those teachers under the two systems with t=1.22.
(c) For the job satisfaction of ordinary teachers, Mequaled 3.04 (M=3.04) under the invitation system while 3.01 (M=3.01) under the other system, indicating moderate levels of the satis faction. There were no significant difference between those be a teachers from the two groups.
(d) Regarding such satisfaction by chief teachers, M was found as 3.26 (M=3.26), a moderate level, under the principal invitation system while 2.99 (M=2.99), a lower level, under the other system. There was a significant difference between those teachers from the two school groups with t=4.89 and p<0.001. Chief teachers supervised by invited principals were found more satisfactory about their job than those by circular principals.
(e) When considering the job satisfaction of teachers at their 20s, it was found that M was 3.05 (M=3.05), a moderate level, for those teachers led by invited principals while 2.99 (M=2.99), a lower level, for those by circular principals. There were no significant difference between those teachers under the two systems with t=0.73. Teachers at their twenties felt more satisfactory about their job at schools under the invitation system than under the circulation system.
(f) For the job satisfaction of teachers at their 30s, M was evaluated as 2.99 (M=2.99) under the system of principal invitation while 2.94 (M=2.94) under the other system, indicating their job satisfaction was at lower levels. No significant difference was found between those teachers under the two systems with t=1.20. Teachers at their thirties from schools led by invited principals showed a higher job satisfaction that those from schools led by circular principals.
(g) In terms of job satisfaction of teachers at their 40s, M equaled 3.14 (M=3.14) under the system of principal invitation while 3.07 (M=3.07) under the other system, indicating their job satisfaction was at moderate levels. No significant difference existed between those teachers under the two systems with t=1.20. Teachers at their forties under the invitation system felt more satisfactory about their job than those under the circulation system.
(h) In regard to such satisfaction by teachers at their 50s or over, M was found 3.26 (M=3.26) for those teachers from schools under invited principals while 3.00 (M=3.00) for those from schools under circular principals, indicating their job satisfaction was at moderate levels. There were a significant difference between those teachers from the two school groups with t=3.33 and p <0.01. Teachers at their 50s or over showed a higher level of job satisfaction at schools led by invited principals than at schools by circular ones.
(i) When job satisfaction by teachers having less than 10 years' teaching experience was evaluated, it was found that Mequaled 2.98 (M=2.98) under the principal invitation system while 2.97 under the principal circulation system, both of which were at lower levels. There were no significant difference between those teachers under the two systems with t=0.27.
(j) Concerning job satisfaction of teachers whose period of teaching experience is between 10 and 20 years, M was calculated as 2.98 (M=2.98) for those teachers supervised by invited principals while 2.97 (M=2.97) for those by circular principals, the both levels of such satisfaction were lower. Any significant difference did not exist between those teachers supervised the two principal groups with t=0.27.
(k) For teachers having 21 years or over teaching experience, it was found about their job satisfaction that M equaled 3.22 (M=3.22) under the principal invitation system while 3.03 (M=3.22) under the other system, indicating their job satisfaction levels were moderate. There were significant difference between those teachers under the two systems. Those teachers having the same period of teaching career showed a higher level of job satisfaction when led by invited principals than by circular principals.
(l) When the job satisfaction of teachers from schools whose number of classrooms was between 12 and 24 was evaluated, M was found 3.11 (M=3.11) under the system of principal invitation while 3.04 (M=3.04) under that of principal circulation, both of which were considered moderate levels. No significant difference did not be observed between those teachers under the two systems with t=1.38. Those teachers from schools under the former system felt more satisfactory about their job than under the latter system.
(m) With regard to the job satisfaction of teachers from schools whose number of classrooms was 25 or over, M was evaluated as 3.09 (M=3.09), a moderate level, under the invitation system while 2.98 (M=2.98), a lower level, under the other system. There was a significant difference between those teachers under the two systems with t=3.30 and p<0.001. Those teachers from schools having the same number of classrooms were more satisfied at their job under invited principals than under circular ones.
In conclusion, the fact that male and chief teachers, teachers at their 50s or over and teachers having 21 years or over teaching experience all feel more satisfactory about their job at schools under the principal invitation system indicates that invited principals have recognized teachers' career and capability, promoted teachers to participate in decision makings, sought to develop and maintain school organizations and effectively accomplished objectives of school education.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 目次
• Ⅰ. 序論 = 1
• 1. 硏究의 必要性 및 目的 = 1
• 2. 硏究問題 = 3
• 3. 用語의 定義 = 4
• 4. 硏究의 制限點 = 5
• Ⅱ. 理論的 背景 = 6
• 1. 學校長의 役割과 職務 = 6
• 2. 學校長 招聘制와 學校經營 = 13
• 3. 敎師의 職務滿足 = 22
• 4. 先行硏究의 考察 = 31
• Ⅲ. 硏究의 方法 = 38
• 1. 硏究의 對象 = 38
• 2. 道具 = 41
• 3. 資料處理 = 42
• Ⅳ. 結果및 解釋 = 43
• 1. 招聘校長制 學校의 敎師職務滿足度 = 43
• 2. 循還校長制 學校의 敎師職務滿足度 = 49
• 3. 招聘校長制 學校와 循還校長制 學校間의 職務滿足度 差異 = 55
• Ⅴ. 要約 및 結論 = 69
• 1. 要約 = 69
• 2. 結論 = 73
• 참고문헌 = 76
• Abstract = 79
• 부록 - [교사의 직무만족에 관한 설문지] = 87