82 research outputs found
Modularization of National Technical Qualifications Related IT in General Clerical Fields
μ΄ μ°κ΅¬λ ITκΈ°μ μ λ³νμ μ
무μνμμμ IT νμ©λ₯λ ₯μ μΌλ°νμ λ°λΌ κ΅κ°κΈ°μ μ격 μ€ κΈ°μ΄μ¬λ¬΄μ λΆλ₯λμ΄ μλ ITκ΄λ ¨ μ격μΌλ‘μ μλνλ‘μΈμμ μ»΄ν¨ν°νμ©λ₯λ ₯ μ격과 κ΄λ ¨νμ¬ μλ‘μ΄ κΈ°μ΄μ¬λ¬΄ κ΄λ ¨ IT λ₯λ ₯λͺ¨νμ λμΆνκ³ , μ΄λ₯Ό ν λλ‘ λͺ¨λμ μ격μΌλ‘ κ°νΈνλ λ°©μμ λͺ¨μνκΈ° μν΄ μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ‘λ€. μ°κ΅¬κ²°κ³Ό μλνλ‘μΈμ, μ€νλ λμνΈ, λ°μ΄ν°λ² μ΄μ€, νλ μ ν
μ΄μ
, μΉνμ©, μ»΄ν¨ν°μΌλ° 6κ° λ₯λ ₯μ λν΄ 30κ° νμλ₯λ ₯, 67κ° μΈλΆνμλ₯λ ₯μ λμΆνμλ€. λν λ₯λ ₯λ³νμ λ°λ₯Έ μ격κ°μ κ³Ό μμμμ μꡬμ λ°λ₯Έ μ격취λμ΄ μ©μ΄νλλ‘ λͺ¨λμ μ격μΌλ‘μ κ°νΈλ°©μμΌλ‘μ β κΈ°μ΄μ¬λ¬΄ ITλ₯λ ₯λ³ λͺ¨λμ격ν, β‘ κΈ°μ΄μ¬λ¬΄ IT λ₯λ ₯κ° μ°κ³μ±μ κ³ λ €ν λͺ¨λμ격ν, β’ λ¨μΌμ격μ’
λͺ© λ΄ λ₯λ ₯λ³ μνκ³Όλͺ©λͺ¨λν, β£ λ₯λ ₯λ³ λͺ¨λμ격ν λ° μ’
ν©μ격 μ μ€ λ± λ€ κ°μ§ λ°©μμ ꡬμνμμΌλ©°, κ° λ°©μλ³λ‘ μ격μ κ΄λ¦¬β€μ΄μ, μ§μ
μ격μΌλ‘μμ μ¬νμ μμ, κ²μ λ₯λ ₯μ μ μ°μ± λ° νμ₯μ±μ κ³ λ €νμ¬ μ₯β€λ¨μ μ λμΆνμλ€. ννΈ κΈ°μ΄μ¬λ¬΄ ITλΆμΌ κ΅κ°κΈ°μ μ격μ λͺ¨λνμ λ°λ₯Έ μ격λͺ
μΉ, κ²μ κ³Όλͺ© λ° λ°©λ², λ±κΈμ²΄κ³, μμμ격 λ± μ격μ΄μμ μν΄ νμν μ¬νμ μ μΈνμλ€.The purpose of this study was to develop The IT competency model related to wordprocessor qualification and computer practical ability qualification which are part of national technical qualifications and to search for a plan to modify into modular qualifications based on the IT ability model.
It was concluded that there were six key abilities, which were word, spreadsheet, database, presentation, using the web, general computer, and developed 30 subabilities and 67 detailed subabilities according to the key abilities.
It is also developed modular qualification plans and suggested each plansβ strengths and weaknesses The plans are β modular qualifications which are based each IT abilities β‘ modular qualifications which are considered each IT abilities relation, β’ single qualification and modular examination subjects, β£ modular qualifications which are based each IT abilities and establish total qualification. Moreover, this study suggested qualification title, examination subjects and methods, grade, test requirements and conditions
[μλ‘ ] λ₯λ ₯μ€μ¬μ¬νλ‘μ νν΄ - κ΅κ°μ§λ¬΄λ₯λ ₯νμ€(NCS)μ μνμ μ€λ©κ°
NCSλ ν μ λΆμ ν΅μ¬ κ΅μ κ³Όμ μΈ λ₯λ ₯μ€μ¬μ¬νλ‘ κ°κΈ°μν μμκ³Ό λμ΄λΌκ³ ν μ μλ€. λ³Έκ³ μμλ λ₯λ ₯μ€μ¬μ¬ν κ΅μ κ³Όμ μΆμ§κ³Όμ μμμ 보μμ κ³Ό μμ μ¬νμ μ μνλ€
Relationships among the Development Level of Expertise, Education and Training, Qualifications and Work Experience for Software Developers
μ΄ μ°κ΅¬μ λͺ©μ μ μννΈμ¨μ΄ κ°λ°μμ μ λ¬Έμ± λ°λ¬μμ€μ μΈ‘μ νκ³ κ΅μ‘νλ ¨, μ격 λ° μ§λ¬΄κ²½λ ₯κ³Όμ κ΄κ³λ₯Ό ꡬλͺ
νλλ° μμλ€. λͺ¨μ§λ¨μ μννΈμ¨μ΄ κ°λ°μμ΄λ©°, μ μνμ§μΌλ‘ μ μ λ 20κ° κΈ°μ
μμ νμλ μ΄ 526λΆλ₯Ό κ°μ§κ³ , ν΅κ³λ κ΅°μ§λΆμ, νκ·λΆμ λ° νλ³λΆμμ΄ μ μ©λμλ€. 첫째 κ²°λ‘ μ μννΈμ¨μ΄ κ°λ°μμ μ λ¬Έμ± λ°λ¬ μμ€μ β보ν΅β μμ€(νκ· 3.0)μ΄κ³ , λΆμ λ° μ€κ³, νλ‘μ νΈ κ΄λ¦¬, ꡬν, ν
μ€ν
μ§λ¬΄λ₯λ ₯ μμΌλ‘ λ ν¬κ² μν₯μ λ°λλ€. λμ§Έ, μννΈμ¨μ΄ κ°λ°μμ μ λ¬Έμ± λ°λ¬ λ±κΈμ 5κ°λ‘ ꡬλΆλ μ μμΌλ μ΅κ³ λ±κΈμ μν κ°λ°μλ μμλ‘ νμΈλμ΄ μ λ¬Έμ± μμ€μ λ λ°λ¬λμ΄μΌ ν κ²μ΄λ€. μ
μ§Έ, μ λ¬Έμ± λ°λ¬ μμ€κ³Ό κ΅μ‘νλ ¨, μ격 λ° μ§λ¬΄κ²½λ ₯μ κ΄κ³μμ νλ‘μ νΈ μν μ격, μ§λ¬΄κ²½λ ₯, νκ΅κ΅μ‘, μκ²©μ¦ μμ§ μ격 μμΌλ‘ λκ² μν₯μ λ―Έμ³€λ€. μ΄λ μ λ¬Έμ± λ°λ¬μ νμ₯ κΈ°λ°μ λ€μν κ²½νμ΄ μ€μν¨μ μμ¬νλ€. λ·μ§Έ, κ°λ°μμ μ λ¬Έμ± λ°λ¬ λ±κΈμ νλ³νλ λ³μΈμΌλ‘ λ€μ°¨μμ μΌλ‘ μΈ‘μ λ κ΅μ‘νλ ¨, μ격 λ° μ§λ¬΄κ²½λ ₯ λ³μΈμμλ νλ‘μ νΈ μνμ격과 μ§λ¬΄κ²½λ ₯μΌλ‘ νμΈλμκ³ , κΈ°μ μμ λ
Έμλ¨κ° νμ© λ³μΈμμλ μ΅μ’
νλ ₯λ§μ΄ νλ³ λ³μΈμΌλ‘ νμΈλμλ€.The purpose of this study is to identify the relationships among the development level of expertise, education and training, qualifications and work experience for software developers. The main conclusions of this study can be summed up in four points. First, the expertise development level of software developers was highly influenced by analysis and design, project management, implementation, and testing, with an average of 3.0. Second, although software developers' expertise development ranks were most prominently divided into five classes, the developers of the highest class were extremely rare. Third, the newly measured variables in the level of expertise development, education and training, qualifications, and job career were highly affected by project performance, job experience, school education, and qualifications in that order. Meanwhile, it was found that the number of years of employment and the final education level in the standard variables of the unit price of labor varied depending on the measurement method. Fourth, it was confirmed that only the final education level was significantly determined by the developer's professional development grade, although the variables that could determine the development level of the developer's professionalism were the qualifications for project performance and job experience
[μλ‘ ] λ₯λ ₯μ€μ¬μ¬νλ₯Ό μν μ격μ λμ νμ κ³Ό κ΅κ°μλ체κ³(NQF) κ΅¬μΆ λ°©ν₯
μ¬λ¬ λμ κ³Όμ μ μ§λ©΄ν΄ μλ κ΅κ°κΈ°μ μ격μ νκ³μ μ μ§μ νκ³ νλ²μ΄ μλ λ₯λ ₯μ€μ¬μ¬ν λ§λ€κΈ° κ΅μ κ³Όμ μ ν΅μ¬μΈ NQF ꡬμΆμ μ€μμ±μ μ μνλ€
The Causal Relationship among Learning Orientation, Learning behaviors, Organizational Environment and Learning Outcomes in Small and Medium Enterprises
μ΄ μ°κ΅¬μ λͺ©μ μ 100PPM μΈμ¦ μ€μκΈ°μ
μμμ νμ΅μ§ν₯μ±, νμ΅νλ, μ‘°μ§νκ²½ λ° νμ΅μ±κ³Όμ μΈκ³Όκ΄κ³λ₯Ό ꡬλͺ
νλ λ° μλ€. μ°κ΅¬λͺ©μ μ λ¬μ±μ μν λ³μΈμΈ‘μ μ νμ΅μ§ν₯μ±, νμ΅νλ, μ‘°μ§νκ²½, νμ΅μ±κ³Ό λ° κ°μΈμ μΌλ°νΉμ±μΌλ‘ ꡬμ±λ μ§λ¬Έμ§λ₯Ό μ¬μ©νμλ€. μ°κ΅¬μ°Έμ¬μ λμν 143κ° κΈ°μ
μ€ μ’
μ¬μ 5λͺ
μ΄μμ΄ μλ΅ν 83κ° κΈ°μ
μ μλ£κ° λΆμμ νμ©λμλ€.
λΆμ κ²°κ³Ό, μ€μκΈ°μ
μ μ‘°μ§ νμ΅μ§ν₯μ±μ μ‘°μ§κ΅¬μ‘°μ νκ²½λΆνμ€μ±μ μν΄ λ§μ μν₯μ λ°μΌλ©°, μ‘°μ§ νμ΅μ§ν₯μ±μ νμ΅μ±κ³Όμ μ§μ μ μΈ μν₯μ λ―Έμ³€λ€. λν μ‘°μ§μμ€ νμ΅νλμ μ‘°μ§ νμ΅μ§ν₯μ±μ΄ νμ΅μ±κ³Όμ λ―ΈμΉλ μν₯μ λν΄ λΆλΆλ§€κ° μν μ νμλ€. μ‘°μ§ νμ΅μ§ν₯μ±μ μ§λ¨ λ° μ‘°μ§μμ€ νμ΅νλμλ μ§μ μ μΈ μν₯μ λ―Έμ³€μΌλ, κ°μΈμμ€ νμ΅νλμλ κ°μΈ νμ΅μ§ν₯μ±μ 맀κ°λ‘ ν κ°μ μ μΈ μν₯μ λ―Έμ³€λ€. λ§μ§λ§μΌλ‘ κ°μΈμμ€ νμ΅νλμ μ§λ¨μμ€ νμ΅νλμ 맀κ°λ‘ μ‘°μ§μμ€ νμ΅νλμ μν₯μ λ―Έμ³€λ€.The purpose of this study was to identify the causal relationship among learning orientation, learning behaviors, organizational environment, and learning outcomes in 100PPM small and medium enterprise. A survey questionnaire was conducted to measure the variables of this study. The data from 83 firms out of 143 firms which agreed to research participation were analyzed for the research model.
The results from this study was as follows. First, organizational learning orientation was influenced by organizational structure and environment uncertainty of SMEs. Second, organizational learning orientation has direct impact on overall learning outcomes in SMEs and organization-level learning behaviors had the mediation effect. Third, organizational learning orientation in SMEs has direct effect on group and organization-level learning behaviors and has indirect effect on individual-level learning behaviors with the mediation effect of individual learning orientation. Fourth, The group-level learning behaviors fully medicated the link between individual-level and organizational-level learning behaviors
The Hierarchical Linear Relationship Among Teaching Behaviors, Professor-Student Characteristics, Instructional Contexts, and Organizational Characteristics in Junior Colleges
μ΄ μ°κ΅¬μ λͺ©μ μ μ λ¬Έλνμμμ κ΅μνλκ³Ό κ΅μμ νΉμ±, νμ΅μ νΉμ±, μμ
μν© λ° μ‘°μ§ νΉμ±μ μκ³μ κ΄κ³λ₯Ό ꡬλͺ
νλ λ° μμλ€. μ°κ΅¬μ λͺ¨μ§λ¨μ μ λ¬Έλνμ μ μ κ΅μμ΄λ©°, νλ³Έμ μκ³μ μ νλͺ¨ν λΆμμμ μꡬλλ μ΅μ μ‘°μ§μμ€ μ§λ¨ μ(30κ° μ΄μ)μ κ°μΈμμ€ κ΅μ μ(μ λ¬Έλνλ³ 5λͺ
μ΄μ)λ₯Ό κ³ λ €νμ¬ λ¬΄μ νμ§ν 38κ° μ λ¬Έλν 760λͺ
μ κ΅μμλ€. μ‘°μ¬λꡬλ μ§λ¬Έμ§μ μ λ¬Έλν 곡μμ 보 μμλ£λ₯Ό μ¬μ©νμλ€. μλ£ λΆμμ HLM 6.0 νλ‘κ·Έλ¨μ μ΄μ©νμ¬ μκ³μ μ νλͺ¨ν λΆμμ μ€μνμλ€.
μ°κ΅¬κ²°κ³Όλ λ€μκ³Ό κ°λ€. 첫째, μ λ¬Έλνμμμ κ°μΈμμ€ λ³μΈμ μ‘°μ§μμ€ λ³μΈμ λΉν΄ κ΅μνλμ 5λ°° μ΄μ λ§μ μν₯λ ₯μ λ―ΈμΉλ€. λμ§Έ, μ λ¬Έλν κ΅μμ κ°μΈμμ€ λ³μΈμ κ΅μμ νΉμ±, νμ΅μ νΉμ±, μμ
μν©μ μμΌλ‘ κ΅μνλμ μν₯λ ₯μ λ―ΈμΉλ€. μ
μ§Έ, μ λ¬Έλνμ μ¬λ¦¬οΌμ¬νμ νκ²½μ κ΅μνλμ μ μ μΈ μν₯μ λ―ΈμΉμ§λ§, 물리μ νκ²½μ κ΅μνλμ μν₯μ λ―ΈμΉμ§ μλλ€.The purpose of this study was to identify the hierarchical linear relationship among teaching behaviors, professor-student characteristics, instructional contexts, and organizational characteristics in junior colleges. The population for this study was 11,937 full-time professors in 146 junior colleges. The data was analyzed by hierarchical linear model(HLM).
The findings of the study were as follows: First, 85% of total variance in teaching behaviors was individual level, and 15% was organizational level variance. Second, 47.73% of the within group variance was accounted of professor characteristics, 11.36% of the that was accounted of student characteristics, and 7.58% of that was accounted of instructional contexts. Third, 16.67% of the between group variance was accounted of organizational characteristics
- β¦