AHP를 활용한 지방자치단체 평생교육기관 평가요인의 중요도 분석

An Analysis on the Importance of Evaluation Factors of Lifelong Education Institutions in Autonomous Municipal Government using AHP

본 연구는 지자체 평생교육기관의 효율적 경영과 평생교육진흥을 달성하는데 질 관리 준거가 되는 기초자료로 활용되고 정책수립 방안에 지침을 제공하는데 목적을 두고 수행하였다. 지자체 평생교육기관 평가도구로 개발된 모형을 바탕으로 전문가로 구성된 패널 36명을 대상으로 AHP를 활용하여 계층별 각각의 변인들의 쌍대비교척도(92문항)를 평정하게 하고 그 자료를 바탕으로 가중치 분석 및 우선순위를 도출하였다. 연구결과 첫째, 1계층 대영역은‘평생교육기관 경영 역량’보다‘평생교육 진흥 역량’의 우선순위가 높았다. 둘째, 2계층‘평생교육기관 경영 역량’의 관점에서는 1)인적자원 2)경영프로세스 순으로,‘평 생교육 진흥 역량’의 관점에서는 교육 수요자가 높았다. 셋째, 3계층‘평생교육기관 경영 역량’의 각 관점별 중영역의 우선순위는 1)조직전문성 확보 2)평생교육기관의 비전과 목표수립 및 달성 순이었으며,‘평생교육 진흥 역량’의 각 관점별 중영역의 우선순위는 1)학습자 만족 제고 2)잠재(신규) 및 소외계층 기회제공 순이었다. 넷째, 4계층 중영역별 하위영역 운영성과의 우선순위도 각 중영역의 우선순위에 부합하는 하위영역들이 우선순위를 나타냈다. 다섯째, 각 영역을 운영하는 3단계 과정의 우선순위는 1)추진과정의 적절성, 2)계획의 타당성, 3)운영성과 순으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구결과는 지자체 평생교육기관이 공공성과 책무성을 갖고 기관경영과 평생교육진흥의 목적을 수행하는데 우선순위를 고려한 정책운영 방안이 필요함을 시사한다.

The purpose of this study was to have a panel of 36 experts assess paired comparison measures(92 items) of each variable by class for the tool developed as an evaluation model of lifelong education institutions by using AHP then based on that data, analyze the weights and draw out their order of priority. Specifically, this study was conducted to provide basic materials which work as a reference for quality management of lifelong education institutions of municipal government to achieve excellent management and promotion of lifelong education and present useful methods of policy establishment. The results of this study are as follows. Firstly, in the 1st tier domain, lifelong education promotion competency’was followed in priority by‘management competency of lifelong education institution.’ Secondly, from the perspective of the 2nd tier‘management competency of lifelong education institution’, 1)‘human resources’was followed by 2)‘management process’in priority. Thirdly, the order of priority of mid-domain by each perspective of the 3rd tier‘lifelong educational institution management capacity’was 1)‘securing organizational expertise’followed by 2)‘establishment and achievement of the vision and goals of lifelong education institutions’. The priority of the mid-domain by each perspective of‘lifelong education promotion competency’was 1)‘enhancing learner satisfaction’followed by 2)‘providing opportunities for potential(new) classes and alienated classes’. Fourthly, the priority of operational performance of sub-domains by domain of the 4th tier showed that sub-domains which fit the priority of each mid-domains command higher priority. Finally, priority for the 3-stage process which operates each domain was 1)‘appropriateness of execution process’followed by 2)‘validity of the plan’3)‘operational performance’in descending order. The results of this study imply that the policies of municipal governments should be implemented based on priorities in managing the institutions and achieving the purposes of lifelong education with the nature of publicness and responsibility.