MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2739491957 · doi:10.20306/kces.2017.27.3.129

A Comparative Study of Teachers’Remuneration Systems between Republic of Korea and Canada

2017· article· en· W2739491957 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rana Ran Kim, Soon-Yong Park

Notice bibliographique

RevueKorean Comparative Education Society · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueEducational Systems and Policies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRemunerationDutyEquity (law)Political scienceGovernment (linguistics)PerceptionPublic relationsAccountingPsychologyPedagogyBusinessLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

이 연구는 한국과 캐나다의 교원보수체계의 비교를 목적으로 제도적 차원뿐만 아니라 교사처우와 교직에 대한 인식을 살펴보고 양국 현직 교사들의 직업관에 대해 알아보았다. 이를 위해 문헌 연구와 질적 연구를 병행하여 양국 교원보수체계의 지향점 및 이와 관련된 교사들의 인식을 분석•비교했다. 연구 결과 몇 가지 공통점과 차이점이 발견되었다. 첫째, 보수체계의 운영철학에서 한국은 국가 경쟁력 차원의 효율성을, 캐나다는 개인 위주의 능력계발을 중시했다. 둘째, 양국의 교원 보수체계의 공통적인 목표는 평등지향적인 합리적 교원보수제도의 확립이다. 그러나 평등에 대한 입장에서 한국의 경우 일반 공무원과의 형평성이 강조된 반면에 캐나다의 경우에는 성평등이 주로 거론되었다. 셋째, 교직에 대한 태도에서는 보수체계를 중심으로 두드러진 차이를 보였다. 한국의 경우 교직은 안정적이고 사회적으로 선망되는 직업이지만 진입장벽이 높고 보수체계가 상대적으로 경직되어 있었다. 반면에 캐나다의 경우 교직으로의 진입이 용이하고 보수체계가 유연하지만 이직 또는 겸직에 대한 고려가 빈번하고 사회적 지위가 유동적이라고 인식되었다.This study examines the social recognition of teachers’ treatment and teaching profession through the comparison and analysis of the teachers’ remuneration systems in the Republic of Korea(hereafter, Korea) and Canada. For this purpose, literature review and qualitative research were conducted. As a result of comparing and analyzing the orientation of teachers’ remuneration systems in both countries and perception of teachers, the following differences were found. First, in terms of the management philosophy of the remuneration system, Korea emphasized the efficiency of the national competitiveness dimension, while Canada focused on the interrelationship with development of individual-oriented competency. Second, although the remuneration systems for teachers in both countries are quite different, they have aimed at establishing a reasonable remuneration system, which considers equality in common. But the position on equality was different between the two countries. In the case of Korea, equity was considered by comparing the pay scale with those of other government employees, while equity in Canada mainly had to do with gender equality. Third, the teachers of both countries regarded the sense of duty and ethics as important qualities of the teaching profession, and they recognized the social safety net as an indicator of their social status. However, there was a difference in attitude toward the teaching profession. In Korea, it was deemed to be a stable and socially desirable profession, but the entry barriers were quite high and the remuneration system was relatively rigid. In Canada, on the other hand, it was easy to enter the teaching profession and the remuneration system was far less rigid. But teachers were more likely to quit or take a second job, and their social status fluctuated.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,468
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,918

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,082
Tête enseignante GPT0,355
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueKorean Comparative Education SocietyMême sujetEducational Systems and PoliciesTravaux en français237 207