Çѱ¹¾îÃÊ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸´Â Çѱ¹ ±³»çÀÇ Á¤Ã¼¼ºÀ» ÀÌÇØÇϱâ À§ÇÑ °³³ä ƲÀ» ¸¶·ÃÇϴµ¥ ¸ñÀûÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇØ Àü±¹ ±³»ç¸¦ ´ëÇ¥ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ÀڷḦ ±¸ÃàÇÏ¿© ±³»çµéÀÇ ±³À°Àû ½Å³ä°ú ±³À° ½Çõ ¾ç»óÀ» Ž»öÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀáÀçÁý´ÜºÐ¼®(LCA)À» Àû¿ëÇÏ¿© »ìÆìº» °á°ú Çѱ¹ ±³»çµéÀº ±³À°Àû ½Å³ä°ú ½Çõ ¾ç»ó¿¡ µû¶ó °¢°¢ 3°³ÀÇ ÀáÀç Áý´ÜÀ¸·Î ±¸ºÐµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ±³À°Àû ½Å³ä¿¡ µû¶ó¼´Â °úÇÐÀû Áø¸®¸¦ ü°èÀûÀ¸·Î Àü´ÞÇϰíÀÚ ÇÏ´Â Àü´ÞÀÚÇü(19%), ¿ì¸® »çȸÀÇ ÀÎÀ縦 ±æ·¯³»°íÀÚ ¾Ö¾²´Â ¼Ò¸íÇü(35%), ÇлýµéÀÌ ½º½º·Î ¼ºÀåÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï µ½°íÀÚ ÇÏ´Â Á¶·ÂÇü(46%)À¸·Î À¯ÇüÈÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ±³À° ½Çõ ¾ç»ó¿¡ À־ ´Ùä·Ó°Ô ¼ö¾÷À» ÁغñÇÏ°í ¼ö¾÷ ½Ã°£À̳ª ÇÐ±Þ ±ÔÄ¢ µîÀ» À¯¿¬ÇÏ°Ô ¿î¿µÇÏ´Â Áý´Ü(35%)°ú °æÇè ¸¹Àº ±³»ç¿¡°Ô ÀÚ¹®À» ±¸ÇÏ¸ç ±³¼öÇнÀ°èȹ¾È¿¡ µû¶ó ¸Å´º¾ó´ë·Î ½ÇõÇÏ´Â Áý´Ü(28%), ÇлýÀÔÀå¿¡¼ ¿ì¼±ÇÏ¿© °í¹ÎÇÏ¸ç ±³À°À» ½ÇõÇϰíÀÚ ÇÏ´Â Áý´Ü(37%)À¸·Î ±¸ºÐÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ´õºÒ¾î ¿ì¸®´Â ±³À°Àû ½Å³ä¿¡ µû¶ó ½Çõ ¾ç»ó¿¡ Â÷À̰¡ ÀÖ´ÂÁö È®ÀÎÇϱâ À§ÇØ ´ÙÇ× ·ÎÁö½ºÆ½ ȸ±ÍºÐ¼®À» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±× °á°ú, ¸ð¹üÇü ±³»ç´Â ¸Å´º¾ó´ë·Î Áý´Ü¿¡ ¼ÓÇÒ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ³ô°í, ¼Ò¸íÇü°ú Á¶·ÂÇü ±³»ç´Â ÇлýÀÔÀå¿¡¼³ª ´Ùä·Ó°Ô ½ÇõÇÏ´Â Áý´Ü¿¡ ¼ÓÇÒ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ´õ ³ôÀº °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ÃʵîÇб³ ±³»çº¸´Ù´Â °íµîÇб³ ±³»çÀÎ °æ¿ì¿Í ¿©±³»çº¸´Ù´Â ³²±³»çÀÎ °æ¿ì ´Ùä·Ó°Ôº¸´Ù´Â ¸Å´º¾ó´ë·Î ½ÇõÇÏ·Á´Â °æÇâÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. °æ·ÂÀÌ ³ôÀ»¼ö·Ï ÇлýÀÔÀå¿¡¼³ª ´Ùä·Ó°Ô ½ÇõÇϱ⺸´Ù´Â ¸Å´º¾ó´ë·Î ½ÇõÇϰí ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ, ±³Á÷°úÁ¤À» À̼öÇÏ¿© ±³¿øÀÚ°ÝÀ» ÃëµæÇÑ ±³»çµéÀÌ ±³»ç´ë¸¦ Á¹¾÷ÇÑ ±³»çµé¿¡ ºñÇØ ÇлýÀÔÀå¿¡¼º¸´Ù´Â ¸Å´º¾ó´ë·Î ½ÇõÇÏ´Â ¾ç»óÀ» º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù. ±³À°Àû ½Å³ä°ú ½Çõ ¾ç»ó¿¡ µû¸¥ À¯Çüȸ¦ ½ÃµµÇÑ ¿ì¸® ¿¬±¸´Â °³º° ±³»çÀÇ ¼»ç¸¦ ³Ñ¾î Çѱ¹ ±³»ç¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ´ÔµåÀüüÀûÀÎ »óÀ» ±×·Áº¸°íÀÚ ½ÃµµÇß´Ù´Â Á¡¿¡¼ Àǹ̸¦ °®´Â´Ù.
¿µ¾î ÃÊ·Ï
Although research evidence on teachers in Korea has been increasing, it is limited to understand their general identity. In this study, we tried to establish a conceptual framework that is able to identify teachers by focusing on their educational beliefs and practices. For an empirical exploration, we collected online survey data for primary and secondary school teachers nationwide. Latent class analysis was implemented using eighteen categorical items across six domains of educational beliefs and sixteen categorical items across four domains of educational practices. Three distinct educational beliefs typologies were revealed: transmitter type, calling type, and facilitator type. In educational practices, three different typologies are also emerged: the first group that follows the manuals such as teacher¡¯s guide and lesson plans, the second group characterized that they try to
understand from the student¡¯s point of view, and the third group that practices flexibly. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted to ascertain whether educational practice typologies could be differentiated by educational belief typologies and teachers¡¯ socio-demographic status. Beliefs typologies, school level, career and gender were predictive of group membership in certain practice groups. The results show that multiple identities coexist within an individual teacher undergoing a constant internal negotiations. This article is significant in that it shows a snapshot of Korean teachers¡¯ identity beyond the narratives of individual teachers.