디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제17권2호
  • /
  • Pages.9-18
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

CIPP 모형을 활용한 사이버 범죄 예방 교육 프로그램 평가에 관한 연구

An Evaluation Study on the Effectiveness of National Cyber Crime Prevention Education Program: Based on the CIPP Model

  • 투고 : 2018.12.26
  • 심사 : 2019.02.20
  • 발행 : 2019.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 현재 시행 중인 사이버 범죄 예방 교육의 효과성을 확인하기 위해 예방 교육 수강자의 교육 만족도와 학습 전이에 영향을 미치는 요인이 무엇인지 알아보고자 한다. 교육 평가에서 활용되는 CIPP 모형을 바탕으로 상황 평가의 사회 요구 수준과 지식수준, 투입 평가의 주제의 최신성, 과정 평가의 상호작용이 수강자의 교육 만족도와 산출 평가의 학습전이에 영향을 미치는지 확인하기 위해 예방 교육 수강자를 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였다. 연구 분석 결과, 상황 평가의 지식수준과 투입 평가의 주제의 최신성, 과정 평가의 상호작용이 교육 만족도와 유의미한 관계를 가진다는 것이 확인되었고, 상황 평가의 주제의 최신성과 투입 평가의 상호작용, 교육 만족도가 산출 평가의 학습 전이와 유의미한 관계를 가진다는 것이 확인되었다. 본 연구 결과를 바탕으로 향후 사이버 범죄 예방 교육 프로그램의 운영 계획 수립 시 수강자의 학습 전이를 높일 수 있는 개선 방향이 제시되었다.

This study investigates the factors affecting the educational satisfaction and the transfer of learning of cyber crime prevention education students in order to confirm the effectiveness of the current education. Based on the CIPP model, we confirmed whether the level of social demand and the level of knowledge in the context evaluation, recency of subjects in the input evaluation and interaction in the process evaluation affect the educational satisfaction and the transfer of learning of the students by conducting the survey for the students. As a result of analysis, it was proved that the level of knowledge, recency of subjects and interaction had a significant relationship with the educational satisfaction and recency of subjects, interaction and educational satisfaction significantly affect transfer of learning. Based on the findings, this study provides a few constructive suggestions to improve the effectiveness of the cyber crime prevention education program.

키워드

DJTJBT_2019_v17n2_9_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Research model

Table 1. Operational definition

DJTJBT_2019_v17n2_9_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Sample characteristics

DJTJBT_2019_v17n2_9_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Convergent validity

DJTJBT_2019_v17n2_9_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Discriminant validity

DJTJBT_2019_v17n2_9_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Path coefficient

DJTJBT_2019_v17n2_9_t0005.png 이미지

참고문헌

  1. D. S. Wall. (2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age (Vol. 4) Cambridge : Polity Press.
  2. W. Choung. (2007). Current Situation and Criminal Subject of Cybercrime. Korean Criminological Review, 18(3), 1499-1535.
  3. M. Yar. (2005). The Novelty of 'Cybercrime' An Assessment in Light of Routine Activity Theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/147737080556056
  4. S. Gordon. & R. Ford. (2006). On the definition and classification of cybercrime. Journal in Computer Virology, 2(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-006-0015-z
  5. Y. H. Kim. & Y. K. Hwang. (2007). A Study on Crime-responding system in Cyber-space. Journal of Korean Public Police and Security Studies, 4(1), 39-62.
  6. P. Grabosky. (2007). Requirements of prosecution services to deal with cyber crime. Crime, law and social change, 47(4-5), 201-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9069-1
  7. Y. M. Jee. (2018). Criminal Law Policy on Cybercrimes. Korean Journal of Comparative Criminal Law, 19(4), 431-456. https://doi.org/10.23894/kjccl.2018.19.4.019
  8. D. E. Lee. (2018). Domestic and Foreign Cyber Threat Trends - Past, present and future strategies of cyber attack. Korea Multimedia Journal, 22(2), 13-18.
  9. D. Robinson & J. Robinson. (1989). Training for impact. Training & Development Journal, 43(8), 34-43.
  10. E. Gagne, C. Yekovich & F. Yekovich. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school subjects New York: HarperCollins.
  11. E. Holton III, R. Bates, D. Seyle & M. Carvalho. (1997). Toward construct validation of a transfer climate instrument. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(2), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920080203
  12. E. H. Yang. & J. S. Jung. (2006). In search of Diagnostic Tools for Learning Transfer. Journal of Corporate Education and Talent Research, 8(2), 101-122.
  13. Y. H. Park. (2011). Interventions to Facilitate Transfer of Learning: Based on Stakeholders' Roles and Time Frames. International Journal of Adult & Continuing Education, 14(1), 151-185.
  14. D. H. Lim. & S. Johnson. (2002). Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer. International journal of training and development, 6(1), 36-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2419.00148
  15. J. Y. Joo, E. K. Kim, S. N. Kim & S. Y. Park. (2009). Relationships among Learners' Satisfaction, Academic Achievement and Learning Transfer in the Corporate Cyber Education. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 15(1), 23-43.
  16. D. Kirkpatrick. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and development journal, 33(6), 78-92.
  17. B. C. Lee, H. J. Yoon & G. S. Yoon. (2012). Factors Influencing Transfer of Learning and Reaction, Learning, Transfer of Learning in R&D Human Resources Training. Journal of Corporate Education and Talent Research, 14(2), 65-98.
  18. J. M. Lee & G. J. Lee. (2018). A Study on the Factors Associated with Students' Satisfaction with Graduate Education. The Journal of Educational Administration, 36(2), 229-251. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239810214696
  19. J. S. Cho., Y. M. Jeon & K. R. Kim. (2016). A Study on the effect of LMS on the self-regulated learning competency and learning satisfaction in Higher Education. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 22(1), 55-84. https://doi.org/10.15833/KAFEIAM.22.1.055
  20. D. Stufflebeam. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Ohio : Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Evaluation Center.
  21. H. Y. Park. (2012). Evaluation of Airline Service Education Using the CIPP Model -focus on factors which influenced satisfaction and recommendation of the training program. Journal of Korean Contens Association, 12(10), 510-523.
  22. W. S. Seo, J. M. Kim & Y. W. Jeon. (2007). Evaluation of Environmental Education of Public Servants in NIERD based on CIPP Model. [Evaluation of Environmental Education of Public Servants in NIERD based on CIPP Model. Korea Environmental Education Association, 20(1), 106-117.
  23. D. Stufflebeam, G. Madaus & T. Kellaghan. (2000). Evaluation models. Boston : Kluwer Academic Publiser.
  24. J. M. Kim. (2006). Innovative Strategies on Fanner Education for the Agricultural and Rural Development. Journal of Korean Agricultural Education, 38(3), 75-111.
  25. S. M. Ryu & Y. S. Song. (2012). A Study on Satisfaction of New Employee Training Program Applying CIPP Evaluation Model Focusing on H Corporation. The Korean Journal of Human Resource Development, 14(1), 47-71.
  26. D. Stufflebeam & A. Shinkfield. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco : Wiley.
  27. I. W. Park. & M. J. Hannafin. (1993). Empirically -based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297358
  28. S. J. Shin & I. Ryu. (2008). A Study on Structural Relationships between Information Service Quality and Performance. Journal of the Korea society of computer and information, 13(6), 301-314.
  29. K. Swan. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance education, 22(2), 306-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220208
  30. D. R. Shin, M. S. Jung & S. H. Lee. (2009). Factors Influencing Learner Awareness and Learning Satisfaction in Elementary Native Language Video Instruction. Education Research, 47(4), 119-143.
  31. Y. H. Yoon, D. S. Na & J. T. Jung. (2015). An empirical study for the relations between consultant's expertise and consulting knowledge transfer : Focused on FTA consulting. Journal of Digital Convergence, 13(11), 119-132. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2015.13.11.119
  32. G. M. Bae & Y. H. Park. (2016). A Study on the Diagnosis and Improvement of Educational Operation Status of Occupational Safety and Health Job Training Institutions Based on CIPP Model. Corporate Education and Talent Research, 18(1), 57-84.
  33. C. Kirwan & D. Birchall. (2006). Transfer of learning from management development programmes: Testing the Holton model. International journal of training and development, 10(4), 252-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2006.00259.x
  34. K. S. Jung & K. J. Kim. (2006). Learning Effectiveness and Transition Factors on e-Learning. The Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.2308/jis.2001.15.1.1
  35. D. Gefen, D. Straub & M. Boudreau. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the association for information systems, 4(1), 7.
  36. J. Anderson & D. Gerbing (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
  37. H. S. Han & J. K. Lee. (2006). A Study on the Impact of Quality Factors on the Easy of use and Usefulness of Mobile Games. Journal of Digital Convergence, 4(2), 87-96.
  38. J. Steiger. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate behavioral research, 25(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
  39. J. Hair, R. Anderson, R. Tatham & W. Black. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
  40. K. R. Kim, N. Y. Kwak & C. C. Lee. (2018). Study on Factors Affecting Turnover Intention of Digital evidence analyst : Focus on Job stress, Job satisfaction, Organizational commitment. Journal of Digital Convergence, 16(8), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2018.16.8.001
  41. C. Fornell & D. Larcker. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  42. J. Y. Lee. (2004). A Study on the Selection of Content Delivery Strategies to Improve Learner Satisfaction and Performanced of e-Learning Courses in Higher Education. Journal of Educational Technology, 20(4), 185-214. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.20.4.185