KRIVET Issue Brief People are Our Hope
Students Who Completed vs. Discontinued Their Training under the Work–Learning Dual System
- By analyzing the differences between students who completed and those who discontinued their training under the work–learning dual system, this study showed that the greater the students ’ educational attainment, career aspirations, and career commitment, the likelier it is for them to finish their training. Likewise, the stronger the family support, the higher the probability of completing one ’ s training.
- In terms of prior experience, the students who completed their training demonstrated better fit and program comprehension (by 0.37 and 0.33 points, respectively) than those who discontinued their training. In terms of learning experience, the students who completed their training gave higher ratings for satisfaction with the training facilities/contents, jobs, and social perspectives (by 0.46, 0.44, and 0.40 points, respectively).
- In terms of the company characteristics, the bigger the company and the higher its social reputation and potential for success, the likelier it is for the training to be completed. As for the program characteristics, the bigger the salary, the likelier it is that one will complete his or her training.
01 Necessity of Data Analysis
| In the data analysis, the factors influencing students’ completion or discontinuation of their training under the work–learning dual system were analyzed, and policy alternatives to encourage students to continue attending the training program were explored.
●
Since the work–learning dual system was first implemented, there has been a continuous stream of “dropouts,” and concerns have been raised by the national assembly, inter alia.●
In particular, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis of what makes working students — the beneficiaries of the work–learning dual system — continue or discontinue the training courses.●
In the data analysis, the factors influencing students’ completion or discontinuation of their training under the work–learning dual system were analyzed, and policy alternatives to encourage students to continue attending the training program were explored.
<Table 1> Work–Learning Dual-System Dropouts by Year
(Unit: persons)
Div. Trainees (A) Graduates (B) Dropouts (A-B) Dropout rate
2014년 9 8 1 11.1%
2015년 2,982 1,929 1,053 35.3%
2016년 10,845 7,413 3,432 31.6%
2017년 16,900 11,527 5,373 31.8%
2018년 17,819 12,711 5,108 28.7%
Total 48,555 33,588 14,967 30.8%
| Data for analysis: A Survey on the Current Status of Work–Learning Dual System Participation and Promotion Measures (2018), KRIVET
●
Data for analysis: Raw data from a Survey on the Current Status of Work–Learning Dual System Participation and Promotion Measures (2018) conducted by KRIVETPublisher: Young Sun Ra | Date of issue: January 28, 2020 | Issued by: Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training (KRIVET)
2020 No.177
I Note I
1) Trainees: the students who had been scheduled to complete the training course by the reference date 2) Graduates: the students who
completed the training course and did not drop out of it 3) Dropouts: the students who
dropped out of the training course before completing 80%
of it
4) Dropout rate: number of dropouts/total trainees x 100 Source: Human Resources Development Service of Korea (2019.10), The Work–Learning Dual System Status Data
KRIVET Issue Brief
●
Subjects of analysis: A total of 912 people were sampled and analyzed, 540 (59.2%) who completed or graduated the training course and 372 (40.8%) dropouts●
Method of analysis: This study categorized the participants into graduates and dropouts and analyzed the significant differences between the two groups using an independent sample t-test based on the six training continuation and dropout variables.- Variables for training continuation and dropout: (1) personal; (2) family background; (3) prior experience; (4) learning experience; (5) company characteristics; (6) work–learning dual-system program characteristics
<Table 2> Survey Population and Sample
[Unit: persons]
Group Population Sample
Graduates (of the work–learning dual system) Approx. 23,000 540 Dropouts (of the work–learning dual system) Approx. 11,000 372
Total Approx. 34,000 912
02 Differences between the Graduates and Dropouts of the Work–Learning Dual System by Six Variables
| For the personal-background variables, the greater the student's educational attainment, career aspirations, and career commitment, the likelier they will finish their training.
●
For the personal-background variables, the greater the students’ educational attainment, career aspirations, and career commitment, the likelier they will finish their training.- The graduates were found to have a significantly higher average value for educational attainment, career aspirations, and career commitment than the dropouts.
●
Among these three variables, career commitment showed the biggest difference between the two groups.[Figure 1] Differences by Personal-Background Variables
| As for the family background variables, the stronger the family support, the higher the probability of completing one’s training.
●
All the three variables (levels of emotional, environmental, and financial support) showed statistically significant differences.●
But emotional support from one’s family showed a larger difference than the two other variables between the two groups.[Figure 2] Differences by Family Background Variables I Note I
The population included the graduates and dropouts of the work–learning dual system training courses within the period from October 2014 to March 2018.
Dropouts Graduates
I Note I
1) Educational attainment: ① High school, ② Junior college,
③ University, ④ Graduate school
2) Career aspirations: ① Very low to ⑤ Very high 3) Career commitment ① Very
low to ⑤ Very high 4) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p <
0.001
Dropouts Graduates
I Note I
1) Educational attainment: ① High school, ② Junior college,
③ University, ④ Graduate school
2) Level of family support: ① Very low to ⑤ Very high 3) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p <
0.001
3.01
3.38 3.68 3.82
2.18 2.37 5
4 3 2 1
0
Career Commitment
0.37***
0.14*
0.19*
Career
Aspirations Educational Attainment
2.98 3.45
2.89 3.34
2.77 3.19
2.88 3.33
2.28 2.39
2.64 2.67 5
4 3 2 1
0
Emotional Support Environmental
Support Family Support
(Total)
Financial Support Mother’s
Education Father’s Education
0.47*** 0.45*** 0.42*** 0.45***
0.11 0.03
January 28, 2020
| In terms of prior experience, the stronger the students’ motivation to participate (motivation to learn), the higher their previous school grades, the better their job fit, the better their major–
training course match, and the higher their understanding of the work–learning dual system.
Ultimately, the likelier it is that they will finish the training course.
●
The training course graduates showed significantly higher scores in all the prior-experience variables (motivation to participate, previous school grades, job fit, major–training course match, and understanding of the work–learning dual system) than the dropouts.●
Job fit showed the most significant difference between the two groups, while previous school grades showed a relatively minor difference among all the variables.[Figure 3] Differences by Prior-Experience Variables
| In terms of learning experience, the more satisfied the students are with the training facilities/
contents and their jobs and the more positive their social perspectives, the likelier they will be able to complete their training.
●
The training course graduates showed significantly higher scores in satisfaction with the training facilities/contents, satisfaction with their jobs, and social perspectives than the dropouts.- Meanwhile, other variables (distance from the company or communal training center and degree of studying burden) were found to have virtually no relationship with the completion of the training course.
●
Satisfaction with the training facilities/contents showed a more significant difference than the other variables between the two groups.[Figure 4] Differences by Learning Experience Variables
| In terms of the company characteristics, the bigger the company, the more capable and experienced the trainers, the smaller the number of students per teacher, and the higher the company’s social reputation and potential for success. Ultimately, the likelier it is that the training will be completed.
●
The two groups showed statistically significant differences in all the variables (size of the company, capability and experience of the trainers, number of students per teacher, and social reputation and potential for success of the company).Dropouts Graduates
Dropouts Graduates
I Note I
1) Motivation to participate: ① Very low to ⑤ Very high 2) Previous school grades:
① 20% or less, ② 21–40%,
③ 41–60%, ④ 61–80%, ⑤ 81–00%
3) Job fit: ① Not at all to ⑤ Very good
4) Major–training course match:
① Not at all to ④ Very good 5) Understanding of the work–
learning dual system: ① Do not know at all to ⑤ Know very well
6) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p <
0.001
I Note I
1) Distance from the communal training center: ① Very far (2 hours or more one way), ② Far (1 hour or more one way),
③ Average (less than 1 hour one way), ④ Near (less than 40 minutes one way), ⑤ Very near (less than 20 minutes one way)
2) Distance from the company:
① Very far (2 hours or more one way), ② Far (1 hour or more one way), ③ Average (less than 1 hour one way), ④ Near (less than 40 minutes one way), ⑤ Very near (less than 20 minutes one way) 3) Studying burden: ① Not at all
to ⑤ Very burdensome 4) Satisfaction with the training
facilities/contents: ① Very unsatisfied to ⑤ Very satisfied 5) Social perspectives: ① Very
negative to ⑤ Very positive 6) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p <
0.001
2.80 2.70 2.87 2.97 3.12 3.08 3.02
3.48
2.98 3.42
2.93 3.33 5
4 3 2 1
0
Distance from the Communal Training
Center
Distance from the
Company Satisfaction with
the Training Facilities/Contents
Studying Burden Job Satisfaction Social
Perspectives
0.10 0.10
0.46*** 0.44*** 0.40***
0.04 2.99 3.24
2.79 2.93 3.04
3.41
2.48 2.69
3.29 3.62 5
4 3 2 1
0
Motivation to
Participate Previous School
Grades Major–Training
Course Match
Job Fit understanding of
the Work–Learning Dual System
0.25** 0.37***
0.21***
0.33***
0.14**
KRIVET Issue Brief
｜ KRIVET Social Policy Building, Sejong National Research Complex, 370, Sicheong-daero, Sejong-si, Republic of Korea ｜ Tel: 044-415-5000/5100 ｜ www.krivet.re.kr ｜ [Figure 5] Differences by Company Characteristics Variables
| The higher salary is, the more possibility is to pass the work-learning dual program, given the characteristics and variable of the business of the work-learning dual program
●
The participant who pass the work-learning dual program shows the higher mean value of salary variable than drop-outs, and also indicates statistically significant difference.- While, it does not have to do with between the training time and the pass or fail of the training program.
[Figure 6] Differences by Program Characteristics Variables
03 Implications
●
To encourage the students to complete the work–learning dual system training course, strong policy support is needed to enhance the students’ career aspirations, career commitment, and personal efforts.- Family support is also important; it is thus recommended that parents be provided with the necessary information regarding the training and that the students’ training participation be promoted through parental encouragement.
●
When matching companies and students, it is necessary to consider the students’ majors and to enhance their motivation to learn about and participate in the work–learning dual system.●
Satisfaction with the training facilities/contents, job satisfaction, social reputation and potential for success of the company, and salary were found to be important factors affecting the completion of the training course. Therefore, with regard to companies’ training of the students involved in the program, it is important to persuade companies to consider their social reputation, potential for success, and size and the capabilities of their teachers.Jeon, Seong-jun (Researcher, KRIVET)
Dropouts Graduates
I Note I
1) Social reputation of the company: ① Very low to ⑤ Very high
2) Company’s potential for success: ① Very low to ⑤ Very high
3) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p <
0.001
Dropouts Graduates
I Note I
1) Salary is a log-transformed value.
2) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p <
0.001
14.20 14.30
0.10* 14.70 14.60
15 0.10
14 13 12 11
10
Salary Training Period (Months) 82.68
120.94 38.26*
(명) 150 120 90 60 30
0
Size of the Company
3.08 3.52
2.72 3.10
2.53 2.85
3.46 2.92 5
4 3 2 1
0
Capability of the
Trainers Company’
s Potential for Success
Number of Students per Teacher (Persons) Social Reputation
of the Company 0.44***
0.38***
0.32***
0.54*
9.63 10.53 12
10
8
6
4
Experience of the Trainers 0.90*
(년)
