본 연구의 목적은 학업중단 청소년들의 인구사회학적 특성을 살펴보고, 잠재계층을 구분하여 그 특성과 구조에 따라 유형화하고, 학업중단 이후 적응과정에서 나타난 심리사회적 특성이 유형에 따라 차이가 있는지를 살펴보는데 중점을 두었다. 연구대상은 중?고등학교 학업중단 청소년을 대상으로 제주도를 제외한 전국의 청소년상담지원센터, 가출청소년 쉼터 등 학업중단 청소년들이 다수 이용하는 기관을 대상으로 2012년 6월부터 7월까지 우편 또는 방문을 통해 설문을 조사하였으며, 회수된 설문지 중 무응답 및 불성실한 질문지 48부를 제외한 총 506명의 자료를 분석하였으며, 본 연구의 주요결과는 다음과 같다.
먼저 학업중단 청소년의 특성에 대해 조사한 결과, 학업중단 시기는 중학교 시기가 134명(26.5%)으로 나타났으며, 고등학교 시기의 학업중단은 372명(73.5%)으로 나타났으며, 고1 시기에는 250명(49.4%)이 학업을 중단한 것으로 나타나 가장 비율이 높았으며, 학업중단 기간은 평균 19.6개월로 분석되었다. 학업중단 청소년의 잠재계층을 살펴보기 위해 향후 계획을 반영하는 항목을 선정하여, 비슷한 성격을 가지고 있는 관측자를 동일한 계층으로 분류하고, 각 계층에 속할 확률을 찾아내어 계층 간 차이를 분석할 수 있는 잠재계층분석(Latent Class Analysis)을 실시하였다. AIC, BIC, adjusted BIC, Entropy, LMR, BLRT의 적합도 지수를 종합적으로 고려하여 2개에서 4개의 잠재계층 분석을 실시한 결과 3개 잠재계층이 최적의 계층으로 확인되었다.
또한, 계층의 특성을 분석한 결과 특별한 계획이 없고, 무엇을 해야 할지 모르는 문항에 응답할 확률이 높은 ‘미결정중심형’, 검정고시를 통한 학력취득 및 취업준비에 응답할 확률이 높은 ‘미래준비형’, 복학 및 검정고시를 통한 학력취득 준비에 응답할 확률이 높은 ‘진학준비형’으로 유형화 되었으며, 각 유형은 27.1%, 58.3%, 14.6%인 것으로 확인되었다. 선행연구를 통해 나타난 심리사회적 특성인 자기조절, 자기효능감, 진로성숙도, 부모양육태도, 사회적지지, 미래에 대한 기대 변인이 각 유형에 따라 차이가 있는지를 살펴보았다. 자기조절 변인에서는 자기조절양식이 유의미한 차이가 있고, 미래준비형이 미결정중심형, 진학준비형 보다 스스로의 조절 정도가 높은 것으로 분석되었고, 자기효능감 변인에서는 각 유형간 유의미한 차이가 발생하지 않았으며, 진로성숙도 변인에서는 진로계획성과 진로행동이 유의미한 차이가 있었으며, 각각 미래준비형이 미결정중심형, 진학준비형보다 높은 것으로 분석되었다. 또한, 부모양육태도 변인에서는 감독과 합리적 설명이 유의미한 차이가 있는 것으로 분석되었으며, 감독은 진학준비형이 가장 높고 미래준비형, 미결정중심형 순이였으며, 합리적 설명에서는 미래준비형이 미결정중심형, 진학준비형 보다 높은 것으로 나타났다. 사회적지지 변인에서는 정서적 지지와 정보적 지지가 유의미한 차이가 있는 것으로 분석되었으며, 정서적 지지는 진학준비형이 미결정중심형, 미래준비형 보다 높은 것으로 나타났고, 정보적 지지는 진학준비형, 미래준비형, 미결정중심형 순이였다. 또한, 미래에 대한 기대 변인은 직업지향적 목표가 유의미한 차이가 있었으며 진학준비형, 미래준비형, 미결정중심형 순으로 확인되었다.
이러한 연구결과를 토대로 결론에서는 기존 선행연구에서 제시했던 학업중단 청소년 유형을 새롭게 제시하였다. 또한, 각 유형별로 지원을 위한 내용을 제시하였으며, 고등학교 졸업장은 필요하다는 인식으로 인한 현장에서의 학습지원의 필요성과 함께 부처간의 협력 등 학업중단 청소년 지원의 토대마련을 위한 방안에 대해 제시하였다.

The purpose of this study was to identify the socio-demographic characteristics of school dropouts, examine their latent class and classify them based on the latent class’ characteristics and structure, and examine if there is a difference in each class'' psycho-social characteristics in their social adaptation process after they drop out of school. The participants were middle and high school dropouts. With the exception of Jeju Island, youth counseling centers and youth shelters were enlisted to participate in the nationwide survey. Mail and in-person surveys were conducted during June and July, 2012. The data from 506 completed surveys were analyzed. 48 partially completed surveys were not included. The main findings of this research are as follows.
First, two school dropout timings were identified from the data. The number of junior high school dropouts was 134 (26.5%). There were 372 high school dropouts (73.5%). The freshman class garnered the highest dropout rate with 250 students (49.4%) dropping out of school during this period. The mean duration of the school dropout period was 19.6 months.
Second, Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to examine the school dropout latent class. LCA provides a way to identify the underlying subgroups characterized by multiple factors. In this research, multiple factors consisted of items that reflect the school dropouts'' future plans. Then, the observed variables were analyzed and classified based on the characteristic of each factor.Next,thepossibilitiesweremeasuredtoseeifthe observed variable would be included in each class. In order to identify the optimum number of class in LCA, 2-4 latent classes were examined. Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of AIC, BIC, adjusted BIC, Entropy, LMR, BLRT were all considered. The results indicated that three was the optimum number of latent classes.
The characteristics of each class were also examined and named accordingly. The school dropouts with the highest possibility of choosing the answer indicating that they have no future plans or ideas were called “indecision-centered type (27.1%).” The youths with the highest possibility of selecting the answer reflecting that they are planning to get a GED degree and find a job were designated “future preparation type (58.3%).” Youths most likely to choose the answer representing that they have a plan to return to school or study for the GED were termed “academic preparatory type (14.6%).”
Psychosocial characteristics such as self-regulation, self-efficacy, career maturity, parenting attitude, social support, and future expectation were found through pilot study. Those variables were examined to determine if they have different relationship with each type. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc comparison were used to identify how those variables were related to each type.
With regard to the self-regulation variable, the scale displayed significant differences. The future preparation type fared better on the self-regulation scale than both the indecision-centered and academic preparatory types. In the self-efficacy variable, no significant difference was recognized. In the career-maturity variable, significant differences between career planning and career behavior were found, and the future preparation type was determined to be significantly better than the indecision-centered and academic preparatory types. In the parenting attitude variable, monitoring and reasonable explanation presented significant differences. The monitoring variable displayed the most significant relationship with academic preparatory types, followed by the future preparation type and indecision-centered types. In the reasonable explanation variable, the future preparation type presented higher relationships than the indecision-centered or academic preparatory type.
Within the social support variable, emotional support and informational support exhibited significant differences. Emotional support was more significantly demonstrated among the academic preparatory types than either the indecision-centered or future preparation type. Informational support was most significantly displayed among the academic preparatory types, followed by the future preparation type and indecision-centered types. With regard to future expectation variables, career-oriented goals exhibited significant relationships with all three types. In order of significance, academic preparatory, followed by future preparation, and indecision-centered types.
Given these study results, a new model of school dropout youth type was suggested in the conclusion. The types of supports for each school dropouts'' type were also suggested. Lastly, the way of building a foundation for the dropouts'' support was suggested based on the social perception that a high school diploma is essential for anyone''s social adaptation. Accordingly, government agencies should cooperate to provide educational supports.