[Purpose]The purpose of this study was to provide meaningful implications to South Korea by analyzing career-specific teacher training system in South Korea and Japan. [Methods]To this end, Seoul and Tokyo were selected as representatives of each country and related documents were analyzed. An analysis framework that set background of introduction, operating system, and program as comparative standards was used. [Results]The main findings were as follows. First, Both South Korea and Japan introduced career-specific teacher training to develop teachers’professionalism and improve their competencies. Second, South Korea focused on out-school training, but Japan focused on in-school training as the legal training. Third, in terms of program, there were differences for period, participants, evaluation and so on. South Korea focused on short-term and lecture/participation-centered training, but Japan focused on long-term and case sharing/practice-centered training. Participants were limited to a narrower range in Japan. Also, unlike South Korea, Japan conducted separate evaluation and it was used for decision on formal hiring and future training plan. [Conclusion]This study suggests that school principals’ role performance for operating in-school training, sophisticated demand analysis and reflection of on-site opinions, and solutions to support teachers’continuous learning are needed for career-specific teacher training system in South Korea.

[Purpose]The purpose of this study was to provide meaningful implications to South Korea by analyzing career-specific teacher training system in South Korea and Japan. [Methods]To this end, Seoul and Tokyo were selected as representatives of each country and related documents were analyzed. An analysis framework that set background of introduction, operating system, and program as comparative standards was used. [Results]The main findings were as follows. First, Both South Korea and Japan introduced career-specific teacher training to develop teachers’professionalism and improve their competencies. Second, South Korea focused on out-school training, but Japan focused on in-school training as the legal training. Third, in terms of program, there were differences for period, participants, evaluation and so on. South Korea focused on short-term and lecture/participation-centered training, but Japan focused on long-term and case sharing/practice-centered training. Participants were limited to a narrower range in Japan. Also, unlike South Korea, Japan conducted separate evaluation and it was used for decision on formal hiring and future training plan. [Conclusion]This study suggests that school principals’ role performance for operating in-school training, sophisticated demand analysis and reflection of on-site opinions, and solutions to support teachers’continuous learning are needed for career-specific teacher training system in South Korea.