HIGHER EDUCATION ACCREDITATION IN KOREA : AN ADAPTATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of the study to attain more insight into the mechanisms through which student satisfaction with university quality is related to accreditation and reputation factors.
The present quality assessment systems under which students feel the need to represent themselves, risk encouraging the assertion of existing higher education institutional virtues at the expense of acknowledging the less successful aspects. Nor do they convincingly suggest how accreditation could be improved so that it would demonstrate clearly to the consumers that institutions of higher education are responsible for assuring the quality of their academic programs and degrees.
To analyze these problems, structural equation modeling (SAS CALIS and AMOS) with Korean university students (ten sampled sub-groups based on MANOVA), this study addresses important issues with respect to students’ evaluation of university quality. After reviewing past research and using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis suggests the existence of ten latent variables in student evaluation: (1) facility quality (academic development and resources), (2) faculty and instruction quality, (3) student services (governance and administration), (4) financial resources, (5) university reputation (6) institutional climate, (7) mission and purpose, (8) students’ job expectations (9) student academic development, and (10) students’ overall satisfaction. Next, adding structural paths, these variables are used in a model of the formation of student evaluation. The model developed has convergent validity, discriminant validity, and scale reliability.
In the overall model and sub-group models, “climate” and “mission & purpose”factors were dropped in the model specification process. In the overall and the sub-group models test, every model fit was acceptable except the high-level student model. This study describes the path models assessing the direct and indirect effects on student satisfaction with university quality. First, accreditation indicators should be modified to reflect the future from the students’ viewpoints. Second, the faculty and teaching effectiveness factor is important for student satisfaction in the areas of job expectations and educational development. The results suggest that government regulation should be decreased, and the consumers’ (e.g., students and parents) and other stakeholders’ roles should be increased. However, when a gap between student evaluations and the evaluation of accreditation agency exists, the government should audit the university to address discrepancies. Finally, the weights of accreditation variable s ould be differently applied to each sub-group, resulting in a new type of specialized accreditation (e.g., by gender, location, type, and reputation level).

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. INTRODUCTION = 1
• II. RESEARCH PROBLEMS = 4
• A. Need of the study = 4
• B. Statement of problem = 7
• C. Research questions = 8
• D. Theoretical / Conceptual framework = 9
• 1. Conceptual variables = 9
• 2. Theoretical framework = 10
• E. Significance of the study = 11
• F. Limitation of the study = 12
• G. Definition of terms = 14
• III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE = 15
• A. Historical background of higher education institutional accreditation = 16
• 1. History of higher education institutional accreditation in the U.S = 19
• 2. History of higher education institutional accreditation in the U.K. = 24
• 3. History of higher education institutional accreditation in Korea = 28
• B. Comparison of higher education institutional accreditation variables = 30
• 1. Accreditation variables in the U.S = 30
• 2. Accreditation variables in the U.K. = 35
• 3. Accreditation variables in Korea = 40
• C. Philosophies of higher education institutional accreditation = 46
• 1. Competing paradigms = 47
• 2. Evaluation in modern era = 48
• 3. Evaluation in postmodern era = 51
• 4. Combining modern and postmodern evaluation = 57
• 5. New way of thinking about evaluation = 61
• D. Theories of evaluation = 64
• 1. Consumer approach in management = 64
• 2. Consumer approach in higher education = 66
• E. Standards for higher education institutional accreditation = 74
• F. Evaluators in the study = 81
• G. Instruments credibility for student-oriented evaluation = 81
• 1. Internal validity = 82
• 2. External validity = 82
• 3. Assessing scale reliability with coefficient alpha = 83
• IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY = 84
• A. Research design = 84
• B. Pilot data analysis = 85
• 1. Scale reliability Alpha = 86
• 2. Exploratory factor analysis = 87
• 3. Strengths and weakness in pilot test = 94
• C. Revised questionnaire = 95
• D. Research methods = 98
• 1. Statistical programs = 98
• 2. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) = 98
• 3. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) = 99
• 4. Path analysis with latent variables (SEM) = 102
• V. ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY = 104
• A. Preliminary data analysis = 104
• 1. Sampling = 104
• 2. Validity and reliability after modifying questionnaire = 121
• 3. MANOVA for sub-group models = 137
• B. Model development and hypotheses = 149
• 1. Measurement model = 149
• 2. Structural equation model and hypotheses = 163
• 3. Analysis procedures = 172
• C. Overall structural equation model analysis = 173
• 1. Confirmatory factor analysis = 173
• 2. Path analysis with latent variables (SEM) = 179
• D. Structural equation model analysis for male and female students = 193
• 1. Male students model = 193
• 2. Female students model = 207
• E. Structural equation model analysis for Seoul area and local area universities = 221
• 1. Seoul area universities model = 221
• 2. Local area universities model = 235
• F. Structural equation model analysis for public and private universities = 249
• 1. Public universities model = 249
• 2. Private universities model = 263
• G. Structural equation model analysis for high-level, middle-level, and low-level
• students = 277
• 1. High-level students model = 277
• 2. Middle-level students model = 291
• 3. Low-level students model = 305
• VI. RESULTS = 320
• VII. DISCUSSION = 335
• A. Policy implications = 335
• B. Limitations of Generalizability = 341
• C. Contributions of the study = 342
• D. Recommendations for further study = 344
• APPENDICES = 346
• Appendix A: Survey questionnaire of English version = 347
• Appendix B: Survey questionnaire of Korean version = 358
• Appendix C: Accreditation agencies in the U.S. and the U.K. = 367
• Appendix D: Standard deviations and correlation matrix for overall model = 382
• REFERENCES = 396