View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Student-Faculty Interaction beyond the Formal Curriculum in South Korea

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Student-Faculty Interaction beyond the Formal Curriculum in South Korea
Language: English
Authors: Choi, Bo Keum (ORCID 0000-0001-7113-1508), Kim, Min Sun (ORCID 0000-0003-3149-6435)
Source: Higher Education Quarterly. Jan 2021 75(1):35-50.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, College Students, College Faculty, Teacher Student Relationship, Interaction, Time, Barriers, Student Attitudes, Power Structure
Geographic Terms: South Korea
DOI: 10.1111/hequ.12261
ISSN: 0951-5224
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify and categorise factors that hinder Korean college student-faculty interaction. Twenty-one college students who had advising experience with faculty were interviewed. Concept mapping was used to collect, organise and interpret qualitative data through quantitative techniques. These factors were recorded on index cards, and 21 participants returned and sorted these statements into self-defined, conceptually homogeneous categories. As a result, 45 common factors were elicited and reliably organised into four clusters, with hierarchical relationship with the faculty member (Cluster 1), time constraints (Cluster 2), doubt about (academic, personal and career) benefits of interaction (Cluster 3) and a lack of recognition of necessity (Cluster 4). According to the ratings, the most important cluster was 'doubt about benefits of interaction', and participants rated the 'lack of recognition of necessity' as the cluster most similar to their own experiences.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1284896
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHYNal6LdbH5CR3fl8bNkPHAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOsGXn3H2NQUHQJRtAIBEICBm22MbmMrq4zr0bEO9WmpbJNVGltsdlfNiLGbZkO0hBJt6hGJkQIpa3w-NcW01LpZzVtZnCx_lnf3G2ax0OuJMnfFhZAredznsusVsR1iXm-7A1KRXgfazmWuHY9YcSfP_FVDNWZg5DjZHw2YjenQdQiI69PeblCRhvptmNg9wY3c4MwsURrvT1EZpolk4tZpO9PcK0WptK5zixVZ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0148541207;d8501jan.21;2021Feb09.02:12;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0148541207-1">The student–faculty interaction beyond the formal curriculum in South Korea </title> <sbt id="AN0148541207-2">INTRODUCTION</sbt> <p>The purpose of this study was to identify and categorise factors that hinder Korean college student‐faculty interaction. Twenty‐one college students who had advising experience with faculty were interviewed. Concept mapping was used to collect, organise and interpret qualitative data through quantitative techniques. These factors were recorded on index cards, and 21 participants returned and sorted these statements into self‐defined, conceptually homogeneous categories. As a result, 45 common factors were elicited and reliably organised into four clusters, with hierarchical relationship with the faculty member (Cluster 1), time constraints (Cluster 2), doubt about (academic, personal and career) benefits of interaction (Cluster 3) and a lack of recognition of necessity (Cluster 4). According to the ratings, the most important cluster was 'doubt about benefits of interaction', and participants rated the 'lack of recognition of necessity' as the cluster most similar to their own experiences.</p> <p>요약: 본 연구의 목적은 한국 대학생들을 대상으로 교수‐학생 상호작용을 막는 요인들을 탐색하는 것이다. 이를 위해, 21명의 대학생들을 대상으로 면담을 실시하고 개념도 방법을 활용하여 수집된 질적 자료들을 분석하였다. 이 과정에서 45개의 진술문들이 발견되었으며, 이 요인들을 다시 학생들이 검토하여 유사한 의미를 가진 문장들끼리 분류하였다. 이를 통해 각 요인들은 교수와의 위계적 관계(클러스터 1), 시간적 제약(클러스터 2), 상호작용의 학업적, 개인적, 직업적 도움에 대한 회의(클러스터 3), 그리고 필요성에 대한 인식 부족(클러스터 4)과 같은 4개의 군집으로 분류되었다. 분류된 군집들을 토대로 다시 한번 학생들에 의해 중요도와 일치도 여부를 확인한 결과, 학생들은 '상호작용의 학업적, 개인적, 직업적 도움에 대한 회의'를 교수‐학생 상호작용을 방해하는 가장 중요한 요인이라고 꼽은 반면 '필요성에 대한 인식 부족'을 자신들의 경험과 가장 일치하는 요인으로 선택하였다.</p> <p>Over the last six decades, the number of those who have gained higher education in Korea has rapidly grown, and 70 per cent of people aged 25–34 years have now obtained tertiary education, the highest educational attainment level among OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development) member countries (OECD, 2017). Despite rapid quantitative expansion, most attention on Korean higher education remains on the minimum requirements for infrastructure, human resources and financial resources for college education via the accreditation system. However, higher education institutions (HEIs) in South Korea are facing immense pressure to improve the quality of education, as they are responsible for providing appropriate educational experiences to students attending college. The government is one of the greatest sources of pressure. In 2010, the Korean government initiated a large‐scale government funding programme, namely the Advancement of College Education (ACE),[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] to ensure high‐quality undergraduate education. To qualify for the ACE programme and preserve the quality of qualifications, candidates were expected to submit a four‐year plan with a set of indicators showing the extent to which the quality of the education they provided had advanced and students' participation in planned educational activities. As such, the judging committee requested empirical evidence of student experiences and development during college. Against this background, Korean colleges and universities are starting to struggle for a subtle way to provide and demonstrate better education through students' educational experiences on campus (Bae, Ra, & Han, 2017; Choi, Lee, Jeong, & Seong, 2007; Choi & Rhee, 2014).</p> <p>Based on theoretical conceptual models and empirical studies, higher education researchers consider student–faculty interaction an important factor influencing undergraduate student growth. Specifically, Astin (1984), Tinto (1993) and Kuh (1995) defined student–faculty interaction as a student behavioural indicator of students' integration and engagement in their own college structure. This concept has been investigated through empirical research, which showed positive relationships between student–faculty interaction and various student outcomes (Berger & Milem, 2000; Cabrera, Colbeck, & Terenzini, 2001; Kim & Sax, 2009, 2011; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006; Pascarella, 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). However, this research usually applies quantitative data and failed to describe deeply the interactive experiences of student–faculty.</p> <p>To increase the quality of undergraduate education, faculty members are considered as an overriding factor based on their unique position to offer academic training and provide the social support needed to thrive in college (Eagan, Tanya, Hurtado, & Gasiewski, 2012). After entering college, students naturally meet and associate with the faculty for at least four years, encountering their faculty members everywhere on campus. Therefore, the influence of faculty needs to be considered more broadly during every instance of contact with students, and not be restricted to teaching activities such as course design or types of teaching methods used in the classroom (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Kim & Sax, 2009, 2011).</p> <p>Beyond formal classroom instruction, the faculty is expected to play a pivotal role as the primary agent of socialisation in college through contact with undergraduate students (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Fuentes, Alvarado, Berdan, & DeAngelo, 2014; Pascarella, 1980). Many quantitative studies conducted in the Western context assume that students meet the faculty to some degree, although most Korean students concentrate on formal rather than informal curricular activities including student–faculty interaction (Choi & Rhee, 2014; Kim, 2005). Taken together, the most pressing issue in South Korea is an insufficient amount of interaction between students and faculty, not the positive influence thereof. Therefore, many are seeking ways to spur students to meet with their faculty more often. According to Choi et al. (2016), most students report rarely having conversations with their professors about topics such as academic affairs, course contents or career plans outside the classroom.</p> <p>Despite its significance, prior research has had little concern for the causes of the low incidence of student–faculty interaction in South Korea or why Korean college students are unwilling to interact with their faculty. Thus far, unfortunately, most Korean HEIs have merely rehashed student management programmes by allocating an academic advisor to individual students or recommending that the faculty keep their office hours on campus without a deeper understanding of student–faculty interaction (Choi & Cho, 2014).</p> <p>Considering the low level of student–faculty interaction in Korea, identifying what matters to college students in terms of meeting with faculty is a good start to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. Furthermore, this could be a first step towards improving the quality of Korean higher education. The findings of this study will provide insight for college administrators and policymakers into how to map strategies to increase student–faculty interactions and implement changes that may increase students' motivation. With the increasing awareness of its significance, this study aims to improve understanding of student–faculty interaction by analysing and categorising the factors preventing students from making efforts to meet with faculty. The research is based on students' statements of their experiences and opinions. To this end, a concept mapping method was used to discover intervening factors. The concept mapping process enables participants to describe their perceptions in structured interviews and quantifies the results of these interviews (Kane & Trochim, 2007).</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-3">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0148541207-4">Issues pertaining to student–faculty interaction outside the classroom in Korea</hd> <p>Student–faculty interaction outside the classroom has received much attention from higher education researchers. From the theoretical standpoint of integrationists such as Astin (1984) and Tinto (1993), student–faculty interaction is defined as student behaviour that indicates how successfully he/she integrates or engages with the academic and social structure of his/her own college or university. In fact, aspects of successful academic and social integration in college depend on satisfactory daily interaction with faculty (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). An extensive body of empirical research continuously reports the significant and positive effects of student–faculty interaction on various student outcomes (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2006; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Specifically, Pascarella (1980) reviewed the literature on student–faculty interaction and student outcomes (i.e., career plans, persistence, academic achievement, personal development, satisfaction with college and educational aspirations), finding a positive relationship between them. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found similar results through synthesising a large volume of research from the 1980s to mid‐2000s, confirming that the frequency and quality of interaction with faculty influenced various student outcomes. Lately, some researchers have attempted to determine which students benefit more from student–faculty interaction by analysing conditional effects related to gender, race and academic discipline beyond general effects (Cole & Griffin, 2013; Kim & Sax, 2009, 2011).</p> <p>However, these are the results of quantitative studies conducted in Western contexts using survey questionnaires, most of which were based on the assumption that students are expected to meet their faculty. Unfortunately, this is not the case for college education in Korea. In South Korea, student–faculty interaction is beginning to receive academic attention comparatively late. Furthermore, only a few studies employ quantitative analysis models, using student–faculty interaction as an independent variable in a statistical model to determine the influence thereof on student development (Choi & Rhee, 2014; Choi et al., 2016; Kim, 2005; Kim & Rhee, 2003; Rhee & Choi, 2008). A recent, larger‐scale study by Choi et al. (2016) surveyed approximately 42,230 students annually from more than 65 Korean four‐year colleges and universities to analyse changes in several important items. According to their results, the mean of these five items, indicating the frequency of student‐faculty interaction, was less than 2 (<emph>M</emph> = 1.71) on a four‐point scale. This indicates a low level of interaction with faculty compared to the findings of studies in Western countries (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Kuh, 1995; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Terenzini & Wright, 1987), even when allowing for differences in measurement and sample size. Prior Korean research interpreted the results with cultural differences between Korean and Western students. Under the Confucian cultural milieu, Korean students are traditionally more passive and obedient to faculty rather than interact with them on the same level (Choi & Rhee, 2014; Park & Choi, 2014). Another major concern was time and spaces. Most Korean students commute to college despite long distances, so students find it difficult to stay on campus to spend enough time with the faculty (Choi et al., 2016). In short, Korean college students have very limited interaction with faculty outside the classroom.</p> <p>One possible explanation for this phenomenon is Korea's collectivistic culture. In a collectivistic culture such as that in South Korea, barriers that reflect cultural characteristics such as hierarchical relationships between professors and students must be understood. Second, as the Korean economy has now matured, the importance of providing industrial manpower has greatly diminished (Shin & Cummings, 2010). Universities are also expecting professors to enhance their international competitiveness through research, and the role of education and student guidance is relatively less stressed. Although HEIs have shifted their priority, college students have been on the other side of the fence. Korean tertiary enrolment remains high based on the expectation of getting a job; however, an oversupply of college graduates has become a cause of unemployment and economic depression. Therefore, college students looking forward to entering the job market tend to be disappointed when the economic and higher educational situations are not supportive and their faculty do not know or care about students' careers after graduation.</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-5">Limited awareness of why students are unwilling to interact with their faculty</hd> <p>According to Eagan et al. (2012), the lack of interaction with faculty has been explained in terms of faculty accessibility on two dimensions: physical and psychological. Physical accessibility is the tangible availability of faculty and the possibility of a students' success when attempting to meet with faculty. Several studies suggested examples of the lack of the physical accessibility of faculty, including their lack of availability during office hours (Bae, Kang, & Hong, 2016; Buttner, 2004) and the fact that some remain in separate locations such as offices or laboratories (Cotten & Wilson, 2006). Psychological accessibility refers to the attitudes and values of faculty, which is indicated by how genuinely they care about personal interaction with students. The manner in which a faculty member signals his/her accessibility and willingness to interact with students is commonly cited as a cause of the lack of student–faculty interaction. For instance, teaching practices and verbal expressions in class could allude to the accessibility of a particular instructor. In other words, an approachable attitude or sense of humour during class creates a major incentive for students to meet with an instructor. Recognising that an instructor has time constraints or appears rushed also makes students feel unimportant and less enthusiastic about contacting faculty (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Cox et al., 2010; Eagan et al., 2012). However, these faculty characteristics do not fully explain the lack of interaction, and factors relevant to students should be focused on better understanding this phenomenon. Essentially, students are the main agent in student–faculty interactions, not the faculty, because they decide whether to contact faculty members and continue the relationship.</p> <p>Next, student‐level barriers that make student–faculty interaction difficult must be considered. Cotten and Wilson (2006) utilised nine focus groups to understand the lived experiences of student–faculty interaction. They reported that students with minimal interaction with faculty did not recognise the potential benefits of engaging with them. In addition, students were uncertain of whether the faculty member was receptive to conversation and therefore needed continuous encouragement. Cotten and Wilson (2006) reported that students are enthusiastic to interact with faculty, and are motivated by the benefits of course‐specific (gaining a higher grade or help with course assignments) and career‐related (internships or job opportunities) issues. Students also expressed the burden of not wanting to disappoint their professors or not meeting their expectations. They described this effort as costly and not stimulating to their intellectual interests. Other reasons such as awkwardness, having no reason to start a relationship or talk with faculty, and a feeling of intimidation by faculty were also cited in prior research (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Kuh et al., 2006; Vianden, 2006).</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-6">Current study</hd> <p>Although some studies attribute the lack of contact with faculty to certain factors, a shortage of research that explores why students seek or shun relationships with faculty remains, especially in the context of Korean higher education. To acquire knowledge in this area, a qualitative approach is more suitable for providing in‐depth and detailed information. While a quantitative method is able to reveal the amount of interaction and relationships with student outcomes, it does not explain why an instance of interaction between a student and the faculty member was initiated, or posit how the interaction can be enhanced. Such information can be described via a qualitative approach (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Tsui, 2000).</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-7">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0148541207-8">Participants</hd> <p>The focus groups lasted for about an hour each, depending upon the number of students in each group. A total of 21 students participated in the study, with groups ranging in size from 2 to 4 participants. The sample consisted of 21 college students; ages ranged from 20 to 25 years (<emph>M</emph> = 22.00), gender distribution is 15 by males and 6 by females, and students have a wide range of majors such as business administration, journalism, psychology, history, religious studies, mathematics, computer engineering, life science, electronic engineering and chemical engineering. To select a purposeful sample, we required South Korean college students who had personal interaction experience (e.g., academic counselling) with faculty members.</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-9">Data collection and sorting procedure</hd> <p>The present study used the concept mapping method to explore perceptions of faculty‐student interaction among college students. This method makes use of both qualitative interviews and quantitative analyses to explore participants' perceptions or experiences related to a topic (Trochim, 1989). This research was conducted in five steps. First, by reviewing previous research on faculty–student interactions (Astin, 1993; Kuh & Hu, 2001), the focus question was developed to investigate college students' perceptions of faculty–student interaction.</p> <p>The participants were recruited in two ways: (a) snowball sampling and (b) advertisements. We recruited 21 participants through snowball sampling and advertisement strategies. Face‐to‐face focus group interviews were conducted with 21 students. During the focus group interviews, which ranged from 50 to 60 min, participants were encouraged to speak freely about their experiences regarding the focus question. In this research, assuming that the level of experience may vary depending on the grade of the participants, the grade was considered as a standard for constituting a homogeneous group that promotes each other's thoughts. Since the subject of this study was interaction with professors, the students in the same department were excluded considering the confidentiality problem and participants' discomfort, and 2–4 small group interviews were conducted. Focus group questions were conducted by researchers based on previous studies, and started with a general question about experiences that were personally consulted or exchanged with professors after entering college and proceeded in a semi‐structured form. Students who responded that they were reluctant to meet professors or did not have interaction with professors were asked to explore the reasons through follow‐up questions and participants are encouraged to talk about the subject at the end of the interviews.</p> <p>After each interview, the principal investigator transcribed the recorded interviews and extracted all statements that could be considered as underlying reasons for the interaction difficulties with faculty. The 21 participants generated 150 statements about interaction difficulties with faculty. After all interviews were done, three experts worked to pare down these 150 statements, with a total of 45 unique and clear statements identified during this data reduction process. The principal investigator then sent the 45 cards including statements and asked the 21 participants to perform two 'structuring' tasks with the 45 statements (i.e., task‐sorting the cards and rating the statements). First, they were asked to group cards with similar meanings using the following rules: (a) all statements could not be put into a single category; (b) a single statement could not be put into its own separate group; (c) one statement could not be put into two groups; and (d) there cannot be any 'miscellaneous' groups. Secondly, they were asked to rate each of the 45 statements pertaining to factors intervening in student–faculty interaction in terms of its importance and its degree of similarity to their own experiences, using a seven‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from 1 (<emph>not important, not similar</emph>) to 7 (<emph>extremely important, extremely similar</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-10">Data analysis strategy</hd> <p>Concept maps were computed by means of multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS). Next, the statements on this map were divided into clusters using hierarchical cluster analysis (Kane & Trochim, 2007). The principal investigator reviewed the results of the initial number of dimensions and the cluster analysis based on previous research results. The principal investigator and the two participants who performed the sorting and evaluating tasks then reviewed the concept mapping results together (i.e., multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis) and engaged in labelling the dimensions and clusters until full agreement was reached.</p> <p>Text materials through interviews and open surveys are used to gather new information about participants' experiences or to explain or clarify results from existing quantitative data (Sproull, 1988). For example, qualitative data collected directly from participants, as in this study, can explain what students feel when interacting with professors, what expectations they have or what they find uncomfortable. These qualitative data can provide researchers with information to better understand the real world, but there are also limitations regarding the reliability and validity of analysis (Krippendorff, 1980; Seidel & Kelle, 1995). Although this concept mapping method was conducted with less than 30 participants, it included participants in the process of analysis to address the reliability and validity problems of existing qualitative studies, and suggests similarities in the judgements of participants by using statistical analysis methods such as multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis (Jackson & Trochim, 2002). In particular, an advantage of this study is that the data can be classified once more based on similarity, permitting researchers to prepare instruments that can exclude personal judgements and subjective errors as much as possible, and by statistically quantifying the similarity of classification, the generalisability of the interpretation of the results can be increased.</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-11">FINDINGS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0148541207-12">Multidimensional scaling analysis</hd> <p>A 45 × 45 binary square matrix was created from the 21 participants' responses. Values in the matrix were either 0 or 1, where a 1 indicates that the two statements were placed in the same pile. The number of dimensions was determined with a stress value. When two dimensions are chosen, the stress value is.25; with three dimensions, this value is.19, and with four dimensions, it is.12. In order to find the most appropriate number of dimensions, a scree test was conducted with decreasing stress values. In this study, the stress value is decreased abruptly with two dimensions, after which there were no more rapid decreases in the stress value. As a result of this, two dimensions appeared to be the most appropriate. In MDS, a low stress value implies that the input matrix data adequately fit a two‐dimensional assumption. Trochim (1989) noted that stress values in concept mapping research are likely to range between.205 and.365.</p> <p>The researchers examined all of the statements in terms of how they were distributed on both sides of the <emph>X</emph> and the <emph>Y</emph> axes (see Figure 1). First, the examination of the <emph>X</emph> axis revealed that emotional difficulties were located on the right side of the axis, while instrumental limits (e.g., time constraints, workloads) were located on the left side of the axis. Accordingly, the <emph>X</emph> axis was labelled 'emotional difficulties‐instrumental limits'. Next, the examination of the <emph>Y</emph> axis revealed that negative perceptions of faculty members' attitudes were distributed at the top, while negative perceptions about the consequences of student–faculty interactions were at the bottom. Therefore, the <emph>Y</emph> axis was labelled 'negative perceptions of faculty members' attitudes—negative perceptions about student–faculty interactions'.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/D85/01jan21/hequ12261-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="hequ12261-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Final clusters solution with statement points" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0148541207-14">Hierarchical cluster analysis</hd> <p>A hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's algorithm is a widely used method for dividing statements into clusters that are assumed to belong to similar concepts (Kane & Trochim, 2007). A four‐cluster solution offered the most substantive interpretation. The conceptual clusters in the two‐dimensional stress map used here were as follows: cluster 1, negative perceptions about a sense of distance from faculty (e.g., 'The relationship with the faculty feels hierarchical.' and 'I feel distanced from the faculty member.'); cluster 2, time constraints (e.g., 'The faculty is too busy and so cancelled the meeting.' and 'The faculty seems to be very busy carrying out numerous duties such as administrative tasks, and preparation tasks for classes and research.'); cluster 3, doubt about benefits of interaction (e.g., 'I think that the faculty member is able to advise me only about academic issues, and not about my career or employment prospects.' and 'I wonder whether the faculty member can give me the proper directions and advice.'); and cluster 4, a lack of necessity recognition (e.g., 'I do not feel the need to converse with the faculty member, as I can solve my problems by myself or with my peer students.' and 'Except for some interesting classes, I do not see the necessity to meet with the faculty member personally.') (see Table 1).</p> <p>1 TABLEStatements of each category</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Category</th><th align="left">Statement</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Cluster 1: Hierarchical relationship with the faculty member (n = 17)</td><td align="left">13. There is a fundamental difficulty with the faculty member</td></tr><tr><td align="left">40. It hurts when the faculty member shows an attitude of indifference</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. It is difficult for me to visit the faculty member without having a closer relationship.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10. I feel distance from the faculty member</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Bad images from the class make me reluctant to have one‐on‐one talks with the faculty member</td></tr><tr><td align="left">39. Depending on one's propensity, some faculty members welcome face‐to‐face meetings with students, but not all do</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7. The relationship with the faculty member feels hierarchical</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. It bothers me that I have to choose my words and behaviours cautiously so as not to incur the faculty member's disfavour</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11. The faculty member seems to consider research as his/her major work, while teaching or meeting students is regarded as ancillary</td></tr><tr><td align="left">18. There are some faculty members who do not like to meet students outside of the classroom</td></tr><tr><td align="left">38. It appears that the faculty member does not set a high value on face‐to‐face talks with students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">23. (even related to the course) Asking a question gives the negative impression that I've been goofing off</td></tr><tr><td align="left">37. During a meeting, some faculty members force their ideas on my career choices</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15. The faculty member appears to consider meeting with students (as) a burden</td></tr><tr><td align="left">24. I am afraid that talking with the faculty member may lead to an evaluation of my academic ability</td></tr><tr><td align="left">27. Some faculty members respond to students off the top of their heads</td></tr><tr><td align="left">31. During a meeting, I am usually scolded by the faculty member</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cluster 2: Time constraints (n = 9)</td><td align="left">43. The faculty member seems to be very busy carrying out many tasks, such as administrative work and preparation for classes and research</td></tr><tr><td align="left">42. There is a shortage of time for the limited number of faculty members as compared with the increased number of students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">44. Besides teaching, the faculty member appears to be very busy with a lot of other work, such as an overseas business trip</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14. I feel uncomfortable contacting the faculty member directly to coordinate schedules</td></tr><tr><td align="left">29. Some faculty members do not offer enough office hours for meetings with students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12. My time between classes conflicts with the faculty member's office hours</td></tr><tr><td align="left">30. I do not know when the faculty member is available (office hours)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6. There are conflicts when attempting to set up a meeting time because I have a busy schedule</td></tr><tr><td align="left">26. The faculty member is too busy and so cancelled the meeting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cluster 3: Doubt about (academic, personal and career) benefits of interaction (n = 12)</td><td align="left">35. One professor cannot possibly know every subject in an academic field</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9. I wonder that a faculty member can give me proper directions and advice</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8. I wonder that the faculty member can sympathise with the content I will bring to a meeting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17. I am not sure if I can talk with the faculty member about my personal problems</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. There is some pressure for me to prepare subjects of conversation before a face‐to‐face meeting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">22. It is difficult to visit the faculty member when nothing is decided</td></tr><tr><td align="left">20. I think that the faculty member is able to advise me only about academic issues and not about my career plans</td></tr><tr><td align="left">19. There is a lack of mutual understanding between students and the faculty members about each other's backgrounds (main concern, recent activities, and so on)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">21. I have doubts about the benefits of interaction with the faculty member</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16. It is onerous, because the faculty member is an influential person with regard to my future life and career</td></tr><tr><td align="left">41. Other students around me talk behind my back about my high level of (or frequent) interaction with the faculty member</td></tr><tr><td align="left">45. During the meeting, the faculty member pointed out trivial matters like my appearance</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cluster 4: A lack of necessity recognition (n = 6)</td><td align="left">36. Except for some interesting classes, I do not see the necessity to meet with the faculty member personally</td></tr><tr><td align="left">34. It is more efficient to discuss academic affairs, course recommendations, or ABEEK with upperclassmen rather than the faculty member</td></tr><tr><td align="left">28. I do not feel the need to converse with the faculty member, because I can solve my problems by myself or with my peer students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">33. Students who earn lower grades usually do not have a keen interest in their major field, so the need for personal contact with the faculty member does not arise</td></tr><tr><td align="left">32. There is nothing to talk about with the faculty member, because the outcome with lower grades is fixed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">25. People important to me have a negative view of associating with faculty members</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Several participants provided an elaboration of the four clusters, as evidenced by the following sets of comments:</p> <p>Cluster 1: Hierarchical relationship with the faculty member</p> <p>I think there is a problem with the authoritative manner of professors. When I meet a professor, I feel like I should be scrupulous in my conduct. I was diffident about saying ... The images of professors matter. It is necessary for a professor to behave with some dignity, but it is more important to give some impression that they are willing to interact with us.</p> <p>Cluster 2: Time constraint</p> <p>Professors have their research and their teaching load, and they also have to do some administrative work ... I heard them whine about their work burden ... so I don't think they have time to talk with us.</p> <p>Cluster 3: Doubt about (academic, personal and career) benefits of interaction</p> <p>In my opinion, though professors are masters in their academic fields, I don't think they know much about other things ... For instance, they have never experienced a workplace. You know, there are few students interested in being a scholar or a seeker of truth. I think most students are more curious about practical issues like actual work duties. There is a very distinct difference between the two types.</p> <p>Cluster 4: A lack of necessity recognition</p> <p>When I was a freshman, I had no idea about how I should lay out my plans with a professor ... The idea came to my mind after I was discharged from the military service ... You know ... college students are usually busy preparing for a lot of outside activities for employment. So most senior students around me concentrate on preparing for classes or other things rather visiting a professor outside of class.</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-15">Importance and experience similarity ratings</hd> <p>The average rating of the importance of each cluster was calculated by taking the average rating of the importance and the similarity to their own experiences as provided by the participants when they responded to the statements within each cluster (see Table 2).</p> <p>2 TABLEDescriptive statistics of the rated importance and similarity level for each category</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Cluster category</th><th align="left">Importance</th><th align="left">Similarity</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Hierarchical relationship with the faculty member</td><td align="char" char=".">3.21</td><td align="char" char=".">.68</td><td align="char" char=".">2.63</td><td align="char" char=".">.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Time constraints</td><td align="char" char=".">2.94</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=".">2.30</td><td align="char" char=".">.68</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Doubt about (academic, personal and career) benefits of interaction</td><td align="char" char=".">3.26</td><td align="char" char=".">.57</td><td align="char" char=".">2.96</td><td align="char" char=".">.62</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lack of recognition of the necessity for contact</td><td align="char" char=".">3.23</td><td align="char" char=".">.86</td><td align="char" char=".">2.97</td><td align="char" char=".">.65</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note</p> <p>2 Statements within each category were rated for importance on a five‐point Likert‐type scale in which 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important.</p> <p>These results suggest that 'doubt about benefits of interaction' was the most important cluster (important rating average = 3.26). 'Time constraints' had the lowest cluster average importance rating among all clusters (important rating average = 2.94). Participants rated the 'lack of necessity recognition' cluster as the cluster most similar to their own experiences (similarity rating average = 2.97). Participants rated 'time constraints' as the cluster least similar to their own experiences (similarity rating average = 2.3).</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-16">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>In general, prior studies have demonstrated that student–faculty interaction contributes to student development. Across the world, however, college students reported there are barriers preventing interaction with faculty; in Korea, students rarely meet faculty during college years. This study contains four categories which Korean students considered as hindrance to the interaction, and the result can reveal international universality and Korean distinctiveness simultaneously in the comparison with the Western.</p> <p>First, Korean college students indicate a hierarchical relationship with faculty members as one of the barriers restricting interactions with faculty. This aligns at least partially with the results of prior research: simple discomfort, intimidation by faculty and the burden of pleasing faculty all emerged as factors in prior study results (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Cox et al., 2010; Eagan et al., 2012) and were confirmed with the Korean college students in this study. However, Korean students also described their mental distance using the terms 'hierarchical' and to 'be scolded', which are not commonly found in Western literature. This may indicate that Korea's collectivistic culture, which regards looking up to instructors as a virtue, prizes social distance above holding a conversation with them. Indeed, Korean students have been habituated to this dynamic since their elementary and secondary school education. Under the Confucian philosophy which places value on absolute obedience to elders including teachers, teaching and learning style in Korean university is also naturally based on hierarchical rules represented by the faculty figure who is highly respected and controls the classroom (Ferguson, 2001; Yum, 1988). In short, Korean undergraduates are more familiar with the authoritative faculty figure, so the interaction with the faculty could be more restrained than the Western students. Second, study participants indicated that time constraints on both faculty and students had both physical and psychological effects with regard to interactions. In other words, students reported not only that faculty members were not available during office hours or on campus, but also that faculty appeared to be very busy and burdened by the many tasks they must do. In addition, students also expressed that navigating their own lack of time, caused by classes and other obligations, was more important than meeting faculty. Third, Korean students' cluster of doubt about the academic, personal and career benefits of interaction was also somewhat different from the results of prior studies. This cluster was more related to uncertainty regarding the chance of receiving career information from the faculty, whereas some Western students were particularly motivated by career‐related benefits such as internships and job opportunities (Cotten & Wilson, 2006). Lastly, Korean college students do not recognise the necessity of interaction with faculty. Though this also emerged in prior research (Cotten & Wilson, 2006), its cause remains unknown. With regard to this finding, some Korean students suggested the cultural milieu and the fixed curriculum with lower grades as factors.</p> <p>As mentioned above, four categories were evaluated with regard to the degree of importance and the level of similarity with the students' experiences. Based on the importance and similarity results of each category, three recommendations are provided, as follows. First, although time constraints were cited as hampering active interaction between college students and faculty members (Buttner, 2004; Cotten & Wilson, 2006), the Korean students in this study did not confirm the importance of this cluster in their interactions with faculty. Instead, they expressed doubt about the benefits of interaction and a lack of recognition of the necessity of such meetings. Given the relatively low level of subjective importance and student experience, time constraints were not the chief reason for students' rare contact with faculty inside and outside of classrooms in South Korea. This also indicates that the physical situation (in this study, time constraints) is necessary but insufficient to explain the occurring mechanism of student–faculty interactions in college. It can therefore be inferred that an imprudent adaptation in South Korea of a system such as assigning a supervisor for life or establishing firm office hours might be less effective than expected. Beyond simply making student–faculty interaction an obligation for students and faculty, in order to increase both the occurrence and the benefits of such interaction, college administrators and staff must try to uncover ways in which both stakeholders consider the interaction to be worthy of time and attention.</p> <p>Second, students pointed out their doubts about the academic, personal and career benefits of interaction as the most significant cause for apathetic interactions. In fact, students cast doubt on the advantages of regular interactions with faculty. This especially appears to be the case with regard to finding a job and planning a career. As shown in some student interview records, students generally think they will not receive valuable and/or useful information about employment from their faculty contacts. They used phrases such as 'old stories' or stated that the faculty member 'does not know much about the job market', and that faculty are 'masters in their academic fields' to indicate disappointment with the paltry or impractical information imparted by faculty members. This is also reflected in their responses, with relatively high averages on their experiences with doubt about the academic, personal and career benefits of interaction. Although most candidates enrol in colleges or universities because of the past reputation of Korean HEIs as manpower resources, the HEI's function has somewhat diminished with the economic recession. Considering the participants in this study attend one of the top‐tier universities in South Korea, this may indicate a demand for a shift in the faculty role in Korea. In fact, faculty are currently required not only to concentrate on teaching in their area of expertise or on their academic tasks, but also to provide vocational guidance. Thus, faculty and HEIs need to pay more attention to students' employment issues earlier in the educational experience so that students feel that they can receive full support for their careers through their faculty and relevant agencies while in college.</p> <p>Third, students' lack of any recognition for the necessity of interaction is rated as very important and comprised the most commonly experienced item in this study. This may play a central role in developing student–faculty interaction. This result is consistent with the qualitative research results of Cotten and Wilson (2006), who found that students reported that they have no reason to interact with their faculty at all. Therefore, it is urgent that researchers and college administrators seek ways to make students aware of the potential benefits of interacting with faculty, such as academic and personal development (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). In addition, total indifference may be associated with psychological motivation or level of adaptation to college life, which may in turn be rooted in student subcultures (Kim & Sax, 2011). In designing the contents of freshmen seminars and student support programmes, college administrators and staff should place further emphasis on convincing college students of the great advantages offered by student–faculty interactions.</p> <p>Next, the theoretical implications of this study are as follows. In the existing higher education theory and studies, student–teacher interactions have a positive effect on students' growth, academic achievement and adaptation (Lau, 2003; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). However, most of the studies conducted so far have been conducted in Western countries, and there has been insufficient research on personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender) that affect student–teacher interaction. Some studies have raised the problem of individual differences that may exist between student–teacher interactions, and mentioned the limitations of existing theories (Kim, 2006; Kim & Sax, 2009). Pascarella (2006) argued that research on objects with various backgrounds would promote the development of higher education research. The results of this study provide theoretical implications that the study of higher education needs to consider more culture and contextual factors, and it is expected that it will lead to the expansion of various studies considering cultural background. Based on this, it is necessary to expand practical concerns and studies on how administrators and professors of Western universities will communicate efficiently with Asian students. To be specific, in Asian cultures with Confucian values, academic excellence is expected for the sake of family honour even among Asian Americans. Even later, decisions about their careers tend to be acceptable to their family relations by choosing career paths such as medicine, engineering or business (Dundes, Cho, & Kwak, 2009). Recognising the cultural variation among undergraduates could be the first step to remove any doubts about the benefits of interaction. With this awareness, faculty could help students to forge their own path based on individual intellectual interests and provide more practical information on their academic, personal and career problems. Finally, based on the results of this study, the implications of university education policy are as follows. Both the Western and Korean college students are in doubt about the necessity of building relationships with the faculty, in other words, students are not fully aware of worthy of student–faculty interaction. Based on the result of this study, the relationship between students and professors needs to be recognised from the perspective of the consumer‐provider, focusing on what college students believe to be their own best interests in course‐ and career‐related matters (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Wijaya Mulya, 2019). University administrators should develop models and establish guidelines to strengthen the partnership between professors and students (i.e., creating learning community with students, introducing various career path from the graduates of each department, providing the latest and practical information on employment and the quality of jobs, and so on), and support the faculty to apply them through a series of seminars. In this process, we must take account of burden on faculty from additional task consuming substantial time and energy. The faculty mentor system, for instance, can be an effective support system for faculty who need to learn that personal interest and friendly interactions which communicate a broad range of issues (e.g., personal life, family or friend issues, campus adaptiveness, careers) having a greater impact than specific academic topics or requirements (Cho, Shin, & Kim, 2018; Delello et al., 2014). Given their impact on student development, student‐faculty interaction, the financial incentive for faculty should also be considered.</p> <p>In addition, university administrators need to ensure that students' experience with faculty turns out to be positive. Many colleges and universities are likely to find it difficult to increase the number of student participants, simply because students are not willing to have out‐of‐classroom interaction with their faculty. Nevertheless, faculty members are a critical foundation to students' growth by providing academic and social support in college. Therefore, administrators should endeavour to investigate and publicise the positive effects of student–faculty interaction and encourage student to meet the faculty actively during college.</p> <hd id="AN0148541207-17">LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS</hd> <p>These findings have several limitations. First, this study was carried out at one of the most prestigious universities in South Korea, so it is possible that professors are more used to doing research than guiding students through the process of appointment and evaluation. Specifically, it is necessary to be cautious when generalising the results of this study, because there is a significant difference in faculty's participation in student education and support depending on institution size, type of school (private or public) and mission (teaching‐oriented/research‐oriented). Therefore, these research results should be further tested for external validity among a large, more representative college student sample. Second, in South Korea, hierarchically determined manners are still considered very important due to the collectivist culture of the country; therefore, students may have difficulty when attempting to interact comfortably with professors. As noted above, these cultural factors need to be taken into account when interpreting this study and applying the results to other cultures. Third, this research is based on college student self‐reports. Retrospective recall can sometimes result in omitting important aspects or nuances of experiences because people recreate the memory on the basis of other memories and/or the social demands of the interview situation. Finally, this study collected data through focus group interviews, and the group dynamics, peer pressure to give similar answers to the moderator's questions and social desirability among participants may have influenced the data collection process (Daley, 2013). In those cases, important but relatively extreme opinions are not captured and the data may be biased (Adler, Salanterä, & Zumstein‐Shaha, 2019). Also, since researchers advertised the research and recruited students who were willing to participate, students who were active in school life and interested in the subject may have participated. Therefore, in the follow‐up study, it is necessary to draw more diverse personal experiences through individual interviews.</p> <ref id="AN0148541207-18"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The ACE Project, initiated in 2010, is a funding programme of the Korean government. It focuses on developing excellence in undergraduate education. Thus far, 32 four‐year universities (2014–2016) and newly selected 10 four‐year universities have received about US $1.87 million (Korean Ministry of Education, 2017).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Funding information This Research was supported by the Korea Nazarene University Research Grants in 2020</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0148541207-19"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adler, K., Salanterä, S., & Zumstein‐Shaha, M. (2019). Focus group interviews in child, youth, and parent research: An integrative literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Method, 18, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919887274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297 – 308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bae, S. H., Kang, M. S., & Hong, J. I. (2016). A case study of the development of student–faculty interaction and campus culture to promote interactions. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 24 (3), 21 – 49. https://doi.org/10.18230/tjye.2016.24.3.21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bae, S. H., Ra, E. J., & Han, S. I. (2017). Effects of the ACE project on student engagement: An investigation of supportive environment, student–faculty interaction, higher‐order learning, and quantity of learning. Korean Journal of Educational Administration, 35 (1), 379 – 410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (2000). Organizational behavior in higher education and student outcomes. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XV, pp. 268 – 338). New York, NY : Agathon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Buttner, E. H. (2004). How do we 'dis' student?: A model of (dis)respectful business instructor behavior. Journal of Management Education, 28 (3), 319 – 334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Developing performance indicators for assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning. Research in Higher Education, 42 (3), 327 – 352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cho, H. Y., Shin, J. Y., & Kim, K. H. (2018). Exploring implications for professor–student counseling program implementation at universities: Focusing on participants experiences in the case of professor‐student counseling manual development at H University. Korean Education Inquiry, 36 (3), 107 – 132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, B. K., & Cho, S. H. (2014). The analysis of change in college students' interaction with faculty and peer students and differences in self‐determination motivation. Korean Journal of Education Research, 52 (3), 29 – 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, B. K., & Rhee, B. S. (2014). The influences of student engagement, institutional mission, and cooperative learning climate on the generic competency development of Korean undergraduate students. Higher Education, 67 (1), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐013‐9637‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, J. Y., Kim, E., Choi, B. K., Kim, M., Yu, H., Lee, G., ... Kim, Y. (2016). Strategic planning for the advancement of the teaching‐learning quality in higher education (Ⅳ). Jincheon County, South Korea : Korean Educational Development Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, J. Y., Lee, J. M., Jeong, J. C., & Seong, T. J. (2007). A study on the quality of Korean universities (1). Jincheon County, South Korea : Korean Educational Development Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole, D., & Griffin, K. A. (2013). Advancing the study of student‐faculty interaction: A focus on diverse students and faculty. In M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 28). Dordrecht, the Netherlands : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student–faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants. Higher Education, 51 (4), 487 – 519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐004‐1705‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Terenzini, P. T., Reason, R. D., Lutovsky Quaye, B. R. (2010). Pedagogical signals of faculty approachability: Factors shaping faculty–student interaction outside the classroom. Research in Higher Education, 51 (8), 768 – 788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162‐010‐9178‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daley, A. M. (2013). Adolescent‐friendly remedies for the challenges of focus group research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 35, 1043 – 1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945913483881</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delello, J. A., McWhorter, R. R., Marmion, S. L., Camp, K. M., Neel, J., Everling, K. M., & Marzilli, C. (2014). The life of a professor: Stress and coping. Polymath, 4 (1), 39 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dundes, L., Cho, E., & Kwak, S. (2009). The duty to succeed: Honor versus happiness in college and career choices of East Asian students in the United States. Pastoral Care in Education, 27 (2), 135 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643940902898960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagan, M. K., Tanya, F., Hurtado, S., & Gasiewski, J. (2012, June). Faculty accessibility cues: Opening the doors to classroom communications. New Orleans, LA : Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, M. R. (2001). Teaching and learning inside the Korean culture. International Educator, 10 (2), 16 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuentes, M. V., Alvarado, A. R., Berdan, J., & DeAngelo, L. (2014). Mentorship matters: Does early faculty contact lead to quality faculty interaction? Research in Higher Education, 55 (3), 288 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162‐013‐9307‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open‐ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 307 – 336. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442802237114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, A., & Rhee, B. (2003). An analytic study of identifying personal and institutional influences on the perceived development of core competencies of college students. The Journal of Korean Education, 30 (1), 367 – 392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, E. (2005). Effects of student–faculty interaction on college student outcomes and development. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 19 (4), 877 – 895.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. K. (2006). Student–faculty interaction in college: Examining its causalities, predictors, and racial differences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles, CA : UCLA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y., & Sax, L. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first‐generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50 (5), 437 – 459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162‐009‐9127‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y., & Sax, L. (2011). Are the effects of student–faculty interaction dependent on academic major? An examination using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 52 (6), 589 – 615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162‐010‐9209‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis an introduction to its methodology. London, UK : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out‐of‐class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 123 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1995.11774770</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). Learning productivity at research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 72 (1), 1 – 28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Commissioned report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialogue on student success.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124 (1), 126 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2017). Education at a glance 2017: OECD indicators. Paris, France : OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag‐2017‐en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. High Education, 68, 749 – 771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐014‐9742‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student–faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50 (4), 545 – 595. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050004545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascarella, E. T. (1985). Students' affective development within the college environment. Journal of Higher Education, 56 (6), 640 – 663. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal of College Student Development, 47 (5), 508 – 520. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhee, B. S., & Choi, J. (2008). Analyzing influences on the perceived development of core competencies of college students: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Korean Education, 35 (2), 243 – 266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidel, J., & Kelle, U. (1995). Different functions of coding in the analysis of textual data. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer‐dided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods, and practice (pp. 52 – 61). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85 (2), 581 – 594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192‐010‐0236‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sproull, N. L. (1988). Handbook of research methods. Metuchen, NJ : Scarecrow Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terenzini, P., & Wright, T. (1987). Influences on students' academic growth during four years of college. Research in Higher Education, 26, 161 – 179. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and curse of student attrition. Chicago, IL : The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trochim, W. M. K. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Panning, 12, 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149‐7189(89)90016‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsui, L. (2000). Effects of campus culture on students critical thinking. Review of Higher Education, 23 (4), 421 – 441. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46 (2), 153 – 184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162‐004‐1598‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vianden, J. (2006). "I don't need any help": What first year college men say about interacting with faculty outside of the classroom (doctoral dissertation). Bloomington, IN : Indiana University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wijaya Mulya, T. (2019). Contesting the neoliberalisation of higher education through student–faculty partnership. International Journal for Academic Development, 24 (1), 86 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1520110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communications Monographs, 55 (4), 374 – 388. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376178</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bo Keum Choi and Min Sun Kim</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1284896
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Student-Faculty Interaction beyond the Formal Curriculum in South Korea
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Choi%2C+Bo+Keum%22">Choi, Bo Keum</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7113-1508">0000-0001-7113-1508</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kim%2C+Min+Sun%22">Kim, Min Sun</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3149-6435">0000-0003-3149-6435</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education+Quarterly%22"><i>Higher Education Quarterly</i></searchLink>. Jan 2021 75(1):35-50.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time%22">Time</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Power+Structure%22">Power Structure</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22South+Korea%22">South Korea</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/hequ.12261
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0951-5224
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this study was to identify and categorise factors that hinder Korean college student-faculty interaction. Twenty-one college students who had advising experience with faculty were interviewed. Concept mapping was used to collect, organise and interpret qualitative data through quantitative techniques. These factors were recorded on index cards, and 21 participants returned and sorted these statements into self-defined, conceptually homogeneous categories. As a result, 45 common factors were elicited and reliably organised into four clusters, with hierarchical relationship with the faculty member (Cluster 1), time constraints (Cluster 2), doubt about (academic, personal and career) benefits of interaction (Cluster 3) and a lack of recognition of necessity (Cluster 4). According to the ratings, the most important cluster was 'doubt about benefits of interaction', and participants rated the 'lack of recognition of necessity' as the cluster most similar to their own experiences.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1284896
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1284896
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/hequ.12261
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 35
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Power Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: South Korea
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Student-Faculty Interaction beyond the Formal Curriculum in South Korea
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Choi, Bo Keum
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kim, Min Sun
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0951-5224
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 75
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1