A Qualitative Study on Steering of Education Accreditation: With Case Study on Korean Medicine Education

Article information

J Korean Med. 2019;40(3):21-34

Publication date (electronic) : 2019 September 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.13048/jkm.19025

Dongin Seo ¹

, Sangwoo Shin ²^,

¹Seoul National University

²Institute of Korean Medicine Education and Evaluation

Correspondence to: 신상우(한국한의학교육평가원), Tel: +82-2-2659-1141, Fax: +82-2-2659-1142, E-mail: swshin@swshin.com

Received 2019 July 17; Revised 2019 August 5; Accepted 2019 August 6.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this article is to develop steering of program accreditation system in Korean Medicine Education through meta-evaluation. For this study, the subjects of our research were categorized as the accreditation criteria and system, results and effects, tasks for improvement on Korean Medicine Education.

Methods

We conducted Focus Group Interview on 102 full-time professors with experience of participating on accreditation of Korean Medicine Education from 12 college of Korean Medicine Education and we analyzed it by thematic analysis.

Results

The accreditation criteria and program evaluation system of Korean Medicine were listed as ‘Confusion about the goals of program evaluation’, ‘High hurdles on accreditation’, ‘obsession to success cases’, ‘Small college complaints about applying the same criteria’, ‘Dilemma of quantitative and qualitative evaluation’. The results and effects of program evaluation in Korean Medicine Education were listed as ‘Establishment of base infrastructure for basic medical education’, ‘Benchmarking and exchanging opinions through evaluation certification’, ‘Resistance to documents and document-based evaluation’, and ‘Double-sided of evaluation certification’. As for the tasks for further improvement, the following list is suggested. ‘Actively promote evaluation certification’, ‘Simplification and standardization of forms’, ‘Requesting for activating about Evaluation committee’, ‘Need for consulting before regular evaluation’.

Conclusion

It is necessary to upgrade the accreditation system and make efforts to improve the issues discovered for better Korean Medicine Education.

Keywords: Program Evaluation; Korean Medicine Education; Program Evaluation and Accreditation System; Korean Medicine Program

Table 1

information of participant

Table 2

Main Question for interview

References

1. Anderson SB, Ball S, Murphy RT. Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation: Concept and Techniques for Evaluating Education and training Programs San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1975.

2. Choi GJ. The Study of the Academic Discipline Evaluation Systems among the independent non-governmental organizations. The Journal of Politics of Education 2011;18(1):111–141.

3. Institute of Korean Medicine Education and Evaluation. The guide of Korean Medicine Program Evaluation for University 2ndth ed. 2018.

4. Sim SB, Kwon JH, Kim HW, Hong JW, Shin SW. Student Satisfaction Study of Clinical Skills Training in Korean Medical Education. Journal of Korean Medicine 2013;34(3):37–53.

5. Kwon SW, Shin SW, Lim BM. A Survey of Students’ Satisfaction with Education in Traditional Korean Medicine. Journal of Korean Medicine 2012;33:1–11.

6. Cha HY, Kim NH, Hong JW, Shin SW. Evaluation of the Implementation of Problem-Based Learning in Korean Medical Education. 2012;26(3):351–359.

7. Cho CS. Student Satisfaction Study and Interrater Comparative Study on Patient-Physician Interaction Score of Clinical Performance Examination in Korean Medical Education. Korean Journal of Oriental Physiology & Pathology 2015;29(2):152–159.

8. Cho HW, Hwang EH, Shin BC, Sul JU, Hong JW, Shin SW, et al. The Analysis of Satisfaction with Clinical Training and the Related Factors - Especially in Oriental Rehabilitation Medicine. The Journal of Oriental Medical Preventive 2012;16(2):1–15.

9. Kwak JS. A Qualitative Study on Introduction and Steering of Education Accreditation: With Case Studies on Engineering Education Accreditation and Business Education Accreditation. Journal of Educational Evaluation 2011;24(3):567–593.

10. Yoon TR. Qualitative Research for Culture and History Seoul, Arche: 2004.

11. Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research Sage publications; 1996. p. 16.

12. Merriam SB. Qualitative case study research. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation 2009;:39–54.

13. Aronson J. A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The qualitative report 1995;2(1):1–3.

14. Kwon KW. Handbook for Evaluation of University Seoul: Seongwonsa.

15. World Federation of Medical Education. Basic Medical Education WFME Global Standards For Quality Improvement (The 2015 Revision) 2015.

16. Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation. ASK 2019. http://www.kimee.or.kr/medical-education/criteria/ .

17. Ratcliff JL. Dynamic and Communicative Aspects of Quality Assurance. Quality in Higher Education 2003;9(2):117–131.

18. OECD/The World Bank. Cross-Border tertiary education: A way towards capacity development 2007.

19. Filippakou O, Tapper T. 2008;Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education: Contested Territories? Higher Education Quarterly 2008;62(1):84–100.

20. Kwak JS. A Research on the University Education Accreditation Based on Principles of Education. Journal of Educational Principles 2012;17(1):1–33.

21. Oh SS, Kang IS, Mang KH, Hong US. 2005;A Study on the Selection of the Professional Evaluation Institution in the Academic Field Ministry of Education; 2005.

Article information Continued

Table 1

information of participant

Name of Univ.	Interview time	Number of Participant (Appointed Professor)	Number of Participant (General Professor)
A University	2.5 hour	2	4
B University	2 hour	2	6
C University	1.5 hour	1	3
D University	2 hour	2	6
E University	1.5 hour	2	19
F University	2 hour	2	4
G University	1.5 hour	2	16
H University	2 hour	2	1
I University	2 hour	2	13
J University	2 hour	2	4
K University	1.5 hour	2	4
L University	-	-	1(written opinion)
Total	20.5	21	81

Table 2

Main Question for interview

Section	Main Questions
Accreditation criteria and system in Korean Medicine program	1. Application issues on Korean Medicine Program Accreditation in Korean Medicine Education field (1st cycle / 2nd cycle) 2. Additional suggestion on Accreditation criteria and system for Accreditation of Korean Medicine Program 3. Issues of procedure on Korean Medicine Program Accreditation
Effects on Accreditation of Korean Medicine Program	4. Positive and Negative Effects of Accreditation of Korean Medicine Program
Assignment for improvement on Korean Medicine Program & Accreditation system	5. Other opinions for improvement on Korean Medicine Program and Accreditation system