A Study on Implications for Domestic Higher Education through the Analysis of Overseas Higher Education Accreditation Systems: Focusing on Cases of the United States, Japan, Australia, and Hong Kong

Abstract

This study aims to derive implications for improving the domestic higher education accreditation system by analyzing key cases of overseas higher education accreditation systems. To this end, the accreditation systems of the United States, Japan, Australia, and Hong Kong were selected as the subjects of analysis, and a literature analysis was conducted focusing on each country's operational structure, evaluation cycle, performance management methods, linkage with financial support, methods of reflecting institutional diversity, and the relationship with internal quality assurance systems. The analysis results showed that the United States was characterized by a decentralized accreditation structure, performance-linked financial support, and an integrated performance management system utilizing the Baldrige model. Japan longitudinally monitored universities' autonomous performance management and quality improvement processes through medium-term goal-based evaluations, reflecting institutional characteristics and the context of academic fields in the evaluation. Australia established a differential quality assurance system considering institutional operating conditions and quality assurance capabilities, and structured its higher education standards framework around student learning experiences. Finally, Hong Kong supported institutions to gradually strengthen their internal quality assurance capabilities, starting from their current level of competence, through a tiered accreditation structure. Based on this, this study proposed the following implications for improving the domestic higher education evaluation and accreditation system: first, a transition from an input-indicator-centered evaluation to a learning outcome-centered evaluation; second, the establishment of a differentiated quality assurance system considering institutional conditions; third, the design of an inclusive accreditation structure allowing for phased entry; fourth, the development of customized evaluation models reflecting university types and academic fields; fifth, a transition to an evaluation system encompassing the entire student learning experience; sixth, the establishment of an improvement system where external evaluation and internal quality assurance mutually reinforce each other; and seventh, the design of a financial support linkage to support quality improvement.