Abstract
Using nationally representative data from the Korean Education Longitudinal Study, this study examines the sources of differences in academic achievement among South Korean youth, with special attention given to the role of socioeconomic background and region. With respect to socioeconomic background, results show that there are significant socioeconomic gaps in academic achievement even after controlling for the other variables. When it comes to region, results show that while there are significant achievement gaps across different regions, these regional achievement gaps are attributable to differences in family, student, and school characteristics across regions. Limitations, policy implications, and future research directions are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Prior to 1990, the Korean Ministry of Education (MOE) was called Moonkyoboo. In 2001, MOE was newly named the Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MEHRD). MEHRD was then renamed the Korean Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEST), in 2008.
- 2.
Free lower secondary education began in 1985 in remote island areas, but was not expanded to cover all cities across the nation until 2004 because of limited public resources (MEST 2009b). Despite the shortage of school facilities and resources, universal school participation was achieved for Korean children of primary and middle school ages by the beginning of the 1980s (Lee et al. 2010).
- 3.
CSAT has been one of the most important criteria used by Korean universities to select eligible applicants since 1994, when it was first introduced as a new form of the national-level college entrance examination. CSAT is administered at the national level every November.
- 4.
In Korea, private schools are to a large extent subsidized and controlled by the government.
References
Buchmann, C., & Hannum, E. (2001). Education and stratification in developing countries: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 77–102.
Byun, S. (2010). Does policy matter in shadow education spending? Revisiting the effects of the High School Equalization Policy in South Korea. Asian Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 83–96.
Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2010a). Educational inequality in South Korea: The widening socioeconomic gap in student achievement. Research in Sociology of Education, 17, 155–182.
Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2010b). Stratification in Korean higher education: Determinants of the college destinations of general high school graduates. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(1), 73–102 [In Korean].
Byun, S., Hwang, Y., & Kim, K. (2012). The effects of foreign language high school on admissions into prestigious colleges. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(3), 133–165 [In Korean].
Choi, E. (2004). Increasing of residential segregation and the differentiation of educational environment in Seoul. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Seoul National University [In Korean].
Chung, B. (1998). A study of the High School Leveling Policy in the Republic of Korea: Its genesis, implementation and reforms, 1974–1995. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii-Manoa.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171–200.
Ganzeboom, H. B. G., & Treiman, D. J. (1996). Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Social Science Research, 25, 201–239.
Hahn, D., Sung, B., & Gil, I. (2001). A study on the comparison between the effects of private tutoring versus in-school education on academic achievement of high school students. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(1), 33–54 [In Korean].
Ju, D. (1998). Student background and academic achievement: Does mother’s involvement in children’s education play a mediating role? Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 8(1), 41–56 [In Korean].
Kim, K. (1996). Determinants of academic achievement among South Korean middle school students. Journal of Research in Education, 8, 83–103 [In Korean].
Kim, K. (2000). Social capital within a family and children’s academic achievement. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 10(1), 21–40 [In Korean].
Kim, K. (2005). Educational gap in Korea and determinant factors. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(3), 1–27 [In Korean].
Kim, K., & Byun, S. (2006). Determinants of children’s educational transition in South Korea. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(4), 1–27 [In Korean].
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2003). The secondary school equalization policy in South Korea. https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kim/www/papers/Equalization5.doc
King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (2001). Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review, 95, 49–69.
Korea Education Development Institute. (2001). 2001 vision and task: Open world and flexible economy. Seoul: Author [In Korean].
Korea National Statistical Office. (2009). The survey of private education expenditures in 2008. Seoul: Korea National Statistical Office.
Lee, M. (2007). A discourse on education: An analysis of the attitude of middle-class Korean mothers on the education of their children. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(3), 159–181 [In Korean].
Lee, C. J., Kim, S., & Adams, D. (Eds.). (2010). Sixty years of Korean education. Seoul: SNU PRESS.
Ministry of Education. (1998). Fifty years of history of Korean education. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2007). Status of after-school program operation (January–June 2007). http://english.mest.go.kr/web/1709/en/board/enview.do?bbsId=259&pageSize=10¤tPage=2&boardSeq=1678&mode=view. Accessed 13 May 2013.
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2009a). Statistics for primary and secondary education. http://english.mest.go.kr/main.jsp?idx=0401020101. Accessed 13 May 2013.
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2009b). Introduction for secondary education. http://english.mest.go.kr/main.jsp?idx=0201040101. Accessed 13 May 2013.
Oh, G., & Kim, K. (2001). Effects on children’s academic achievement of family structure. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 101–123 [In Korean].
Park, B. (1988). The state, class and educational policy: A case study of South Korea’s High School Equalization Policy. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Park, H. (2007). Single parenthood and children’s reading performance in Asia. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 863–877.
Park, S., & Abelmann, N. (2004). Class and cosmopolitan striving: Mothers’ management of English education in South Korea. Anthropological Quarterly, 77(4), 645–672.
Park, H., Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2011). Parental involvement and students’ cognitive outcomes in Korea: Focusing on private tutoring. Sociology of Education, 84, 3–22.
Pong, S., Dronkers, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2003). Family policies and children’s school achievement in single- versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 681–699.
Raudenbush, W. S., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1 Description of the Variables Used in the Analyses
Variable name | Description | Min | Max | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | |||||
English (ninth grade) | Ninth grade raw English score in the KELS data set | 1 | 100 | 54 | 26.6 |
Math (ninth grade) | Ninth grade raw math score in the KELS data set | 0 | 100 | 51 | 26.2 |
Independent variables | |||||
Family background | |||||
SES | A standardized composite of parental education, occupational status, and family income | −4.9 | 3.7 | 0 | 1 |
Parental education (seventh grade) | Parents reported their highest level of education. Original responses were 1 = primary, 2 = middle school, 3 = high school, 4 = 2-year college, 5 = 4-year college, 6 = master’s degree, 7 = doctoral degree. The higher of the values between the maternal and paternal educational attainment scores was selected and transformed into years of education (e.g., 1 = 6, 7 = 20) | 6 | 20 | 13.3 | 2.5 |
Parents’ occupational status (seventh grade) | Parents reported their occupational status. The original responses were transformed into the International Socio-Economic Index (ISEI) of Occupational Status. The higher of the values between the maternal and paternal ISEI scores was selected | 11.3 | 88 | 47 | 13.3 |
Family income (seventh grade) | Parents indicated the amount of household income in 2005. The reported household income was then transformed by natural logarithms | 0 | 8.0 | 5.7 | 0.6 |
Family structure (seventh grade) | Parents indicated their marriage status. The original responses were married (coded 1), divorced (coded 2), separated (coded 3), and widowed (coded 4); responses were dummy-coded where 1 = Married (two parents), 0 = otherwise | 0 | 1 | 0.9 | 0.3 |
Number of siblings (ninth grade) | Parents indicated the number of children they have | 0 | 9 | 2.2 | 0.7 |
Parents’ educational expectations of child (7th grade) | Parents indicated their educational expectation for children. The original responses were 1 = primary, 2 = middle school, 3 = high school, 4 = 2-year college, 5 = 4-year college, 6 = master degree, 7 = doctorate degree, and they were transformed into years of education (e.g., 1 = 6, 7 = 20) | 9 | 20 | 17 | 2 |
Parents’ educational support (ninth grade) | A standardized composite of responses (on five-point Likert scales of agreement–disagreement) to the statements: “We try to make our home a place where our children can study,” “We check our children's studies and homework,” “We teach our children,” “We offer advice to our children regarding study methods,” “We help our children maintain their school performance,” and “We collect information regarding shadow education” | −3.2 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
Type of high school that parents plan for their children to attend (ninth grade) | Parents indicated the type of high school that they plan for their children to attend. Original responses were general high school (coded 1), vocational high school (coded 2), special high school (e.g., science, foreign language) (coded 3), art high school (coded 4), alternative school (coded 5), study abroad (coded 6), other (coded 7), and don't know (coded 7). Responses were dummy-coded where 1 = special high school, 0 = otherwise | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Parent–child discussion (seventh grade) | A standardized composite of responses (on three-point Likert scales of frequency) to the statements: “I offer my child advice or information regarding school grades” and “I offer my child advice or information regarding homework,” and a composite of responses (on a three-point scale of frequency) to the statement: “I talk with my child about his/her school grades” | −3.6 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 1 |
School involvement (ninth grade) | A standardized composite of responses (on four-point Likert scales of frequency) to the following activities: (1) belonging to a parents’ association within the school, (2) belonging to a parents’ association outside the school, and (3) volunteer work at the school | −2.8 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
Student characteristics | |||||
Gender | Students indicated their sex. Responses were male (coded 1) and female (coded 2), and were dummy-coded with female as a reference | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Time to study (ninth grade) | |||||
English | Students indicated hours spent studying English. The range was 1–4, where 1 = 0–1 h, 2 = 2–3 h, 3 = 4–5 h, and 4 = 6 h or more | 1 | 4 | 1.7 | 0.9 |
Math | Students indicated hours spent studying math. The range was 1–4, where 1 = 0–1 h, 2 = 2–3 h, 3 = 4–5 h, and 4 = 6 h or more | 1 | 4 | 1.8 | 1.0 |
Shadow education (ninth grade) | |||||
English | Parents indicated whether their child participated in shadow education for English. Responses were yes (coded 1) and no (coded 2) and dummy recoded with no as reference | 0 | 1 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
Math | Parents indicated whether their child participated in shadow education for math. Responses were yes (coded 1) and no (coded 2) and dummy recoded with no as reference | 0 | 1 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
Perception of teacher support (ninth grade) | A standardized composite of responses (on five-point Likert scales of agreement–disagreement) to the statements: “My teacher works hard to teach well,” “My teacher is a role model,” “My teacher has significant knowledge about the subject taught,” “My teacher likes teaching,” and “My teacher expects students to work hard” | −4.7 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 1 |
Perception of parental pressure (ninth grade) | A standardized composite of responses (on five-point Likert scales of agreement–disagreement) to the statements: “My parents are very interested in my school performance,” “My parents expect me to become a good person,” “My parents expect me to become a person who does his/her best,” “My parents expect me to become a person who is socially successful,” “My parents expect me to go to a good college,” “My parents frequently ask me about schoolwork,” and “My parents encourage me to achieve a goal set” | −3.4 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 1 |
Test stress (ninth grade) | A standardized composite of responses (on five-point Likert scales of agreement–disagreement) to the statements: “I become anxious during the midterm or final exam,” “I can't study because of too much concern about test scores,” “I can't concentrate on studying when I think my grades are bad,” “I become nervous during exams,” “I still feel anxious about the exams even after I study hard,” “I have a stomachache or headache during exams because of too many concerns about them,” “During exams I think about what would happen if I would fail,” “I can't get rid of my worries after exams,” and “I can't think of anything during exams because of anxiety” | −2.6 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 1 |
Intrinsic motivation (ninth grade) | |||||
English | A standardized composite of responses (on five-point Likert scales of agreement–disagreement) to the statements: “When I study English, I am so into it,” “English is important to me,” and “I can't give up English because I like it” | −2.3 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 1 |
Math | A standardized composite of responses (on five-point Likert scales of agreement–disagreement) to the statements: “When I study math, I am so into it,” “Math is important to me,” and “I can't give up math because I like it” | −2.5 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 1 |
Self-efficacy (ninth grade) | |||||
English | A standardized composite of responses (on five-point Likert scales of agreement–disagreement) to the statements: “I believe I can understand difficult contents in English textbooks,” “I believe I can understand complicated contents suggested by English teachers,” “I believe I can do English homework well,” and “I believe I can do well on English exams” | −2.3 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 1 |
Math | A standardized composite of responses (on five-point Likert scales of agreement–disagreement) to the statements: “I believe I can understand difficult contents in math textbooks,” “I believe I can understand complicated contents suggested by math teachers,” “I believe I can do math homework well,” and “I believe I can do well on math exams” | −2.2 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 1 |
School variable | |||||
Mean SES | School mean of individual student SES in a given school | −1.2 | 1.6 | −0.1 | 0.5 |
Average years of teachers’ experience | Schools indicated average years of experience of their teachers | 7.6 | 24.6 | 15.2 | 3.9 |
Whether school offers supplementary lessons (1 = yes) | Schools indicated whether they offered supplementary programs. Responses were yes (coded 1) and no (coded 2), dummy-coded with “no” as a reference | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
School sector | Schools indicated whether they were public or private. Responses were “public” (coded 1) and “private” (coded 2). dummy-coded with private as a reference | 0 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.4 |
School type | |||||
Boys’ | School was a boys’ school | 0 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
Girls’ | School was a girls’ school | 0 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
Coeducational (omitted) | School was a coeducational school | 0 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
Location | |||||
Seoul | School was located in Seoul | 0 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
Metropolitan city | School was located in a metro city | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
City, HSEP | School was located in a small or medium-sized city implementing the HSEP | 0 | 1 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
City, non-HSEP | School was located in a small or medium-sized city not implementing the HSEP | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
Rural area (omitted) | School was located in a rural area | 0 | 1 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
Appendix 2 Socioeconomic Background of Students by Region and HSEP (Lower Secondary)
n | Under HSEP | Not under HSEP | χ 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seoul | Metro | City | City | Town | |||
Sample size | 6,096 | 1,076 | 1,715 | 914 | 1,829 | 562 | |
Parental education | |||||||
Middle school or less (1) | 453 | 5.0 % | 5.5 % | 6.5 % | 8.0 % | 17.6 % | 253.1*** |
High school diploma (2) | 2,971 | 41.2 % | 47.6 % | 45.0 % | 53.1 % | 58.5 % | |
Associate degree (3) | 810 | 12.9 % | 14.7 % | 12.9 % | 13.4 % | 10.0 % | |
Bachelor degree (4) | 1,506 | 33.2 % | 26.4 % | 28.4 % | 20.4 % | 11.4 % | |
Advanced degree (5) | 356 | 7.7 % | 5.8 % | 7.2 % | 5.1 % | 2.5 % | |
Parents’ occupational status (ISEI) | |||||||
1st quartile (low) (1) | 1,508 | 13.5 % | 23.6 % | 20.5 % | 28.9 % | 43.2 % | 258.7*** |
2nd quartile (2) | 1,817 | 30.5 % | 30.6 % | 27.1 % | 29.8 % | 30.6 % | |
3rd quartile (3) | 1,222 | 23.2 % | 21.0 % | 20.2 % | 19.5 % | 12.6 % | |
4th quartile (high) (4) | 1,549 | 32.8 % | 24.9 % | 32.2 % | 21.8 % | 13.5 % | |
Household income | |||||||
1st quartile (low) (1) | 1,668 | 18.8 % | 29.4 % | 20.8 % | 28.9 % | 43.2 % | 184.5*** |
2nd quartile (2) | 1,642 | 24.6 % | 28.5 % | 26.7 % | 27.0 % | 26.9 % | |
3rd quartile (3) | 1,262 | 23.7 % | 19.7 % | 22.5 % | 20.7 % | 15.1 % | |
4th quartile (high) (4) | 1,524 | 32.9 % | 22.4 % | 30.0 % | 23.4 % | 14.8 % | |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kim, Kk., Byun, Sy. (2014). Determinants of Academic Achievement in Republic of Korea. In: Park, H., Kim, Kk. (eds) Korean Education in Changing Economic and Demographic Contexts. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, vol 23. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-27-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-27-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-4451-26-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-4451-27-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)