The following chapter contains two sections. The first section includes an overview of the descriptive statistics of the research data. The second sections introduces the results of the PLS findings, including the result of validity and reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha and the test of hypotheses. The suggestions and recommendations are derived from the results exposed on this chapter.
Descriptive Statistics Distribution Summary
Table 4.1 shows a description of the characteristics of the participants, in terms of age, gender, education and sponsoring. The largest group of respondent was between the ages of 20-26 corresponding to a total of 68% of the respondents, this can be considered also because this is the average age of university students which are the major focus of this study. Following this was the group age of 27-33 with a percentage of 19%, this also corresponds to the average age of post graduates studies. Group ages of Under 20 have a 6% together with group ages of 34-40 with the same percentage.
Regarding to the gender of the respondents there was not a significant difference between the gender being 44% female and the other 56% were male.
In relation to the level of education, the majority of the respondents were enrolled in a Bachelors program corresponding to 51% of the participants, this can also be related to the objectives of the students for coming to Taiwan, since the majority of them are degree seeking students and young adults; followed by 38% of students were enrolled in a
53
Master’s degree program, 4% of students were from PhD studies and 4% from language programs and the remaining 3% were students from other programs, including Military education, and other technical courses. Regarding the region of origin of the participants, the largest group of was from the region of Central and South American region corresponding to 52% of the respondents, followed by Asia with 22%, Europe with 12%, Africa and North America were the smallest group of respondents with 8% and 6%
respectively. This trend can be connected to the type of sponsoring of the students, since Taiwan ICDF and the MOFA offer scholarships to students from the countries which have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, this countries are mostly from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Regarding the student status, a classification provided by the MOE was used for the study. The biggest group of respondents were Degree seeking students with a total of 71%
of the respondents, after this 16% corresponds to International exchange students, 8%
were students studying Mandarin Chinese and a total of 2% is for Overseas compatriot students and Mainland China Students studying for a degree and the remaining was for Overseas compatriot Youth technical training classes 1% and Mainland China students studying for short term courses 1%.
Students were sponsored by ICDF 23% and self- sponsored students 23%, a corresponding of 17% were students sponsored by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), 18% corresponds to students sponsored by their universities and equally 18%
of students were sponsored by other institutions (this includes other NGO’s, students sponsored by other universities and other governments).
54 Table 4.1.
Demographic Distribution of Respondents
Variables Entries Percentage
Age Under 20 11 6%
20-26 123 68%
27-33 35 19%
34-40 11 6%
41+ 0 0%
Gender Female 79 44%
Male 101 56%
Region Central and South America 94 52%
North America 11 6%
Europe 21 12%
Africa 15 8%
Asia 39 22%
Student Status Degree Seeking Student 128 71%
Overseas Compatriot Student (Including students from Hong
Kong and Macao) 4 2%
Main Land China Student (Studying
for a degree) 3 2%
(Continued)
55 Table 4.1. (Continued)
Variables Entries Percentage
Student Status International Exchange Student 29 16%
Short Term Courses Student 0 0%
Studying Mandarin Chinese 14 8%
Main Land China Student (Studying
short term courses) 1 1%
Overseas Compatriot Youth
Technical Training Classes 1 1%
Level of education Undergraduate 91 51%
Master 69 38%
PhD 8 4%
Language Program 7 4%
Other 5 3%
Sponsoring ICDF 42 23%
MOFA 31 17%
University Scholarship 33 18%
Self- Sponsored 41 23%
Other 33 18%
Descriptive Statistics Analysis
The following section provides a summary of the responses to the questions gathered for the research. Each table will show the mean and standard deviation of every item question. All the variables are measured with a 5 point Likert scale. The participants were
56
instructed to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each of the statements with anchors ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Findings: Universities’ Culture.
Table 4.2 shows that regarding university culture, the students showed a high level of agreement on item A2, which stated that “in my university/program individuals and teams have clearly defined goals that relate to the goals of the program”. The second highest in this section was item A5, which stated that “in my university/program everyone knows and understands our academic objectives and priorities. The lowest score was for item A1 which said that “in my university/program my classmates, professors and staff are flexible and adaptable when changes are necessary”.
Table 4.2.
Institutional Culture; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD; (N= 180)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
A1 In my university/program my classmates, professors and staff are flexible and adaptable when changes are
necessary.
3.18 .97
A2 In my university/program individuals and teams have clearly defined goals that relate to the goals of the program.
3.54 .85
A3 In my university/program people value and make use of one another's unique strengths and different abilities.
3.41 .94
A4 In my university/program people believe in teamwork, the
"what's in it for us" approach rather than "what's in it for me."
3.45 1.02
(Continued)
57 Table 4.2. (Continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
A5 In my university/program everyone knows and understands our academic objectives and priorities.
3.49 1.00
A6 In my university/program people have a clear idea of why and how to proceed throughout the process of change.
3.33 .91
A7 In my university/program individuals and teams are measured and rewarded according to how well goals are achieved.
3.46 1.01
A8 In my university/program people know what is expected of them and understand their impact on other people, teams and functions.
3.37 .91
A9 In my university/program academic decisions are most often made on the basis of facts, not just perceptions or assumptions.
3.42 1.04
A10 In my university/program we constantly stretch our goals to continuously improve.
3.38 .91
A11 In my university/program people believe in working together collaboratively, preferring cooperation over competition.
3.31 1.12
A12 In my university/program people have access to timely and accurate information about what's happening in the institution and why.
3.34 1.03
A13 In my university/program people believe that their
concerns and anxieties during periods of change are heard and taken into consideration.
3.28 .97
(Continued)
58 Table 4.2. (Continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
A14 In my university/program everyone strongly believes in a set of shared values about how people should work together to solve common problems and reach mutual objectives.
3.37 .98
Note. N= 180 SD= Standard Deviation.
Findings: Knowledge Sharing.
With respect to knowledge sharing, Table 4.3 shows the mean and standard deviation for each of the items. The highest items in this section correspond to B4 and B5 with a mean of 3.91. This two items state that “I believe that most of my classmates will not intentionally carry out actions that could harm other members” and “Classmates in my program/department are helpful”. The lowest item is B9 stating that “I think that most of my classmates are concerned about the deeds and interests of other classmates”.
Table 4.3.
Knowledge Sharing; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD; (N= 180)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
B1 In my university/program, whenever people state their views they ask what others think.
3.35 .92
B2 I believe people in my university/program (classmates, professors and staff) are honest and reliable.
3.74 .94
B3 People in my university/program (classmates, professors and staff) cooperate well with each other.
3.69 .94
(Continued)
59 Table 4.3. (Continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
B4 I believe that most of my classmates will not intentionally carry out actions that could harm other members.
3.91 .90
B5 Classmates in my program/department are helpful. 3.91 1.03 B6 I believe classmates, professors and staff in my
university/program are knowledgeable and competent in their area.
3.88 1.00
B7 I think that most of my classmates will take into account the repercussions that their actions could have on the other members.
3.74 .90
B8 In my university/program, people give open and honest feedback to each other.
3.37 .98
B9 I think that most of my classmates are concerned about the needs and interests of the other classmates.
3.26 1.00
B10 People I work with in my university care for each other. 3.53 .97 B11 Classmates, professors and staff in my department prefer
to create their own knowledge rather than reusing others.
3.28 .96
B12 People I work with function as a team. 3.54 .92
B13 I believe that my classmates in my university treat others reciprocally.
3.61 .95
B14 Classmates, professor and staff in my department perceive each other as competitive.
3.34 .97
B15 People I work with in my program are cooperative and coordinative.
3.61 .98
B16 Classmates in my program/department are supportive. 3.67 .93 B17 In my university/program, people spend time building
trust with each other.
3.32 1.00
Note. N= 180 SD= Standard Deviation.
60 Findings: Knowledge Creation.
With regards to knowledge creation, Table 4.4 shows that the highest item is C10 stating that “my university/department stresses searching for and sharing new values and thoughts”. The lowest item is C6 which states “my university/department stresses the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept creation”.
Table 4.4.
Knowledge Creation; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD; (N= 180)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
C1 My university/program stresses sharing experience with classmates and members of other institutions.
3.41 .97
C2 My university/program stresses finding new strategies and academic opportunities by wandering inside the
department.
3.28 .95
C3 My university stresses creating a studying environment that allows peers to understand the technicalities of the program`s subjects.
3.48 .95
C4 My program/department stresses the use of deductive and inductive thinking.
3.43 .92
C5 My university/program stresses creative and essential dialogues.
3.45 1.01
C6 My university/department stresses the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept creation.
3.19 .92
(Continued)
61 Table 4.4. (Continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
C7 My university/department stresses planning strategies by using published literature, computer simulation and forecasting.
3.36 1.01
C8 My program/department stresses creating manuals and documents on products and services.
3.25 .98
C9 My program/department stresses forming teams, conducting experiments, and sharing results with the entire department.
3.45 1.09
C10 My university/department stresses searching for and sharing new values and thoughts.
3.62 1.00
C11 My university/department stresses bench-marking and test marketing.
3.33 .92
Note. N= 180 SD= Standard Deviation.
Findings: Commitment.
For commitment, 6 shows the level of commitment of the students towards their institution of studies. The highest score in this section corresponds to item D6 which states that “I am proud to tell others that I am part of this university/department”. The second highest score is to D1 and D2 which state that “I am willing to put a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this university/institution be successful” and “I talk up this university/department to my friends as a great place to study”. The lowest item for this variable is D9 which says that “Often, I find it difficult to 4 with my university's/department's policies on important matters relating to its students”.
62 Table 4.5.
Commitment; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD; (N= 180)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
D1 I am willing to put a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this
university/institution be successful.
3.63 .97
D2 I talk up this university/department to my friends as a great place to study.
3.63 .94
D3 I feel very little loyalty to this university/department. 2.93 1.12 D4 I would accept almost any kind of task assignment in
order to keep studying in this university/program.
3.26 1.09
D5 I find that my values and the university's values are very similar.
3.42 .99
D6 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this university/department.
3.82 1.01
D7 I could just as well be studying at a different
university/program as long as the type of studies were similar.
3.54 1.03
D8 This university/department really inspires the very best in me in the way of task performance.
3.36 1.08
D9 Often, I find it difficult to 4 with my
university's/department's policies on important matters relating to its students.
3.17 1.09
D10 For me this is the best of all possible universities/departments to study in.
3.23 1.17
Note. N= 180 SD= Standard Deviation.
63
Discussion for Descriptive Statistics Analysis
After the descriptive statistics we have noted some important characteristics of knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and commitment in the university context. The results show that students have a clear and defined understanding of their academic goals and objectives. However, they consider that the staff and classmates in their universities are not flexible and do not want to adapt to changes. From a knowledge sharing perspective, the students believe that their classmates are helpful and trustable, however, they think that they are not concerned about other people’s needs. On another note, the students show that they are proud of their studying institutions and are willing to make efforts to make the institution become successful. Nonetheless, they have difficulties understanding the universities’ policies and procedures’ regarding students.
Correlation Analysis
In order to examine the degree of relationship between the variables in this study, Pearson coefficient correlation was conducted. The following table shows the means, standard deviation and the correlation values of the variables. The results of the correlation analysis show that universities’ culture, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation are strongly correlated with affective commitment and normative commitment of international students in Taiwan, with correlation values ranging from .25 to .60.
However, values of normative commitment range from .10 to .24 indicates a weak correlation.
64 Table 4.6.
Correlation between University's Culture and Commitment
# Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 KC_C= Combination; 9 KC_E= Externalization; 11 KC_ S= Socialization; 12 KC_I= Internalization; 13 KS_AQ= Asking Questions; 14 KS_C= Collaboration; 15 KS_CO= Cooperation; 16 KS_MC= Mutual Concern; 17 KS_T= Trust; KS_TC=
Team.
65
Testing the Measurement Model
To assess the measurement model this study uses Cronbach’s Alpha’s approach from Smart PLS. Table 4.7 indicates that the values of Cronbach’s Alpha from three of the constructs are higher than .70 (university culture, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation), while commitment is .66 which is an acceptable value.
Table 4.7.
PLS Cronbach's Alpha, Internal Consistency and R2 in this Study
Constructs Number of
University Culture 14 0.838 0.892
Knowledge Sharing 17 0.888 0.915 0.541
Knowledge Creation 11 0.842 0.894 0.357
Commitment 10 0.666 0.812 0.407
The evaluation of the statistical significance of the path coefficients and the loadings was made through bootstrapping method in Smart PLS. For this study, the three paths (culture to knowledge sharing, knowledge sharing to knowledge creation and knowledge creation to commitment) proved to be significant. The results also showed that the explanatory power of R2 for knowledge sharing is 54%, for knowledge creation it is 35%
and it is 40% for commitment. Table 4.8 shows that university culture has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing (β-path=.73, t-value=15.49). Therefore, null hypotheses one is rejected. Knowledge sharing also has a positive and significant effect
66
on knowledge creation (β-path=.59, t-value=10.42). Thus null hypotheses 2 is rejected.
Knowledge creation has a positive and significant effect on commitment of students (β-path=.63, t-value=12.52). Null hypotheses 3 is therefore also rejected. From these results we conclude that all the Null Hypotheses are rejected as shown on the table below.
Table 4.8.
PLS Path Analysis Results (Standard β Coefficients and Adjusted T-Values) Path Hº β-path Adj. t-value Sig. Direction Result
C KS H1 0.73 15.49 *** + Rejected
KS KC H2 0.59 10.42 *** + Rejected
KC CC H3 0.63 12.52 *** + Rejected
Figure 4.1 shows the results of the CSCC structural path. The results were obtained using Smart PLS software and show that the four variables of the model have an effect on each other. “Figure 4.1 CSCC Structural Path” shows that from the Universities’
culture dimensions, achieving goal has a positive parameter (.80) and t-ratio (19.92);
managing change has a positive parameter (.81) and t-ratio (29.61); coordinated team work has a positive parameter (.82) and t-ratio (29.59); cultural strength has a positive parameter (.83) and t-ratio (26.02), with all being significant at 1%. From these
67
dimensions, the most significant is coordinated team work, which means that a coordinated team work influences the university culture the most.
From the knowledge sharing perspective the results show that each dimension has a positive parameter and t-ratio; trust (parameter=.80, t-ratio=24.12); collaboration (parameter=.75, t-ratio=24.12); team (parameter=.81, t-ratio=24.02); cooperation (parameter=.83, t-ratio= 30.43); mutual concern (parameter=.82, t-ratio=28.47); asking questions (parameter=.77, t-ratio=25.62); all being significant at 1%. It is also important to note that cooperation is what influences knowledge sharing the most.
From the knowledge creation perspective, results show that socialization has a positive parameter and t-ratio (parameter=.80, t-ratio=24.94); externalization has a positive parameter and t-ratio (parameter=.87, t-ratio=39.42); combination has a positive parameter and t-ratio (parameter=.77, t-ratio=26.97); and internalization has a positive parameter and t-ratio (parameter=.84, t-ratio =17.48), all of the above being significant at 1%. Externalization is highly significant for knowledge creation.
From the commitment perspective, the results show that affective commitment has a positive parameter (.859) and t-ratio (37.42); continuance commitment has a positive parameter (.851) and t-ratio (32.48); normative commitment has a positive parameter (.57) and t-ratio (5.062); which are all significant at 1%. Affective commitment is a slightly more significant factor for commitment than continuance commitment, while normative commitment is the least influential factor.
68 Figure 4. 1. CSCC structural path via Smart PLS
69
Table 4.9 shows the direct and indirect effects of the variables. The results show that university culture has a direct effect on knowledge sharing (.73). This indicates that university culture has a positive, significant effect on knowledge sharing. University culture also has an indirect effect on knowledge creation (.44) and commitment of students (.28). Knowledge sharing is shown to have a direct effect on knowledge creation (.59), but it also has an indirect effect on commitment of students (.38). Knowledge creation has a direct effect on commitment (0.63).
Table 4.9.
Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effects
Path Equation Influence
C KS Direct 0.735
KS KC Direct 0.598
KC CC Direct 0.638
C CC Indirect 0.28
C KC Indirect 0.44
KS CC Indirect 0.381
PLS Finding Summary
The results on Table 4.10 show that universities’ culture, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation have a significant positive effect on the commitment of international students in Taiwanese universities. Indeed, all the null hypotheses were rejected. The following table summarized the research results.
70 Table 4.10.
Research Hypotheses Results
Research Hypotheses Results
H1 University’s culture has no effect on knowledge sharing in international students in Taiwan.
Rejected
H2 Knowledge sharing has no effect on knowledge creation in international students in Taiwan.
Rejected
H3 Knowledge creation has no effect on the commitment of international students in Taiwan.
Rejected
The investigation has demonstrated that university culture has a strong and positive direct effect on knowledge sharing as well as indirect effects on knowledge creation and commitment of students. The most influential factor is cultural strength, which means that for students it is important how strong and defined the values and shared beliefs in their universities are. Students are more willing to share knowledge between their peers when they feel that there is a sort of cultural stability in their university, and that everyone agree and adhere to a set of shared values and beliefs.
With regards to knowledge sharing, the results of the analysis show that knowledge sharing does have a positive direct effect on knowledge creation, and also has indirect effects on the commitment of students. The most significant factor for knowledge sharing was a culture of cooperation, meaning that in order to share knowledge successfully, it is important for students to feel that everyone uses knowledge sharing in pursuing common
71
goals. Those universities who focus more on competitiveness rather than cooperation suffer from ineffective knowledge management strategies for knowledge sharing.
For knowledge creation, the results indicate that knowledge creation has a positive and direct effect on commitment. In this variable, the most significant factor is externalization which is closely related to the articulation of tacit knowledge between the group members of the institution. This process is important because it is the stage of the knowledge creation process where students can transform their tacit knowledge into more explicit knowledge.
All of the results discussed above has a significant effect on commitment, meaning that if all these conditions are met in the university (cultural strength, collaboration, externalization), students will feel higher levels of commitment towards their university and therefore perform better. Knowledge creation influences affective commitment and continuance commitment, however it does not have the same strong effect on normative commitment in students.
72