The Effect of University Culture, Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Creation on International Student Commitment in Taiwan

全文

(1)The Effect of University Culture, Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Creation on International Student Commitment in Taiwan. by Axana Vasquez Martinez A Thesis Draft Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of. MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Cheng-Ping Shih, Ph.D.. Graduate Institute of International Human Resource Development National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June, 2016.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First, I would like to thank Morten, my fiancée, partner, and friend for supporting me during all this stage, encouraging me to accomplish my goals, and specially for being patient with me during the entire process. Second, I want to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Tony Shih, for the continuous support provided during this process. His patience, motivation and guidance helped me to reach the last stage of this chapter that is about to close. This research wouldn’t have been possible without his help. I also want to extend my gratitude to my committee members Dr. Pai-Po Lee and Dr. Steven Lai; your advices were of great help for finishing my research and contributed immensely to the improvement of my research. If I could chose committee members in the future be sure that it will be you again with no doubts. Last, but not least, I want to thank Miss. Tracy Lee, for providing me support, patience, understanding – and for being more than a friend in Taiwan. Your presence in my life has made this stage funnier, smoother and so much nicer. Thank you for always being there when I needed you and for all your advices during these two years..

(3) ABSTRACT In our globalized and modern era, organizational culture, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and commitment are key factors influencing students. The Taiwanese model of education is changing significantly to adapt to the new innovative and technological era. One particularity is the influx of thousands of international students who come to Taiwan every year to fulfill their desires and needs for better education, language acquisition or exchange programs. This study aims to investigate the effects that the universities’ culture, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation in the learning institutions have on the commitment of international students in Taiwanese universities. The results of the study indicate that universities’ cultures have a positive significant effect on the knowledge sharing in the learning institutions, the most influential factor of culture is a cultural strength, showing that students care mostly about how well defined and strong are the shared values and beliefs in the university. Knowledge sharing also has a positive effect on knowledge creation in Taiwanese universities. Knowledge creation has a positive direct effect on the commitment of international students in Taiwanese universities. The study also found that normative commitment is the less relevant factor of commitment for international students in Taiwan. Keywords: Knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, commitment, international student, organizational culture. I.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ABSTRACT................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................. II LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...................................................................1 Background of the Study ....................................................................................... 1 Purposes of the Study ............................................................................................ 4 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 5 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 5 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ........................................................... 7 Definitions of Key Terms ...................................................................................... 8. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................... 10 University Culture ............................................................................................... 10 Knowledge Sharing ............................................................................................. 13 Knowledge Creation ............................................................................................ 19 Commitment ........................................................................................................ 24. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 28 Research Framework ........................................................................................... 28 Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 29 Research Procedures ............................................................................................ 30 Measurement Instrument ..................................................................................... 33 Population and Samples ....................................................................................... 35. II.

(5) Validity and Reliability........................................................................................ 36 Data Analysis Method ......................................................................................... 42. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................... 52 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................... 52 Correlation Analysis ............................................................................................ 63 Testing the Measurement Model ......................................................................... 65 PLS Finding Summary ........................................................................................ 69. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............. 72 Research Conclusions .......................................................................................... 72 Research Recommendations ................................................................................ 74 Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................. 75. REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 77 APENDIX A COVER LETTER ................................................................ 82 APENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................. 84 APENDIX C PLS FIGURES...................................................................... 93. III.

(6) LIST OF TABLES. Table 2. 1. Definitions of Knowledge Sharing ............................................................... 15 Table 2. 2. Definitions of Knowledge Creation .............................................................. 20 Table 3. 1. Pilot Cronbach's Alpha Results for all Dimensions...................................... 37 Table 3. 2. Pilot Outer Loading ...................................................................................... 37 Table 3. 3. Pilot Average Variance, Internal Consistency and R2 .................................. 39 Table 3. 4. Cronbach's Alpha Results for all Dimensions (N=180) ............................... 40 Table 3. 5. Main Study Constructs' Reliability Analysis for this Study ......................... 41 Table 3. 6. PLS Outer Loadings ..................................................................................... 41 Table 3. 7. Data of Variables by Entry and Values ........................................................ 45 Table 3. 8. Coding System Used in PLS Data Analysis ................................................. 47 Table 4. 1. Demographic Distribution of Respondents .................................................. 54 Table 4. 2. Institutional Culture; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD; (N= 180) ..................... 56 Table 4. 3. Knowledge Sharing; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD; (N= 180) ..................... 58 Table 4. 4. Knowledge Creation; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD; (N= 180) .................... 60 Table 4. 5 Commitment; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD; (N= 180) ................................. 62 Table 4. 6. Correlation between University's Culture and Commitment ........................ 64 Table 4. 7. PLS Cronbach's Alpha, Internal Consistency and R2 in this Study .............. 65 Table 4. 8. PLS Path Analysis Results ........................................................................... 66 Table 4. 9. Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effects ........................................... 69 Table 4. 10. Research Hypotheses Results ..................................................................... 70. IV.

(7) LIST OF FIGURES. Figure 2. 1. The knowledge spiral (Nonaka) .................................................................. 23 Figure 3. 1. Research framework .................................................................................... 29 Figure 3. 2. Research procedures .................................................................................... 32 Figure 4. 1. CSCC structural path via Smart PLS .......................................................... 68. V.

(8) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter aims to provide a general understanding of the research. This chapter also contains an introduction to the background of the study, research purposes, research questions and the delimitations and limitations of this study. The definitions of terms are defined in this chapter.. Background of the Study In the era of technology development, it has become increasingly important for organizations to create an environment of innovation and creativity. Knowledge sharing and knowledge creation are key competencies to help the preservation and transfer of knowledge across an organization. The preservation and dissemination of knowledge was not a critical issue in earlier times when people used to stay with their employers during their entire career. However, nowadays the loss of knowledge can be a major factor in reducing an organization’s productivity and effectiveness, especially considering that we are moving towards a knowledge and service economy (Debowsky, 2006). Organizational culture influences the way an organization responds to the changing demands of the business environment (Denison & Neale, 1999). Therefore, it is a determinant that influences knowledge sharing in the organization. As the business environment changes, organizations’ leaders must constantly anticipate the pertinent changes and actively monitor the relationship between the demands of the environment and the capabilities of the organization.. 1.

(9) Knowledge not only exists in documents, computers and other repositories, but is also embedded in people’s minds. It’s demonstrated through their actions and behaviors in daily and working life. The theory of knowledge management is one of the hottest topics in information technology and management literature since the growing use of knowledge in business is becoming ever more frequent (Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, & Mohammed, 2007). As civilizations are moving forward, transferring and creating knowledge have become a priority for many organizations (Chee Tan, So, & Yeo, 2014). The influence of knowledge creation is also a new priority in the education field, where it has become paramount to prepare the students for the new challenges of the changing era. It is important for teachers and university staff not only to transfer knowledge to students in theory but also in practice, and to be a role model for students. Knowledge sharing and knowledge creation are keys to success for an organization (Faisal, Rasheedb, Habibac, & Shahzad, 2013). It’s therefore of interest to study students’ abilities in these areas, as it gives an indication of their future success in an organization. In the globalized world, the new generation of students wants to learn languages that are widely spoken. Chinese language is therefore a priority for many students. Since the language has a distinguished features that sets it apart from other languages (Chinese is a tonal language), it’s important for many students to be in an environment that lets them practice Chinese on a daily basis to be able to reach proficiency. Chinese speaking nations are therefore attractive to international students.. 2.

(10) Taiwan is a popular destination among students seeking a degree in the Chinese language or a better education. According to the Ministry of Education of Taiwan, there are more than 92,000 international students in the island by the year of 2014 (including degree-level, exchange students, and language students and others). If the trend continues into the future, this means that every year more than 3,000 new international students will arrive in Taiwan. Taiwan has a wide range of benefits for students: universities offer fee waivers and scholarships for international students and the Taiwanese government and other NGO’s offer full scholarships to attract students from countries that have good relationships with the Taiwanese government. Taiwan is also a popular destination because of its good living standard, universities that enjoy worldwide recognition, friendly people, liberties, and safety (Taiwan is one of the world’s safest countries). The students who come to Taiwan bring with them perspectives, ideas and experiences. This knowledge is valuable to Taiwan as it can help the country become more competitive. Taiwan is currently working to change the rote learning model of education that has been in use for a long time. In this technology and innovation era, rote learning is problematic since it doesn’t encourage or stimulate innovation. It’s therefore important that the country finds a way to absorb and transmit the international students’ knowledge to its own students in order to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking. These people are students, so their environments are universities. Universities are therefore the ideal places for knowledge absorption and transmission. What is needed is that the universities in Taiwan manage to bring out the knowledge from the international students and share. 3.

(11) it with and apply it on Taiwanese students who after graduation will bring their new knowledge out into society and business. In this knowledge era, learning institutions should function as knowledge creation organizations, where knowledge work infiltrates all levels of the institutions (Chee Tan, So, & Yeo, 2014). Knowledge should be transmitted not only from teacher to student, or from student to student, but bidirectionally at all levels of the institution, embracing administrative staff, academic staff, and students. The knowledge should flow between all levels. Researchers have stated that organizational commitment reflects people’s attitudes towards their organizations’ values and goals. This also expresses a force that compels people to stay in their organization and confidently perform several tasks to help the organization achieve its goal (Nosratabadi, Khedry, & Parvaneh, 2015). In this study, we will measure the types of commitment in students with their school or university by using the Organizational Commitment questionnaire by Mowday, Steers and Porter in 1979. The questionnaire will be adapted to fit the academic context.. Purposes of the Study Following the consideration from the literature review, the purposes and objectives of this study are: 1. To determine the degree of influence between factors of universities’ culture, knowledge sharing’s and knowledge creation’s influence on the commitment of international students in universities in Taiwan.. 4.

(12) 2. To provide a first insight into the relationship between university culture, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and commitment of international students in Taiwan and to provide suggestions for how to improve the commitment.. Research Questions In order to better understand the relationship between knowledge sharing and knowledge creation in the Taiwanese universities and the effects on the commitment of international students, this study aims to answer the following research questions: RQ1.. To what extent does a university’s culture affect knowledge sharing among international students in Taiwanese universities?. RQ2.. To what extent does knowledge sharing affect knowledge creation among international students in Taiwanese universities?. RQ3.. To what extent does knowledge creation affect the commitment of international students in Taiwanese universities?. Significance of the Study Many studies have been conducted about the nature of Asians students. While studies are still inconclusive, researchers in general agree that the most significant difference between Western and Asian learners is that Western students try to relate newly acquired information to previous knowledge in order to make sense of the new knowledge or understand it in light of personal or real life experiences. Asian students. 5.

(13) seem to primarily understand new information in the context provided by the lecturer (Hong Thanh, 2010). This study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how Taiwanese universities’ cultures for knowledge sharing and knowledge creation processes influence the commitment of international students to their university. Commitment is an influential factor in determining the student’s desire to share their knowledge with their learning institution. Taiwan helps many countries through cooperation programs that provide students with scholarships for coming to study in Taiwan, and many Taiwanese universities also provide tuition waivers for international students. However, simply having an international student in a class does not mean that their knowledge is being transferred to the other students. Therefore, it’s paramount that their university or school provides the appropriate environment to foster knowledge sharing and knowledge creation between students. First, this study aims to expose the importance of exploring ways of encouraging knowledge creation and knowledge sharing among international students. Second, the study also explores the organizational culture in universities and how it influences international students’ willingness to share knowledge, and how this relates to the students’ levels of commitment with their universities. This will help the universities become more aware of the influences of their organizational culture on international students willingness to share knowledge, and also help create more suitable environments that promote knowledge sharing and knowledge creations among international students to increase their levels of commitment. Finally, international and. 6.

(14) local students, will benefit from the future improvements that universities may implement.. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study Limitations The study’s findings and results should not be generalized to other populations than international students in Taiwan. The study is also limited to the factors university culture, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and commitment. It is however noted that there are many other factors that can also influence the commitment of students. This study focuses mostly on students from universities in the north part of Taiwan, due to the relatively large concentration of international students in the zone and to corresponding convenience of collecting samples.. Delimitations . The study is delimited exclusively to international students in Taiwan.. . The study is delimited to students enrolled in higher education institutions in Taiwan.. . This is an exploratory study of the university culture, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and commitment.. . The study will not provide any solutions to knowledge sharing and knowledge creation issues in universities.. 7.

(15) Definitions of Key Terms In this section, we provide theoretical definitions of key terms that will be used in the study. The theoretical definitions are important as they determine how the variables will be measured in the study. International students. International students are persons admitted by a country other than their own, usually under special permits or visas, for the specific purpose of following a particular course of study in an accredited institution of the receiving country (OECD, 2015). In this study, international students will be considered as those students in Taiwan who do not hold Taiwanese citizenship. The focus of the study will be those foreign nationals who study at a Taiwanese university, college, graduate school and/or any other learning institution. Organizational Culture. It is defined as a pattern of basic assumptions that a given group in the organization has discovered or developed in learning to deal with the problems of adaptation and integration their specific organization and that are considered valid enough to be transmitted to all the members in the organization as the correct way to behave inside the organization (Schein, 1984). Knowledge sharing. It’s defined as an activity through which people share their ideas openly, help to teach and mentor others, where ideas can be freely challenged, and where knowledge gained from other sources is used (Smith & McKeen, 2005).. 8.

(16) Knowledge creation. Knowledge creation is a continuous, self-transcending process through which one transcends the boundary of the old self into a new self by acquiring a new context, a new view of the world, and new knowledge (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000). Commitment. “It’s the relative strength of an individual’s identification with, and involvement in a particular organization” (Van den Hooff & Ridder, 2004).. 9.

(17) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Large bodies of work and research exist on the topics of organizational culture, knowledge creation, commitment, and knowledge sharing. Among these, there are agreements and disagreements around the different concepts, definitions and classification of these constructs. This chapter will define the concepts of the variables that will be used for this study. The purpose to provide a better understanding of the focus of the study. Today’s most relevant theories around the mentioned topics will be presented.. University Culture The Concept of University Culture Organizational culture is a set of values and beliefs that are shared by the members of the organization. They are powerful forces for organizational effectiveness or organizational failure. In learning institutions, organizational culture describes the collective perceptions, beliefs and values of students (Debowsky, 2006). Authors have argued that individuals learn about the organizational culture since their first day in a new workplace. Park et al. (as cited in Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, & Mohammed, 2007) defined organizational culture as: “the shared, basic assumptions that an organization learnt while coping with the environment and solving problems of external adaptation and internal integration that are thought to new members as the correct way to solve those problems” (p.24).. 10.

(18) Denison, in his “Denison Organizational Culture Survey: Facilitator guide” refers to organizational culture as the fundamental values, beliefs, and principles that function as a foundation for an organization’s management system, as well as the set of management practices and behaviors that both illustrate and strengthen those basic principles (Denison & Neale, 1999). We can define organizational culture as the values and beliefs that are shared by the members of the organization.. Definitions of Organizational Culture Different researchers have provided similar definitions of organizational culture. Most of them coincide that organizational culture is a set of values and beliefs that are shared by the members of an organization. These values and beliefs are considered as powerful forces that will determine organizational success or failure (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2002). Organizational culture is also defined in (Delobbe, Haccoun, & Vanderberghe, 2015) as a set of cognitions shared by members of a social unit. It could also be considered as a structure of common values and beliefs that results in norms and behaviors and create an organizational way of living.. Dimensions of Organizational Culture To measure the variables of this study, four core dimensions of organizational culture elaborated by Dr. Talcott Parsons will be used. The four dimensions are: managing change, achieving goals, coordinating teamwork, and building a strong culture.. 11.

(19) Dr. Parsons argued that these four dimensions are fundamental functions for all organizations if they are to subsist for any significant length of time. Managing change. Managing change points to how well the organization is able to adapt and effectively deal with changes in its environment (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2002). Achieving goals. Achieving goals is defined as the accomplishment of the goals and objectives of the organization (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2002). Organizations with a clear focus on explicit goals have proven to have a strong relationship with successful achievements. Coordinated teamwork. An important factor for the long-term organizational survival is the coordinated teamwork. It is important for the long-term survival of the organization that the efforts of individuals and groups within the organization are tied together so that people’s work efforts effectively fit together (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2002). Cultural strength. A strong culture in the organization is defined by Sashkin and Rosenbach (2002) as when a certain group of values and beliefs are strongly shared by most of the organization’s members.. 12.

(20) Knowledge Sharing The Concept of Knowledge Sharing Knowledge is defined in Nonaka (1996) as a “meaningful set of information that constitutes a justified true belief and/or and embodied technical skill” (Nonaka, Umemoto & Senoo, 1996). Knowledge sharing can occur through different situations and media such as meetings, conversations, databases etc. Knowledge sharing can also be referred to as the delivery of task information and know-how to help others and to collaborate with others to develop new ideas, solve problems, etc. (Wang & Noe, 2010). There is no specific consensus on whether knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer are the same, however, many researchers use them interchangeably. Furthermore, researchers have also noted that the intention to share the knowledge is derived from the willingness to share (Oye, Mazleena, & Noorminshah, 2011). Knowledge sharing is the willingness to interchange information with the other members of one’s organization. Knowledge exists and its shared at different levels in the organization (Ipe, 2003). Knowledge internalization refers to the degree to which a recipient obtains ownership of, commitment to, and satisfaction with the transferred knowledge (Cummings, 2003). Commitment is an important aspect of knowledge internalization. The strength of an individual’s identification and ongoing involvement with the knowledge can influence the degree to which the recipient puts the knowledge into use. Achieving knowledge commitment is another important element in knowledge internalization. Once individuals develop knowledge commitment they will recognize the. 13.

(21) value of the knowledge, develop competency in using the knowledge and be willing to make an extra effort to work with the knowledge.. Definition of Knowledge sharing Sethumadhavan (2007) as cited in (Faisal, Rasheedb, Habibac, & Shahzad, 2013) defines knowledge sharing as “a systematic process to create, acquire, synthesize, learn, share and use knowledge and experience to achieve organizational goal. All this knowledge can be found in people`s mind or stored in paper in cabinets and/or stored in electronic form”. Students in universities have a wide range of sources from where they can find and access knowledge, most notably professors, peers, books and electronic databases and websites. Many discussions on whether knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer definitions overlap exist and the terms are often used interchangeably (Paulin & Suneson, 2012). Researchers have argued that knowledge sharing is unnatural, meaning that people will not share their knowledge just because they think their information is important and valuable. Therefore, it is paramount that rather than just encouraging and mandating knowledge sharing professors in universities should foster the student’s motivation to share the knowledge (Bock & Kim, 2001). Other studies also suggest that when the highest priority is given to the interests of the organization and of their community people tend to shy away from contributing knowledge. In contrast to this, when knowledge is viewed as a public good in the organization, knowledge will flow easily (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling, 2003). Bock et al. (2005) also suggested that attitudes toward and subjective. 14.

(22) norms with regard to knowledge sharing as well as organizational climate affects individuals intentions to share knowledge.. Table 2.1. Definitions of Knowledge Sharing Definition. Source. The exchange of knowledge between and among. Paulin and. individuals, and within and among teams,. Suneson. Year 2012, p. 83. organizational units, and organizations. The relative strength of an individual’s identification. Mowday et. with, and involvement in a particular organization.. al.. Knowledge sharing is “a process, in which. De Jong. 1979, p. 226. 2010, p.xiii. knowledge is being transferred through a medium, from a knowledge contributor to a knowledge consumer”. Another definition of knowledge sharing is “a process, in which knowledge is being transferred through a medium, from a knowledge contributor to a knowledge consumer” (de Jong, 2010). This process can be initiated by either the knowledge contributor or the knowledge consumer (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, & Mohammed (2007) emphasized: “While traditional knowledge management emphasis was placed on technology or the ability to build systems that efficiently process and 15.

(23) leverage knowledge, the new model of knowledge management involves people and actions. It aims at creating an environment where power equals sharing knowledge rather than keeping it” (p.24). People need to actively share, discuss their practices and see leaders who act as role models by sharing their knowledge (Debowsky, 2006). Therefore, university staff, professors, and students must display a culture of knowledge sharing and be role models of knowledge sharing for other students in their learning institutions. Knowledge sharing activities seem to be useful only when all employees need to work with and apply at least most of the knowledge they receive (Riege, 2005). Other studies also suggest that knowledge sharing is influenced by the commitment to the organization (Van den Hooff & de Rider, 2004); however in this study we will test the influence of knowledge sharing on the commitment to the organization.. Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing Several dimension of knowledge sharing will be measured in this study. After the literature review, the authors chose 6 dimensions which are: a culture of trust, a culture of collaboration, a team culture, a cooperation culture, and a culture of mutual concern. This six dimensions fit the educational context well and are defined as follows: Culture of trust. Most of the literature suggests that people working together for a long period of time encourages and fosters knowledge sharing (Levin, Cross, Abraham, & Lesser, 2016). Many researchers point out that strong ties between people also help to facilitate. 16.

(24) knowledge sharing. Together with this, a study from the IMB Institute for KnowledgeBased Organizations showed that trust is the link between this strong ties and knowledge sharing. People who have been working together for a long time but at the same time trust each other are more likely to share knowledge between them. In the case of students, since they sometimes do not have the opportunity to spend long time working together, it is vital that professors aid in creating and encouraging a culture of trust among students to promote more effective knowledge sharing. Trust is defined as a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (Oye, Mazleena, & Noorminshah, 2011). Trust is also defined as a set of positive expectations that people have about the competence and reliability of fellow peers as well as within an organization (Augustine, 2013). Yet another definition is “one’s expectations, assumptions or beliefs about the likelihood that another’s future actions will be beneficial, favorable or at least not detrimental to one’s interest” (Robinson, 1996). Related to this, some researchers consider lack of trust to be detrimental to the knowledge sharing processes in an organization. Culture of collaboration. A collaborative culture fosters trust within the workplace, encourages knowledge sharing not only in words but also actions, promotes creativity, and develops innovative thinking (Augustine, 2013). Collaboration also helps to improve and to open communication channels throughout the organization. Collaboration is defined by Lee &. 17.

(25) Choi, (2003) as the degree to which people in a group actively help each other in the workplace. Team culture. Team culture is important for knowledge sharing in an organization. (Hu, Horng, & Sun, 2009) refers to team culture as a simplified set of rules, norms, expectations, and roles that members from a team share inside their organization. Culture of cooperation. Cooperation is defined as the willingness of the members of an organization to contribute to the successful completion of the different tasks in the organization (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). Cooperation is the members’ willful attitude towards working with another member even when this is not a requirement. Cooperation is beneficial for the knowledge sharing inside the university and any organization because it involves a collective use of knowledge shared in the organization to achieve the common goals (Khanna & Gulatu, 1998). Culture of mutual concern. Communities or cultures are considered to be established for sharing resources, establishing relationships and trading goods or services (Augustine, 2013). A culture of mutual concern is defined as the intention of one person to care about the others wellbeing (Anderson & Narus, 1990). As there must be willingness and motivation to share knowledge, it is important to have a culture of mutual concerns. It is believed that only those who are concerned about the others will be willing to share knowledge.. 18.

(26) Culture of asking questions. Learning institutions should provide its members the opportunity to expand their competency and reach desired outcomes (Augustine, 2013). A culture of asking questions is significant in this study due to its importance in the expansion of an organization’s capacity to create its future. Asking questions are described as people’s gain of productive reasoning skills to express their views, and capacity to listen and inquire into others’ point of view.. Knowledge Creation The Concept of Knowledge Creation Schools are recognized as knowledge-building communities in which teachers and students work to build new knowledge and understanding (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). The knowledge creation approach becomes practically relevant when specific tools that help individuals and their communities jointly work for the advancement of their knowledge are available. Practices of working innovatively with knowledge become accessible to school children when they are given advanced tools for creating and building knowledge based on the new information and communication technologies. An important characteristic of all models of knowledge creation is that the agent of knowledge creation is not an isolated individual but is either an individual embedded in a community or the community itself.. 19.

(27) Definitions of Knowledge Creation The literature proposes that knowledge creation has emerged from different contexts and communities. The organizational knowledge creation model (Nonaka, Byosiere, Borucki, & Kono, 1994) proposes that there are four types of knowledge creation modes: socialization, externalization, combination and internalization. These will constitute the focus areas of this study. Nonaka’s theory of knowledge creation is considered one of the most influential models in knowledge strategy literature (Yang, Fang, & Lin, 2010).. Table 2.2. Definitions of Knowledge Creation Definition. Source. Year. Knowledge creation is a dynamic human process of. Nonaka,. 1996,. justifying a personal belief toward the truth and/or. Umemoto. p.205. embodying a technical skill through practice.. and Senoo. Organizational knowledge creation is the capability of a Yang, Fang. 2010, p.. company to create new knowledge, spread it throughout and Lin. 231. the organizations and embody it in products, services, and systems. Knowledge creation is a continuous, self-transcending. Nonaka,. process through which one transcends the boundary of. Toyama. the old self into a new self by acquiring a new context,. and Konno. a new view of the world and new knowledge.. 20. 2000, p. 8.

(28) Knowledge creation is an important part of the education agenda. The conversion of late advancement in the information economy and in learning sciences focuses on the criticality of increasing learning creation capability among the young in setting them up to be self-confident and contributing nationals of tomorrow. The process of organizational knowledge creation involves the sharing of experiences and ideas from coworkers, organizing ideas and transferring knowledge through actions. Chee Tan, So and Yeo argue that to transform an educational institution into a knowledge-building organization, vertical transformation is required, which entails knowledge creation practices that pervade throughout various levels of the organization. Knowledge-building communities in learning institution require not only efforts from students, but also a deep involvement of teachers and staff.. Dimensions of Knowledge Creation The process of knowledge conversion has four modes that are called the SECI model of knowledge creation: Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization. In this study they will be used as the indicators for measuring knowledge creation. They are defined as follows: Socialization. Socialization is recognized a process where common tacit knowledge is created through shared experiences. It’s a process of converting the new tacit knowledge through shared experiences (García-Muiña, Martín de Castro, & López Sáez, 2002).. 21.

(29) Externalization. Externalization is a process in which tacit knowledge is articulated into such explicit knowledge as concepts and/or diagrams. This process often uses metaphors, analogies, and sketches. Combination. The process of assembling the new and existing explicit knowledge into a systemic knowledge is known as the combination process. It’s in this mode that newly-created knowledge should be combined with existing explicit knowledge to become something tangible. Internalization. The internalization process is where explicit knowledge is embodied into tacit, operational knowledge such as know-how.. The knowledge spiral The knowledge spiral is a process in which the organizational knowledge is created by a spiral that goes across the four modes of knowledge conversion. In this process the knowledge spiral usually starts from the socialization mode, though it can also start from any other mode. The knowledge spiral can also be visualized from other dimensions across the levels of knowledge creating entities such as individuals, groups, an organization, and collaborating organizations. For this study, the knowledge spiral will be applied to students, which will be evaluated as individuals and as groups.. 22.

(30) The belief that knowledge is created and transformed ‘spirally’ from the individual level to the organizational level and finally between organizations is widely accepted and recognized by many researchers, because this proposition focuses on activities surrounding the creation of knowledge and not only on knowledge itself (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).. Figure 2.1. The knowledge spiral. Adapted from “The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation”, by Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H., 1995, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 71. Copyright 1995 by Oxford University Press, Inc.. 23.

(31) Commitment The concept of Commitment Organizational commitment has been a topic of increasing interest for researchers since the 1970’s. Until now there are no signs that the interest is diminishing. Meyer and Allen are considered pioneers in the field, however, other researchers have also made important contributions to the understanding of this topic (Mowday R.T., 1998). Porter and Smith defined the concept of commitment as the strong desire of a person to remain as a member of a particular organization, with a willingness to exert high levels of efforts on behalf of the organization, and with a definite belief in the acceptance of the values of the organization. Mowday, Porter, and Dubin (1974) found that highly committed employees are more likely to perform better than employees who are not committed. That, and other recent studies, suggest that commitment is a better predictor of performance than satisfaction. Since commitment can be considered to better determine the performance of students and better predict students’ dropping out of university, it will be a focus area of this thesis. However, since this study is focused on educational, we will change the term organizational commitment to commitment, to have it fit the study context better. Commitment is also described by Becker (1960) as a disposition to maintain membership in the organization as a result of an accumulation of activities that are of value that the individual has invested in the organization and that can be lost if the individual discontinues in the organization.. 24.

(32) The term commitment has also been used to describe different situations as an affective attachment to the organization which is not linked to the purely instrumental worth of the relationship (Buchanan, 1974).. Definition of Commitment Early in 1979, Porter defined commitment as “the relative strength of an individual`s identification with and involvement in a particular organization”. The model of organizational commitment proposed by Meyer in 2002 is one of the models that dominates organizational commitment research. He argued that commitment is experienced by the employee by three simultaneous mindsets encompassing affective commitment, normative commitment and continuance commitment (Jaros, 2007). Commitment is also referred to as the loyalty and integrity to an organization, related to the acceptance of the goals and values of the organization, the employees’ job satisfaction with the organization or the inclination to cooperate with the organization (Nosratabadi, Khedry, & Parvaneh, 2015). For the purposes of this study, commitment of students will be defined as the loyalty and integrity to the institution (university, school) which is related to the acceptance of the goals and values of the institution, the students’ satisfaction with their university and their desire to cooperate with the institution. The concept of commitment will be derived from the concept of organizational commitment. There is a relationship between some factors of student satisfaction and student loyalty. School administration, academic activities, interpersonal relationships and physical facilities have a positive influence on student loyalty, being school. 25.

(33) administration the factor with the highest influence on student loyalty (Chen, Hsiao, & Lee). Many of the recent researches are focusing on transforming classrooms into knowledge building communities and involving teachers, leaders, and administrators in focusing on improving methodologies, practices and students’ learning experiences. Transforming schools or learning institutions into knowledge-building communities require changes at different levels including teachers, student, administrative staff and school leaders (Chee Tan, So, & Yeo, 2014).. Dimensions of Commitment Commitment has also been defined as a type of emotional and fanatical dependence on the values and objectives of an organization. Commitment reflect the students’ attitude toward institutional values and goals, and indicate a force that requires the individuals to stay in the institution and perform different tasks in order to help the institution achieve its goals. The three model component developed by Meyer and Allen will be used in this research to analyze the level of commitment the students feel towards their educational institution. The components of the model are listed below: Affective commitment. Affective commitment is defined as the individuals’ emotional attachment to the organization. Affective commitment is reflected when the person stays in the institution. 26.

(34) because they have a positive view of and attitude towards the values and objectives of the institution. Normative commitment. Normative commitment is when the individual stays in the institution due to the pressure of norms and ethics. This type of individuals does not leave the institution because of pressure or fear of other people’s judgment following a decision to leave. This type of commitment owes to a feeling that the institution has treated them well; as a consequence the individual feels in debt with the institution. Continuance commitment. Continuance commitment is the result of the awareness of the costs of leaving the organization. This type of individuals consider that there are not many other opportunities and decide to stay in their organization based on a cost-benefit analysis. Students in this situation may wish not to leave for instance because they don’t want to apply for another university or because they consider other institution to be unaffordable.. 27.

(35) CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter contains the research design and methodology of the study. The chapter presents the research hypothesis derived from the literature review and research questions, explains the research framework and how the variables are measured and tested in the study. The chapter also provides details of the measurement instrument as well as validation. Sample, data collection, and data analysis methods are also introduced in this chapter.. Research Framework The research framework in this study was developed following the literature review. In this study, there are three dependent variables: knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and international students’ performance. The independent variable in this study is organizational culture. The following theoretical framework shows the relationship between the variables. In order to examine the effects of the variables, this study developed the Universities’ Culture, Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Creation and Commitment Model by ChengPing Shih and Vasquez. The model was partially adopted from Organizational Culture by Parsons (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2002), Knowledge sharing by Ulyses Agustine (2013), Knowledge Creation by Nonaka (1994) and Organizational Commitment by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979). The research framework developed can be found below.. 28.

(36) Figure 3. 1. Research framework.. Research Hypotheses Following the literature review and research framework, three hypotheses will be tested in this study. Based on the literature review we assumed that there is a relationship between the variables chosen and that relationship and influence will be tested in this study. Therefore, we will use null hypotheses to test the relationship between the variables. The sampled data will be used to test the following:. 29.

(37) H1. Organizational culture has no effect on knowledge sharing in international students in Taiwanese universities. H2. Knowledge sharing has no effect on the knowledge creation of international students in Taiwanese universities. H3. Knowledge creation has no effect on the commitment of international student in Taiwanese universities.. Research Procedures An orderly research procedure has been clearly outlined for the purpose of making clear the steps for this study: After the literature review and constructs of definitions, the next step is to identify and define the research questions and research hypotheses of the study. The development of the research framework follows after this step and the research framework is adapted from models used by different researchers (Augustine, 2013) (Nonaka, Byosiere, Borucki, & Kono, 1994), (Jaros, 2007), (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2002). The research instrument is developed following the constructs of the research framework, and adopting a language that can be applied and easily understood in the educational context. The instrument consists of a 5 point Likert scale that ranges from 1Totally Disagree to 5- Totally Agree. For the conduction of the pilot study, the instrument is sent online to international students studying in Taiwan. For the main study, the questionnaire is distributed online and paper to international students. The questionnaire includes a cover letter that explains the purposes of the study to the student. Instructions for how to complete the questionnaire were also included.. 30.

(38) Once the questionnaires are collected, the data is coded and keyed into the system equal modeling program (Smart PLS) and the Statistical package for Social Science (SPSS). The coding helps the researchers to analyze the information as well as to test the hypotheses in order to answer the research questions. The research is conducted following this research process:. 31.

(39) 1. • Research motivation. 2. • Review literature. 3. • Define constructs. 4. • Identify research questions and hypotheses. 5. • Develop research framework of the study. 6. • Determine research methodology. 7. • Develop instrument. 8. • Conduct Pilot study. 9. • Expert judgement and review. 10. • Instrument review. 11. • Data collection and coding. 12. • Data analysis. 13. • Conclusions and suggestions. Figure 3. 2. Research procedures. 32.

(40) Measurement Instrument A quantitative data approach is used for the conduction of this study. The measurement of the constructs in this study is accomplished by the development of a questionnaire, with multiple items and using a 5 point Likert Scale. The instrument uses a total of 17 validated construct scales that were found in the literature. The research instrument is a self-examined questionnaire in which the respondents answer based on their beliefs and opinions. The questionnaire is distributed online and in paper questionnaire. The items of the questionnaire are divided into sections that mark the different variables that will be measured and provide the surveyed person with a clear understanding of the instructions. All the items in the questionnaire are adapted from pre-validated measures in existing related studies. The questions are also adapted to fit the educational context and to facilitate the comprehension of the questions. The survey contains four sections: Organizational Culture, Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge creation, Commitment, as well as general information of the respondent. The survey is presented in a 1 to 5 point Likert Scale; 1 corresponding to “Totally Disagree” and 5 corresponding to “Totally Agree”. The items in the sections of the questionnaire are adapted from different sources as detailed in the following: The measurement instrument consists of 4 variables with a total of 61 questions including a section for demographic questions. Part I of the questionnaire contains University’s Culture (C); Part II contains Knowledge Sharing (KS); Part III contains. 33.

(41) Knowledge Creation (KC); Part IV contains Commitment (CC), with a total of 17 research variables. The questionnaire uses a 5- point Likert scale, ranging from 1- Totally disagree to 5- Totally agree.. Organizational Culture (C) This section contains 14 questions that are adapted from the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ), which is based on the work of Dr. Talcott Parsons, a sociologist at Harvard University (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2002). This section is categorized in four variables that are: Managing Change (OCUL-MG), Achieving Goals (OCUL-AG), Coordinated Teamwork (OCUL-CT) and Cultural Strength (OCUL-CS).. Knowledge Sharing (KS) The items measuring Knowledge Sharing are 17 and adopted from the questionnaire found in the work of Measuring the Effects of Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Transfer on the Survival and Competitiveness of Taiwan ICDF questionnaire (Augustine, 2013). The variables of this section are: Trust (KS-T), Collaboration (KS-COL), Cooperation (KS-COO), Team (KS-T), Mutual Concern (KS-MC) and Asking Questions (KS-AQ).. Knowledge Creation (KC) There are a total of 11 questions in this section. The questions are adapted from the questionnaire found in Managing the Effects of Knowledge Management Strategies, Enablers, and Assets on TSMC’s Creation Process and Performance (Liu, 2013). The SECI model of Nonaka and Takeuchi is also used in this section to define the variables. 34.

(42) which are: Socialization (KC-S), Externalization KC-E), Combination (KC-C) and Internalization (KC-I).. Commitment (CC) This section consists of 10 items adopted from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Mowday and Steers and Porter (1979). The section consists of 3 variables that follow the model developed by Meyer and Allen but that are widely used among many researchers: Normative Commitment (OCOM-NC), Affective Commitment (OCOM-AC) and Continuance Commitment (OCOM-CC).. Population and Samples The population of this study consists of foreign nationals currently enrolled in a study program in Taiwan, or studying higher non-degree seeking education. The Ministry of Education reports that the population of international students in Taiwan is 92,685 international student as of 2014 (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2015). This number is predicted to increase for 2015. The respondents of the study are selected with a convenience and snowball sample method. The students volunteer to answer the questionnaire which is a self-reported questionnaire. Paper and online questionnaire are used to gather data from the students. The sample size used for the pilot study comprises a total of 41 questionnaires. For the main study, a total of 210 questionnaires are collected from which 180 are valid questionnaires.. 35.

(43) Validity and Reliability Validity and Reliability of Pilot study Partial Least Squares (PLS) method is used to analyze the sample surveys of this study and to test the reliability of the instrument. PLS is used to analyze simultaneously the interrelationships among all the constructs. PLS is a popular model used to analyze small samples because it helps to predict responses. The software focuses on maximizing the variance of the dependent variables explained by the independent variables. The model reflects the relationships between the latent variables and a measurement component, which shows how the latent variables and the indicators are related (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004). All the items from Table 3.1 show that the there is a high internal consistency based on the alpha reliability of items. The pilot results shows that all of the values for Cronbach Alpha are higher than 0.72. Items for the section of university culture (14 items) had a value of 0.915; for the knowledge sharing section (17 items) Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.876; for the section of knowledge creation (11 items) the value was 0.857 and for the section of commitment (10 items) the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.765. All the values can be observed below in Table 3.1.. 36.

(44) Table 3.1. Pilot Cronbach's Alpha Results for all Dimensions Constructs. Number of Items. Cronbach Alpha. University Culture. 14. 0.915. Knowledge Sharing. 17. 0.876. Knowledge Creation. 11. 0.857. Commitment. 10. 0.765. The individual reliability of the items was evaluated in the pilot study by examining the outer loadings of the measurements with their corresponding constructs. Table 3.2 shows that all the indicators had outer loadings greater than 0.5, meaning that the items in the questionnaire where related to the items they were supposed to measure. No items were deleted in this section.. Table 3.2. Pilot Outer Loading Loadings CC_AC .862. CC_CC .856. CC_NC .755. C_AG .909. C_CS .915. C_CT .869. KC_E .868. KC_I .852. C_MC .877 KC_C .765 KC_S .848 (Continued). 37.

(45) Table 3.2. (Continued) Loadings KS_AQ .575. KS_C .886. KS_CO .890. KS_MC .822. KS_T .900. KS_TC .867. Note: CC_AC= Affective Commitment; CC_CC= Continuance Commitment; CC_NC= Normative Commitment; C_AG= Achieving Goals; C_CS= Cultural Strength; C_CT= Coordinated Teamwork; C_MC= Managing Change; KC_C= Combination; KC_E= Externalization; KC_ S= Socialization; KC_I= Internalization; KS_AQ= Asking Questions; KS_C= Collaboration; KS_CO= Cooperation; KS_MC= Mutual Concern; KS_T= Trust; KS_TC= Team. To evaluate the convergent validity of the pilot study, composite reliability and average variance were examined. Since Cronbach’s Alpha tends to provide a conservative measure of internal consistency reliability in PLS-SEM, it is also recommended to use composite reliability to confirm the internal consistency of the items (Wong, 2013). To show high levels of internal consistency the values must be greater than the minimum of 0.6 (Wong, 2013). Table 3.3 shows that all the items have values grater the minimum requirement for internal consistency. In order to verify the convergent validity of the instrument, we check the Average Variance Extracted values. Here, a minimum of 0.5 is acceptable in order to confirm convergent validity of the items. Lastly, R2 shows the explanatory power of the total variance which are also important for this study.. 38.

(46) Table 3.3. Pilot Average Variance, Internal Consistency and R2 Constructs. Number of Items. AVE. Internal. R2 (%). consistency University Culture. 14. 0.797. 0.940. Knowledge Sharing. 17. 0.679. 0.912. 0.518. Knowledge Creation. 11. 0.695. 0.901. 0.462. Commitment. 10. 0.682. 0.865. 0.492. Validity and Reliability of Main Study Reliability Test Analysis. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test in Table 3.5 shows the coefficient values for each of the constructs as follows: University Culture (.83); Knowledge Sharing (.88); Knowledge Creation (.84); Commitment (.66). Except commitment, all the constructs have Cronbach’s Alpha values higher than .70. Even though commitment has a value lower than the acceptable level of .70, it can be still be accepted because it’s not so low that it must be rejected. Therefore, it can be concluded that the scales for all dimensions have a high level of internal consistency and reliability.. 39.

(47) Table 3.4. Cronbach’s Alpha Results for all Dimensions (N=180) Constructs. Number of Items. Cronbach Alpha. University Culture. 14. 0.838. Knowledge Sharing. 17. 0.888. Knowledge Creation. 11. 0.842. Commitment. 10. 0.666. Validity and Reliability. The assessment of the validity of the measurement instrument is measured with convergent validity and discriminant validity. Composite reliability and average variance extracted were analyzed to determine the convergent validity and reliability of the measurement instrument. The minimum value recommended for composite reliability is .70 (Wong, 2013). Table 3.5 shows that all the values of composite reliability are higher than minimum value, which indicates that the values are accepted. Average Variance extracted was evaluated to check the convergent validity of each of the variables in this study. AVE values are recommended to be higher than 0.5 as it indicates that each of the dimensions converge well. Table 3.5 also shows that the values are higher than the minimum requirement. Therefore, all the constructs met convergent validity. Note also that most of the values for Cronbach Alpha are higher than 0.70, except for Commitment (0.66). However, this value can still be accepted since this value is still regarded as sufficient.. 40.

(48) Table 3.5. Main Study Constructs' Reliability Analysis for this Study Composite. Code. Constructs. C. University Culture. 0.892. 0.838. 0.673. KS. Knowledge Sharing. 0.915. 0.888. 0.642. KC. Knowledge Creation. 0.894. 0.842. 0.679. CC. Commitment. 0.812. 0.666. 0.597. Reliability. Cronbach Alpha. AVE. Individual factor loading of each of the items were assessed in this study by using Smart PLS. Outer loadings of 0.7 are preferred, but loadings higher than 0.4 are also acceptable. All the items loadings in Table 3.6 are greater than 0.57, so all the items met the required criteria.. Table 3.6. PLS Outer Loadings Loadings CC_AC .859. CC_CC .851. CC_NC .574. C_AG .801. C_CS .836. C_CT .827. KC_E .871. KC_I .842. C_MC .816 KC_C .77. (Continued). 41.

(49) Table 3.6. (Continued) Loadings KC_S .809 KS_AQ .77. KS_C .759. KS_CO .835. KS_MC .825. KS_T .802. KS_TC .812. Note: CC_AC= Affective Commitment; CC_CC= Continuance Commitment; CC_NC= Normative Commitment; C_AG= Achieving Goals; C_CS= Cultural Strength; C_CT= Coordinated Teamwork; C_MC= Managing Change; KC_C= Combination; KC_E= Externalization; KC_ S= Socialization; KC_I= Internalization; KS_AQ= Asking Questions; KS_C= Collaboration; KS_CO= Cooperation; KS_MC= Mutual Concern; KS_T= Trust; KS_TC= Team.. Data Analysis Method Partial Least Squares (PLS) method was used to analyze the data of this study. PLS is used to analyze simultaneously the interrelationships among all the constructs and is a fundamentally more sophisticated model. PLS is a popular model used to analyze small samples because it helps to predict responses. PLS focuses on maximizing the variance of the dependent variables explained by the independent variables. The model reflects the relationships between the latent variables and a measurement component, which shows how the latent variables and the indicators are related (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004).. Data Collection The population for this study consists of international students in Taiwan. Taiwan is a popular destination in Asia for students, because of its attractive environment, safety,. 42.

(50) commodities, etc. Every year more than 3,000 international students arrive to the country seeking a degree, to study language or on exchange – and the trend is increasing. In this study, we aim to measure the level of commitment of the students with their universities and how the organizational culture influences the knowledge processes in students. Knowledge management is an important issue that has attracted the attention of many researchers, but the topic is mostly explored for organizations and not enough attention is given to the topic in the education field. According to the Ministry of Education of Taiwan, there are more than 92,000 international students in the island by the year of 2014. Based on these statistics we select a sample of 200 international students in Taiwan who are currently pursuing a degree level education, enrolled in a language program or are exchange students. A list of the universities in Taiwan is retrieved from the website of the Ministry of Education (MOE) and based on this the questionnaire is sent to the office of international affairs from different universities around the country. Convenience and snowball sampling are the preferred methods of data collection used. The respondents are also advised to forward the online questionnaire to their friends and classmates. Also, online and paper questionnaires are used to facilitate the collection of data. A total of 100 surveys have been collected via online questionnaire (see Appendix B) and the remaining 110 have been collected with paper questionnaires. This section contains general information about the respondents such as age, gender, nationality, and level of education. A total of 210 responses are used for this study, from. 43.

(51) which 180 of the responses are valid. The largest group of respondent is between the ages of 20-26 corresponding to a total of 68% of the respondents. Regarding the gender of the respondents, there is not a significant difference between the genders, being 44% female and the other 56% male. Regarding the level of education, the majority of the respondents are enrolled in a Bachelors program corresponding to 51% of the participants, followed by 38% of students who are enrolled in a Master’s degree program, 4% of students doing PhD studies, 4% from language programs, and the remaining 3% students from other programs, including Military education, and other technical courses. Regarding the origin of the participants, the largest group is from Central and South American corresponding to 52% of the respondents, followed by Asia with 22%, and Europe with 12%. Africa and North America are the smallest groups of respondents with 8% and 6% respectively. Regarding the student status, a classification provided by the MOE is used for the study. The biggest group of respondents is Degree seeking students with a total of 71% of the respondents, after this 16% correspond to International exchange students, 8% study Mandarin Chinese and a total of 2% are Overseas compatriot students and Mainland China Students studying for a degree,. The remaining are Overseas compatriot Youth technical training classes 1% and Mainland China students studying for short term courses at 1%. Students are sponsored by ICDF at 23%, self-sponsored students 23%, 17% are sponsored by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), 18% corresponds to students sponsored by their universities and equally 18% of students are sponsored by other institutions (this includes other NGO’s, students sponsored by other universities and other governments).. 44.

(52) Table 3.7. Data of Variables by Entry and Values Variables. Age. Gender. Region. Student Status. Entries. Percentage. Under 20. 11. 6%. 20-26. 123. 68%. 27-33. 35. 19%. 34-40. 11. 6%. 41+. 0. 0%. Female. 79. 44%. Male. 101. 56%. Central and South America. 94. 52%. North America. 11. 6%. Europe. 21. 12%. Africa. 15. 8%. Asia. 39. 22%. Degree Seeking Student. 128. 71%. 4. 2%. Overseas Compatriot Student (Including students from Hong Kong and Macao). (Continued). 45.

(53) Table 3.7. (Continued) Variables Student Status. Entries. Percentage. for a degree). 3. 2%. International Exchange Student. 29. 16%. Short Term Courses Student. 0. 0%. Studying Mandarin Chinese. 14. 8%. 1. 1%. Technical Training Classes. 1. 1%. Undergraduate. 91. 51%. Master. 69. 38%. PhD. 8. 4%. Language Program. 7. 4%. Other. 5. 3%. ICDF. 42. 23%. MOFA. 31. 17%. University Scholarship. 33. 18%. Self-Sponsored. 41. 23%. Other. 33. 18%. Main Land China Student (Studying. Main Land China Student (Studying short term courses) Overseas Compatriot Youth. Level of education. Sponsoring. 46.

(54) Data Coding System Before the analysis, the data was coded to facilitate the processing of information. The 61 items of the questionnaire were coded using a 5-point Likert scale. The coding system for all the variables and demographic questions are included in Table 3.8.. Table 3.8. Coding System Used in PLS Data Analysis Variables University Culture. 1 = Totally Disagree. (14 questions). 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Totally Agree. Knowledge Sharing. 1 = Totally Disagree. (17 questions). 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Totally Agree. Knowledge Creation. 1 = Totally Disagree. (10 questions). 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Totally Agree (Continued). 47.

(55) Table 3.8. (Continued) Variables Commitment. 1 = Totally Disagree. (11 questions). 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Totally Agree. Age. 1 = Under 20. (Unit: years). 2 = 20-26 3 = 27-33 4 = 34-40 5 = 41+. Gender. 1 = Male 2 = Female. Region. 1 = Central and South America 2 = North America 3 = Europe 4 = Africa 5 = Asia. Student Status. 1 = Degree Seeking Student 2 = Overseas Compatriot Student (Including Student from Hong Kong and Macao) 3 = Main Land China Student (Studying for a Degree) 4 = International Exchange Student 5 = Short Term Courses Student 6 = Studying Mandarin Chinese 7 = Main Land China Student (Studying Short Term Courses) 8 = Overseas Compatriot Youth Technical Training Classes (Continued) 48.

(56) Table 3.8. (Continued) Variables Education. 1 = Undergraduate 2 = Master 3 = PhD 4 = Language Program 5 = Other. Sponsoring. 1 = ICDF 2 = MOFA 3 = University Scholarship 4 = Self Sponsored 5 = Other. Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics were used to summarized and describe the data gathered in this study. This process allowed the researcher to organize the data in more comprehensible and meaningful way by calculating numerical indexes such as means and standard deviation; which allow us an easier interpretation of the data collected.. Inferential Statistics The researcher used inferential statistics in order to examine the relationships and differences between variables. This process is important because it aids to testing of statistical hypotheses and significance testing. Since, the number of international students in Taiwan is very large, inferential statistics help us to analyze the information gathered and make inferences about the population. This study investigate the relationship between. 49.

(57) university culture, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and commitment of international students in Taiwan.. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling The relationship between the constructs was analyzed using structural equation modeling SEM and the partial least square PLS approach. Structural equation modeling is a general statistical modeling technique which allow us to infer about cause-effect relationships between different theoretical constructs and variables. The purpose of this model is to study complex relationships between variables, where some variables can be hypothetical and unobserved. SEM is also considered a framework for quantitative analysis that uses a statistical technique instead of a statistical method (Hox & Bechger, 2001) which also permits an evaluation of networks of directs and indirect effects. SEM has different types of approaches, the first one is covariance-based SEM (CBSEM, which is regularly used with software packages like AMOS, ISREL and MPlus; the second approach is a component-based SEM which is known as Generalized Structure Component Analysis (GSCA) which is generally used with VisualGSCA and GeSCA; the third approach is Partial Least Squares (PLS), which focuses on the analysis of variance and can be used through PLS Graph, Visual PLS, Smart PLS and others (Wong, 2013). In this study this last approach was used because of the advantages that offers this model. PLS is very useful because it provides a satisfactory predictive accuracy and is also useful with small sample sizes. Smart PLS is a software that is available for free for the research community and it also maintain an online discussion forum with allows knowledge exchange among its users.. 50.

(58) Bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is a non-parametric bootstrap procedure that is used to test the significance of estimated path coefficients on PLS (Smart PLS, 2015). The bootstrapping process creates subsamples with randomly drawn observations from the original set of data. This is also used to estimate the t-values of item loadings and path coefficients. R Square. R Squared is also known as coefficient of determination and it’s the percentage of the response variable variation that is explained by a linear model (MiniTab, 2015). The substantial values of R Squared in general is over 0.67 but is weak below 0.19. Path Coefficients. In PLS path coefficients are used to assess the relationship between variable and predictor variables. Path coefficients are a standardized version of linear regressions that are used to examine the possible causal linkage between a statistical variable in a structural equation model approach. 51.

(59) CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 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. 52.