Bridging the Gap: Competency Alignment in Tourism and Hospitality Education Across South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong

Abstract

The accelerating transformation of the tourism and hospitality industry requires higher education institutions to equip graduates with market-aligned competencies, yet the effectiveness of hospitality education programs across national contexts remains underexplored. This study examines the alignment between students’ perceived competencies and curricular emphasis in tourism and hospitality education in South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Data were collected from 650 final-year undergraduate students using a structured questionnaire based on the Student Competency Self Evaluation Scale (SCSES). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified five core competency domains: Financial Management, Strategic Planning, Leadership, Communication, and Cultural Awareness. Curriculum structures were examined by classifying institutional course offerings into standardized competency clusters. The findings show that students in Singapore reported the highest levels of self-perceived competencies, particularly in financial management and strategic planning, while South Korean students reported the lowest across all domains. Curriculum analysis indicates that programs in South Korea emphasize operational training, those in Singapore focus on managerial and interdisciplinary competencies, and those in Hong Kong prioritize business management, with limited emphasis on personal and soft skills. These findings highlight gaps in competency alignment and provide practical implications for curriculum enhancement, particularly in South Korean tourism and hospitality education programs.

1. Introduction

The tourism and hospitality industry is undergoing rapid transformation, driven by global trends such as technological innovation, digitalization, labor market disruptions, and evolving consumer expectations (Morosan & Bowen, 2022; Ozdemir et al., 2023). These changes are reshaping workforce demands, emphasizing not only technical proficiency but also behavioral, managerial, and strategic competencies (Bharwani & Butt, 2012; Ivanov et al., 2020). Consequently, higher education institutions face growing pressure to prepare hospitality graduates who are operationally competent, adaptable, emotionally intelligent, and digitally literate (Millar et al., 2013; Shi et al., 2022).

In response, tourism and hospitality education programs in many countries have adopted competency-based learning models and restructured their curricula to better align with industry expectations (Hein & Riegel, 2013; Yende, 2025). However, the effectiveness of these reforms varies significantly across national contexts. In Asia, Singapore and Hong Kong have gained recognition for their globally oriented hospitality education systems, which integrate intercultural communication, service innovation, and leadership development (Chon et al., 2020; Hsu, 2014). These programs are frequently internationally accredited and maintain strong linkages with industry practice to prepare graduates for competitive global labor markets. The selection of Singapore and Hong Kong as benchmarks is particularly relevant as both regions consistently rank among the top globally for “International Student Diversity” and “Employer Reputation” in the QS World University Rankings for Hospitality & Leisure Management 2025 (QS TopUniversities, 2025). This provides a robust standard for evaluating the transition toward a more industry-integrated and globalized educational model, which South Korea currently aims to emulate.

In contrast, hospitality education in South Korea, while expanding steadily, has received critical attention regarding potential misalignment between academic training and industry requirements. Curriculum analyses indicate an imbalance between theoretical instruction and practical skill development, alongside limited mechanisms to foster adaptability to rapidly evolving industry trends (Choi et al., 2021; Oktadiana & Chon, 2017; Wang & Abukhalifeh, 2021). This structural misalignment is further evidenced by national data; despite high tertiary attainment, South Korea has seen a 27-point decline in the literacy skills of tertiary-educated adults between 2014 and 2023, coupled with compulsory instruction hours that remain below the OECD average (OECD, 2025). This suggests that the “misalignment” in the South Korean hospitality sector may be rooted in declining learning outcomes and a curriculum that prioritizes theoretical volume over the sustained development of professional competencies.

While prior studies have examined curriculum reform and competency development in hospitality education (Ozdemir et al., 2023; Shi et al., 2022), limited empirical research directly compares how students across different national education systems perceive their own professional competencies. Even fewer studies assess the extent to which these self-perceived competencies align with the formal curriculum. This lack of comparative insight is particularly salient in East and Southeast Asia, where hospitality programs differ substantially in pedagogical orientation and industry engagement. Without a clear understanding of such alignment or misalignment, education providers risk overlooking gaps that may hinder graduate employability.

To address this gap, the present study investigates the alignment between hospitality students’ self-perceived competencies and curricular emphasis in South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. In this context, competency alignment is conceptualized as the degree of congruence between the competencies emphasized within the institutional curriculum and the level of proficiency reported by students in those same domains. Specifically, the study aims to identify core competency domains perceived by students, examine the structure and thematic distribution of hospitality curricula, and assess the degree of alignment between student perceptions and institutional priorities. By drawing comparative insights from Singapore and Hong Kong while emphasizing the South Korean context, this study contributes to hospitality education literature by integrating student-centered competency assessment with curriculum analysis across national systems. The findings also offer practical implications for educators and policymakers seeking to enhance curriculum relevance, improve graduate readiness, and support evidence-based reforms aligned with industry expectations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Competency-Based Education in Hospitality Management

Competency-Based Education (CBE) has emerged as a prominent pedagogical approach in higher education, shifting the emphasis from time-based instruction to the demonstration of clearly defined, measurable competencies (Mulder, 2018; Wesselink et al., 2010). In hospitality management education, CBE has been increasingly adopted to address persistent gaps between academic preparation and industry expectations (Suh et al., 2012). By emphasizing performance-based learning outcomes, CBE enables students to progress based on demonstrated mastery rather than on instructional duration (Shah & Liu, 2021).

CBE is particularly relevant in hospitality education, where graduate employability depends heavily on applied, behavioral, and managerial competencies (Bharwani & Jauhari, 2013; Chang & Werther, 2021). Prior studies indicate that CBE facilitates the integration of theoretical knowledge with experiential learning, enhancing job readiness in areas such as customer service, financial management, leadership, and team coordination (Kasa et al., 2020; Silitonga, 2021; Tesone & Ricci, 2006). Nevertheless, hospitality graduates continue to face competency mismatches, especially in leadership, strategic thinking, and intercultural communication, suggesting limitations in how competencies are embedded within curricula (N.-Y. Kim, 2024; Shah & Liu, 2021).

Scholars further caution that competencies should not be treated as static checklists but as dynamic, context-dependent capabilities shaped by social interaction and organizational environments (Quintela et al., 2024; Suh et al., 2012). The effectiveness of CBE implementation, therefore, depends on institutional support structures, including faculty development, continuous assessment mechanisms, and curriculum integration strategies (A. M. H. Chen et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2025). Collectively, the literature suggests that while CBE provides a robust framework for competency development, its impact ultimately depends on how competencies are perceived by students and formally reflected in curriculum design.

However, the implementation of CBE in Asian educational systems is frequently hindered by cultural and structural constraints. Traditional hierarchical teaching, rooted in Confucian heritage, often creates barriers to student-centered approaches, as instructors may resist relinquishing authority (Abdullah, 2020; Hong, 2011; Oktadiana & Chon, 2017). This cultural backdrop often leads to a “credential trap”, where intense competition for university prestige and an obsession with grade point average (GPA) overshadow the acquisition of actual task-based skills (Abelmann et al., 2009; Shin et al., 2018; So & Kang, 2014). Consequently, bridging the gap between curriculum planning and practical implementation remains a challenge, as rigid regulatory frameworks, particularly in South Korea, often favor traditional subject-based models over integrated competency development (Hallinger & Lu, 2011; Lee & Xu, 2024; Shin et al., 2018).

Furthermore, technological disruptions such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are redefining core competencies, necessitating digital literacy from an early stage of education (Deri et al., 2024; Jabeen et al., 2021). Institutions must adapt by embedding AI-driven simulations and interdisciplinary projects to foster analytical decision-making skills (Neophytou et al., 2025; Seo & Kim, 2021). This shift requires graduates to manage new digital job roles while maintaining essential soft competencies like creativity, critical thinking, and leadership (Adeyinka-Ojo et al., 2020; Ercik & Kardaş, 2024). Ultimately, hospitality curricula in Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea must balance high-tech proficiency with high-touch human services to ensure long-term employability in a post-pandemic industry (Jones, 2019; Xu et al., 2022).

2.2. Student Competency Self-Evaluation in Higher Education

Self-evaluation has become an increasingly important practice in higher education, particularly as institutions seek to assess not only learning outcomes but also students’ perceived readiness for professional environments. Unlike traditional assessment approaches that rely primarily on externally measured performance, self-evaluation emphasizes reflective judgment, allowing students to evaluate their own competencies by integrating cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of learning (Boud & Falchikov, 2006; García-Aracil et al., 2018) This reflective process has been linked to higher learning engagement, stronger learning ownership, and the development of lifelong learning capabilities (Kolmos et al., 2021).

Empirical evidence suggests that structured self-evaluation can enhance deeper cognitive processing and encourage students to critically reassess their learning experiences, thereby improving the alignment between educational outcomes and career expectations (McIver & Murphy, 2021). In addition, self-evaluated competencies have been shown to relate positively to career-related outcomes such as job search success and employability perceptions, particularly when supported by adaptive career behaviors (H. Chen et al., 2023).

In hospitality education, the importance of self-evaluation is particularly pronounced given the service-intensive, people-oriented nature of the industry. Hospitality graduates are expected to demonstrate not only technical proficiency but also higher-order managerial and interpersonal competencies, including leadership, communication, and intercultural sensitivity (Cheung et al., 2010; Shum et al., 2018). However, prior studies consistently report that hospitality graduates often feel insufficiently prepared for managerial roles, revealing a misalignment between curriculum emphasis and industry expectations (Nachmias et al., 2017).

To address this issue, the present study adopts the Student Competency Self-Evaluation Scale (SCSES) to examine students’ perceived competencies in hospitality education. The SCSES focuses on broader, transferable managerial competencies, specifically financial management, strategic planning, leadership, communication, and cultural awareness, that are frequently highlighted in hospitality and management education literature as critical for long-term career development (Fraser, 2020; Shariff & Razak, 2022). These domains were selected based on established conceptual frameworks but are treated as empirically testable constructs, allowing their dimensionality to be validated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

Unlike conventional hospitality assessments that emphasize operational and technical skills, the SCSES prioritizes higher-order competencies that support adaptability, leadership potential, and strategic decision-making. This focus responds to persistent concerns that hospitality curricula tend to overemphasize operational training while underdeveloping managerial and soft skills essential for career progression (Fraser, 2020; Papageorgiou et al., 2024). By concentrating on these less visible yet critical competencies, the SCSES offers a structured approach to evaluating whether hospitality education adequately prepares students for evolving industry demands.

Moreover, while related constructs such as employability perception and career adaptability have received scholarly attention (Y. Liu et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2023), competency-focused self-evaluation instruments tailored specifically to hospitality education remain limited. The SCSES, therefore, fills an important gap by providing a context-sensitive framework that fosters reflective learning among students while offering institutions insights into curriculum effectiveness and alignment with industry needs.

However, cross-national self-evaluation data must be interpreted with caution due to cultural biases. In East Asian collectivistic societies, cultural demands for modesty often lead students to underreport their actual proficiency (M.-J. Liu et al., 2022). This modesty bias may result in students downplaying their knowledge, which can be misinterpreted as a lack of confidence (Jackson, 2025). Empirical evidence further suggests that students from East Asian backgrounds may produce more unfavorable self-assessments due to culturally motivated self-criticism rather than lower ability (Y.-H. Kim et al., 2016). To mitigate these biases, this study focuses on identifying underlying competency structures through factor analysis and examining patterns of alignment with curriculum clusters, providing a more balanced interpretation of how students from different cultural backgrounds perceive their professional readiness.

2.3. Curriculum Composition and Regional Contexts in Hospitality Education

Curriculum composition is a key mechanism through which hospitality education translates industry expectations into structured learning outcomes. In this context, a curriculum refers to an integrated set of compulsory and elective courses designed to develop disciplinary knowledge and professional competencies (Wang & Abukhalifeh, 2021). As the hospitality industry becomes more complex and globally interconnected, curricula are increasingly expected to move beyond vocational training and incorporate managerial, strategic, and interpersonal competencies that support long-term career development (Hein & Riegel, 2013).

Globally, hospitality programs are expected to balance industry-specific skills with transferable competencies such as strategic thinking, financial literacy, leadership, and intercultural communication (Baum, 2019; Sisson & Adams, 2013). Nevertheless, substantial evidence points to persistent misalignment between curriculum content and labor market expectations, particularly regarding graduates’ preparedness for managerial and decision-making roles (Johanson et al., 2011; Nachmias et al., 2017). Scholars therefore emphasize the need for stronger collaboration between higher education institutions and industry stakeholders to enhance curriculum relevance and graduate employability (Deri et al., 2024; Stefanini et al., 2021).

In Asia, hospitality education systems increasingly pursue international recognition through globally benchmarked curricula and pedagogical standards (Hsu, 2014; Law et al., 2020; Thomas & Sebastian, 2025). At the same time, curriculum flexibility remains essential to accommodate regional industry characteristics and labor market dynamics (Alexakis & Jiang, 2019). These systems share a common cultural heritage characterized by Confucian values of community, productivity, and efficiency. Despite these shared roots, the “Asian Tiger” economies of Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea have undergone dramatic socioeconomic changes, leading to divergent pedagogical philosophies (Cheng, 2017). For example, while all three regions have introduced project-based learning to foster student autonomy, implementation ranges from Singapore’s compulsory “project learning” to South Korea’s “exam-free semesters” designed for self-directed career exploration (Cheng, 2017). For comparative purposes, hospitality curricula in South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong can be broadly classified into five competence-based areas: tourism-related studies; accounting, finance, and economics; hotel and restaurant operations; hospitality and business management; and personal and professional skills, including communication and leadership. This categorization provides a structured basis for cross-national comparison of curriculum emphasis.

In South Korea, hospitality education programs are characterized by their disciplinary specialization and strong international orientation. Unlike business-based hospitality programs in some Asian contexts, many Korean programs operate as independent departments dedicated specifically to hospitality and tourism studies (Wang & Abukhalifeh, 2021). The South Korean vision for education integrates ancient principles like Hongik Ingan (benefiting humankind) with futuristic thinking to address the pressures of a highly competitive academic culture (Cheng, 2017). These curricula often incorporate courses on leadership, communication, and professional etiquette, reflecting the service-intensive nature of hospitality careers. Increasing attention has also been given to intercultural competence and global engagement, driven by demographic changes and Korea’s strategic ambition to strengthen its position in international hospitality education (Jang et al., 2021; Kang, 2021). Nevertheless, prior studies suggest that despite curricular expansion and the integration of internships, concerns remain regarding graduates’ readiness for managerial roles and their adaptability to industry change (Na & Lee, 2021).

Singapore’s hospitality education system presents a contrasting model, shaped by a strong policy emphasis on employability and industry alignment. The system utilizes a “tight-loose” management approach to foster individualized development alongside national wellness goals (Cheng, 2017). Institutions such as the Singapore Institute of Technology embed practical training within on-campus facilities (Varaprasad, 2021). This applied orientation reflects Singapore’s broader educational philosophy, in which curriculum development is closely informed by industry consultation and labor market analysis (Lam & May-Fung, 2021). As a result, Singapore has been a pioneer in learning technologies, using them as practical tools to facilitate collaborative and individualized learning (Cheng, 2017).

Hong Kong represents one of Asia’s most mature and internationally recognized hospitality education hubs, anchored by globally ranked institutions. The region has engaged in long-term, sustained education reforms that redefine the focus from teaching to diverse, experiential learning (Cheng, 2017). Hospitality curricula in Hong Kong typically combine Western pedagogical frameworks with localized industry content, placing strong emphasis on leadership, communication, and service excellence (Cheung et al., 2010; Law et al., 2020). While initiatives like “Education 2.1” emphasize the learning process, high-stakes university entrance examinations remain a fundamental barrier to expanding students’ learning experiences (Cheng, 2017). Furthermore, scholars note ongoing challenges in balancing theoretical depth with practical industry demands, particularly in preparing graduates for operational realities (Fraser, 2020).

A comparative synthesis of these regional contexts suggests that while these systems share a common cultural foundation, their reform trajectories are driven by distinct strategic priorities. South Korea’s model reflects an academic-specialist approach, where hospitality education is treated as an independent discipline integrated with visionary philosophical aims (Cheng, 2017; Na & Lee, 2021). In contrast, Singapore demonstrates a pragmatic, industry-proactive philosophy that prioritizes immediate employability through “tight-loose” government steering and the rapid adoption of learning technologies (Cheng, 2017; Lam & May-Fung, 2021). Meanwhile, Hong Kong emphasizes a sustained, process-oriented reform that focuses on experiential learning and diverse pedagogical outcomes, even while grappling with the constraints of high-stakes testing (Cheng, 2017; Cheung et al., 2010). These divergent national philosophies shape the unique curricular DNA of each region.

Despite contextual differences, a shared challenge across hospitality education systems in Asia is the need to develop dynamic and future-oriented curricula. As the scope of hospitality continues to expand to include sectors such as events, cruise tourism, and recreation, curricular structures must be continually reassessed and updated (Sisson & Adams, 2013). Research consistently indicates that curricula that balance technical proficiency with managerial, strategic, and interpersonal competencies are more effective in supporting long-term career success rather than short-term job placement alone (Alexakis & Jiang, 2019; Jiang & Alexakis, 2017). These considerations underscore the importance of examining curriculum composition alongside student competency outcomes, particularly in comparative, cross-national contexts.

2.4. Hypothesis and Research Questions

This study seeks to understand how hospitality education in Asia aligns with evolving industry needs by analyzing curriculum structures in relation to students’ competency perceptions. To ensure the robustness of the findings and justify the use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), the study proposes a measurement-based hypothesis. Unlike traditional path modeling, PLS-SEM is employed here to validate the multidimensionality of the student competency construct and to assess the internal consistency and validity of the measurement model across different national contexts. The proposed measurement model, illustrating the expected relationships between the latent competency domains, is presented in Figure 1. Consequently, the following hypothesis and research questions are proposed:

Proposition 1.

The Student Competency Self-Evaluation Scale (SCSES) is a multidimensional measurement model comprising five distinct latent domains—leadership, communication, financial management, strategic thinking, and cultural awareness—that demonstrate robust convergent and discriminant validity.

RQ1. 

What core competency domains emerge from hospitality students’ self-assessment in South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and how do students in each country evaluate their perceived competence across these domains?

RQ2. 

How is the curriculum in hospitality education programs structured across the three countries, and to what extent does the distribution of curriculum content reflect emphasis on different competency areas?

RQ3. 

What are the comparative competency profiles of hospitality education across South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, as reflected by student self-evaluation and curriculum emphasis? What actionable insights can inform curriculum enhancement in South Korea?

3. Materials and Methods

This study employed a quantitative cross-sectional design to examine the alignment between hospitality students’ self-perceived competencies and curriculum composition across three national contexts: South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The study aimed to identify core competency domains derived from student self-assessments, analyze curricular emphasis within hospitality education programs, and compare these dimensions across countries to reveal patterns of alignment and potential gaps.

Data on students’ perceived competencies were collected via an online, self-administered questionnaire distributed to final-year undergraduate students enrolled in hospitality management programs. Final-year students were selected because they had completed most compulsory and elective courses, enabling them to reflect more comprehensively on their competency development. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. In total, 650 valid responses were obtained from students across 17 higher education institutions. The sample distribution included South Korea (n = 381, 58.6%), Singapore (n = 154, 23.7%), and Hong Kong (n = 115, 17.7%). This distribution reflects the larger number of participating institutions and the greater scale of hospitality higher education in South Korea compared to the other two regions. The demographic characteristics of the respondents and the list of participating institutions are presented in

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Student Respondents.

Characteristics	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	343	52.8%
	Female	307	47.2%
Age	<21	158	24.3%
	21–25	253	38.9%
	26–30	239	36.8%
Country of origin	South Korea	381	58.6%
	Singapore	154	23.7%
	Hong Kong	115	17.7%
International student	Yes	98	15.1%
	No	552	84.9%
Institution	Tourism & Hotel Management, Hong Kong Polytech University (A)	39	6.0%
	Institute of Hong Kong: Technological & Higher Education, Department of Hospitality & Business Management (B)	38	5.8%
	The Chinese University of Hong Kong, School of Hotel and Tourism Management (C)	38	5.8%
	Singapore Institute of Technology, Management of Tourism & Hospitality (D)	39	6.0%
	Temasek Polytech, Hospitality and Tourism Management (E)	39	6.0%
	James Cook University, Hospitality & Tourism Management (F)	38	5.8%
	Nanyang Polytechnic, Hospitality and Tourism Management (G)	38	5.8%
	Sejong University, Hotel and Tourism Management (H)	39	6.0%
	Baekseok University, Hotel Management (I)	38	5.8%
	Kyungsung University, Global Hospitality Management (J)	38	5.8%
	Hanyang University, Tourism department (K)	38	5.8%
	Gyung Hee University, Global Hospitality and Tourism (L)	38	5.8%
	Tongmyong University, Department of Global Tourism (M)	38	5.8%
	Woosong University, Dept. of Hotel & Tourism Management (N)	38	5.8%
	University of Soowon, Department of Hotel Management (O)	38	5.8%
	Honam University, Department of Tourism (P)	38	5.8%
	Dongseo University, Department of Hotel Management (Q)	38	5.8%

.

The questionnaire instrument was developed based on established theoretical frameworks and validated measurement scales in hospitality and management education (Cheung et al., 2010; Fraser, 2020; Hein & Riegel, 2013; Li et al., 2025; Papageorgiou et al., 2024; Renfors et al., 2020; Shariff & Razak, 2022; Shum et al., 2018; Suh et al., 2012). To ensure content validity and cross-cultural appropriateness, the instrument underwent a formal review by a panel of experts in hospitality education and was pilot-tested among a small group of students from each region. For the South Korean context, a translation-back-translation procedure was followed to ensure linguistic equivalence. The items captured a broad range of industry-relevant competencies, including leadership, communication, financial management, strategic thinking, and cultural awareness. Although the items were initially organized into five conceptual domains, the final competency structure was determined empirically.

An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics (version 25) to identify underlying latent dimensions. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was subsequently performed using SmartPLS 4 to validate the measurement model. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed due to its suitability for complex latent constructs and its robustness to non-normal data distributions, which is common in student perception surveys. Furthermore, PLS-SEM was preferred over Covariance-Based SEM (CB-SEM) as the primary objective was to confirm the structural dimensions of the newly adapted SCSES instrument through a measurement model validation rather than testing causal path relationships. The measurement model was assessed for internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity following established criteria.

To analyze curricular emphasis, official course catalogs and program structures from the participating institutions were systematically reviewed. All compulsory and elective courses were coded and classified into five curriculum clusters: (1) Tourism and Related Courses, (2) Accounting, Finance, and Economics, (3) Hotel and Restaurant Management, (4) Hospitality and Business Management, including human resources, law, and consumer behavior, and (5) Personal Skills, such as communication, leadership, and language training. To ensure classification consistency and mitigate subjectivity, an inter-coder reliability check was conducted; two researchers independently coded a subset of the programs, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. Curricular emphasis was quantified by calculating the proportion of courses within each cluster relative to the total number of courses offered in each program.

Comparative analyses were conducted by integrating student competency scores with curriculum cluster distributions using a two-step statistical approach to ensure stability despite uneven sample sizes. First, descriptive statistics were calculated independently for each country to prevent the larger South Korean group from disproportionately influencing the overall factor structure. Second, for the final integrated competency profiles, student self-perceived scores and curriculum weightings were standardized using Z-scores. This standardization served as a statistical remedy, allowing for a balanced comparison of relative strengths and gaps by transforming different data sources into a common scale regardless of the original sample size. Visual analytical tools, including radar charts, were used to illustrate these cross-national patterns, providing insights into potential curriculum enhancement where discrepancies between student perceptions and institutional focus were most pronounced.

4. Results

4.1. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify the latent structure of the Student Competency Self-Evaluation Scale (SCSES). The decision to perform EFA despite the use of items from established frameworks was driven by the necessity to validate the structural integrity of a newly synthesized instrument within the specific sociocultural context of hospitality students across South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. This exploratory step ensures that the factor structure is empirically grounded in the current study’s unique cross-national population before proceeding with confirmatory validation.

Sampling adequacy was confirmed by a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value of 0.907, indicating meritorious adequacy, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (χ²(300) = 14,607.69, p < 0.001), supporting the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Using principal component analysis with varimax rotation, five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, accounting for 77.40% of the total variance. The rotated factor solution demonstrated a clear and interpretable structure, with all items loading strongly on their intended factors and minimal cross-loadings. All standardized factor loadings exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, indicating strong convergent validity. A summary of the EFA results is presented in

Table 2. Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for SCSES.

Test	Result
KMO Measure	0.907
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	χ2(300) = 14,607.69, p < 0.001
Total Variance Explained	77.40% (5 factors)
Eigenvalues > 1	5
Extraction Method	Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method	Varimax
KMO Measure	0.907

Note: KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.

, while detailed factor loadings and reliability statistics are reported in

Table 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability for SCSES Dimensions.

Factor	Item	Loading	% of Variance	Cronbach’s Alpha
Financial management	SFM1. I can create a detailed budget plan for a hospitality project, including projected revenues and expenses	0.837	6.91%	0.872
	SFM2. I can analyze costs associated with hospitality operations to identify areas for cost reduction	0.861
	SFM3. I feel confident in making financial decisions that affect the profitability of a hospitality establishment	0.762
	SFM4. I can apply revenue management techniques to maximize sales and profitability in hospitality services	0.762
	SFM5. I am able to assess potential investments and their expected financial returns for hospitality recommendations	0.724
Strategic planning	SSP1. I can articulate a long-term strategic vision for a hospitality organization that aligns with industry trends		8.61%	0.912
	SSP2. I am capable of developing operational plans based on strategic objectives for a hospitality initiative
	SSP3. I can conduct market research to inform strategic business decisions in hospitality management
	SSP4. I can evaluate the success of strategic initiatives through performance metrics relevant to hospitality
	SSP5. I can develop contingency plans to address potential crises in hospitality operations
Leadership	SLD1. I possess the ability to motivate team members in work settings to achieve common goals in hospitality	0.843	11.96%	0.936
	SLD2. I am skilled in resolving conflicts among team members in a hospitality context	0.846
	SLD3. I make timely and effective decisions when faced with complex situations in hospitality management	0.800
	SLD4. I actively seek opportunities to mentor and guide peers in the hospitality industry	0.822
	SLD5. I demonstrate cultural awareness in my leadership approach to diverse teams within hospitality environments	0.792
Communication	SCM1. I can communicate effectively with clients and colleagues, ensuring clarity and understanding	0.823	41.17%	0.953
	SCM2. I am comfortable presenting ideas and proposals related to hospitality topics in front of an audience	0.867
	SCM3. I practice active listening to understand the needs and feedback of others in hospitality settings	0.886
	SCM4. I can compose clear and concise reports or business correspondence relevant to hospitality	0.874
	SCM5. I am proficient in negotiating agreements and contracts in a hospitality context	0.824
Cultural awareness	SCA1. I possess knowledge of various cultural customs and practices that influence hospitality services	0.746	8.74%	0.928
	SCA2. I can adjust my behavior and service delivery based on the cultural backgrounds of clients	0.793
	SCA3. I am aware of global trends that affect hospitality practices across different cultures	0.840
	SCA4. I actively promote inclusivity and respect diversity within hospitality teams	0.856
	SCA5. I can communicate effectively with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds, enhancing guest relations	0.834

Note: All items loaded strongly (>0.70) on their respective theoretical constructs with no cross-loadings above 0.30, supporting the dimensionality of the SCSES instrument.

.

The five extracted dimensions—Financial Management, Strategic Planning, Leadership, Communication, and Cultural Awareness—are conceptually aligned with core managerial competencies emphasized in hospitality education. Communication accounted for the largest proportion of explained variance (41.17%), followed by Leadership (11.96%), Cultural Awareness (8.74%), Strategic Planning (8.61%), and Financial Management (6.91%). Internal consistency was high across all dimensions, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.872 to 0.953, indicating excellent reliability.

Following the exploratory analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using SmartPLS to validate the measurement model. As shown in

Table 4. Construct Reliability and Validity.

Construct	Item Codes	Loadings (Range)	CA	CR	AVE
Financial management	SFM1-SFM5	0.668–0.853	0.884	0.874	0.610
Strategic planning	SSP1-SSP5	0.765–0.898	0.913	0.913	0.680
Leadership	SLD1-SLD5	0.872–0.884	0.936	0.936	0.747
Communication	SCM1-SCM5	0.864–0.950	0.953	0.953	0.805
Cultural awareness	SCA1-SCA5	0.783–0.889	0.928	0.928	0.722

Note: CA = Cronbach’s Alpha; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted.

, all constructs demonstrated strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2025). Convergent validity was supported, as all Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were above 0.50. Among the five constructs, Communication exhibited the highest AVE (0.805), followed by Leadership (0.747), Cultural Awareness (0.722), Strategic Planning (0.680), and Financial Management (0.610).

Discriminant validity was assessed using the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. As reported in

Table 5. Discriminant Validity HTMT Ratio.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5
1. Financial management
2. Strategic planning	0.434
3. Leadership	0.447	0.501
4. Communication	0.299	0.377	0.516
5. Cultural awareness	0.382	0.453	0.473	0.564

, all HTMT values were well below the conservative threshold of 0.85, confirming adequate discriminant validity among the constructs and supporting the empirical distinctiveness of the five competency domains.

Figure 2 illustrates the standardized measurement model, showing that all item loadings exceeded 0.66 and loaded significantly on their respective constructs. Overall model fit was further evaluated using multiple goodness-of-fit indices (

Table 6. Model Fit Indices (SmartPLS Output).

Fit Index	Value	Cut-Off	Interpretation
χ2/df	6.195	<5.0–8.0	Marginal fit
RMSEA	0.089	<0.08–0.10	Moderate fit
SRMR	0.044	<0.08	Good fit
CFI	0.905	>0.90	Acceptable
NFI	0.889	>0.90	Marginal
TLI	0.893	>0.90	Marginal

Note: RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index.

). Although the chi-square statistic was significant (χ² = 1641.59, df = 265, p < 0.001), this result is expected in large samples and should be interpreted with caution. The marginal model fit indices, specifically the χ²/df ratio of 6.20 and RMSEA of 0.089, should be contextualized within the study’s large sample size (n = 650), as chi-square-based statistics are highly sensitive to sample scale (Hair et al., 2019). Despite these values reaching the upper thresholds of acceptability, they remain within the permissible ranges for complex, multi-dimensional models in social science research (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Furthermore, other absolute and incremental fit indices, such as the SRMR (0.044) and CFI (0.905), met commonly accepted thresholds for good and acceptable fit, respectively (Table 6). Taken together, these indices suggest that the five-factor SCSES measurement model is acceptable and robust, providing a sound basis for subsequent descriptive and comparative analyses.

4.2. Descriptive Analysis of Student Competency (SCSES)

Descriptive statistics were used to examine students’ self-perceived competencies across the five SCSES dimensions and to compare patterns across South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The mean scores for each competency domain are reported in

Table 7. Mean Competency Scores by Country.

Competence Area	South Korea	Singapore	Hong Kong
Financial management	3.97	4.67	4.37
Strategic planning	4.17	4.50	4.36
Leadership	4.04	4.35	4.23
Communication	4.17	4.20	4.11
Cultural awareness	4.20	4.20	4.31

and visualized in Figure 3.

Overall, students in Singapore reported the highest levels of self-perceived competency across most domains, particularly in Financial Management (M = 4.67) and Strategic Planning (M = 4.50). These results suggest strong perceived preparedness in managerial and strategic skills closely linked to higher-level decision-making in hospitality contexts. Students in Hong Kong reported similarly high competency levels, though slightly lower than those of Singapore, indicating a comparable but less pronounced confidence profile.

In contrast, South Korean students consistently reported the lowest mean scores across all five competency domains. The largest gap was observed in Financial Management (M = 3.97), followed by Leadership (M = 4.04), pointing to potential weaknesses in perceived managerial readiness. These findings align with earlier concerns regarding skill mismatches and workforce preparedness within South Korean hospitality education.

Across the three countries, Communication and Cultural Awareness showed relatively stable mean values, ranging from 4.11 to 4.31. The limited variation in these domains suggests that interpersonal and intercultural competencies may be more uniformly developed or emphasized across hospitality programs, regardless of national context.

Taken together, these descriptive results reveal clear cross-national differences in student self-evaluation patterns. While they do not imply causal relationships, they provide an important foundation for subsequent analyses that integrate curriculum composition and student competency profiles.

It is important to note that these descriptive results represent self-perceived assessments, which may be influenced by culturally patterned self-presentation. The comparatively lower scores among South Korean students may partially reflect a cultural tendency toward modesty and a more conservative self-evaluation style rather than a definitive lack of professional competency. Conversely, the higher scores in Singapore may reflect a pragmatic confidence profile encouraged by its specific educational and industry environment.

4.3. Curriculum Composition Across Countries

To examine cross-national differences in curriculum emphasis, hospitality course catalogs were systematically analyzed and classified into five curriculum clusters. The relative weight of each cluster, calculated as a proportion of total course offerings, is summarized in

Table 8. Mean Curriculum Composition by Country.

Competence Area	South Korea (%)	Singapore (%)	Hong Kong (%)
Tourism and related courses	17.2%	14.4%	5.6%
Accounting, finance, and economics	4.2%	10.6%	7.5%
Hotel and restaurant management	13.0%	5.7%	12.9%
Hospitality management, business management and relevant courses (human resource, law, and consumer behavior)	9.5%	10.8%	18.1%
Personal skills (language, communication, and leadership)	10.1%	6.8%	5.7%

and illustrated in Figure 4.

The results indicate distinct curricular orientations across the three countries. South Korean hospitality programs placed the greatest emphasis on Tourism and Related Courses (17.2%) and Hotel and Restaurant Management (13.0%), reflecting a curriculum strongly oriented toward industry-specific knowledge and operational training. In contrast, Singapore’s curriculum showed a more management-focused profile, with higher proportions allocated to Accounting, Finance, and Economics (10.6%) and Hospitality and Business Management and Related Courses (10.8%). This pattern suggests a stronger institutional emphasis on analytical and managerial competencies.

Hong Kong exhibited the most pronounced focus on Hospitality and Business Management and Related Courses, which accounted for 18.1% of total curriculum content. This allocation indicates a curriculum structure that prioritizes strategic management, human resource related competencies, and broader business skills. Compared to South Korea and Singapore, Hong Kong placed relatively less emphasis on tourism-specific coursework.

Across all three countries, the Personal Skills cluster, encompassing language, communication, and leadership-related courses, received the least curricular attention. Although South Korea allocated a slightly higher proportion to this cluster (10.1%) than Singapore (6.8%) and Hong Kong (5.7%), the overall weighting suggests limited formal curricular space devoted to transferable soft skills.

Taken together, these findings highlight substantial variation in curriculum composition across national contexts. The observed differences in pedagogical focus provide an important contextual basis for interpreting cross-country patterns in student self-perceived competencies, as discussed in the preceding section.

4.4. Combined Competency Profile Based on Student Self-Evaluation and Curriculum Composition

To present an integrated view of competency development, student self-perceived competencies (SCSES) and institutional curriculum weightings were standardized using Z-scores and combined to enable cross-country comparison. This approach allows the identification of relative strengths and gaps across five core competency domains. Figure 5 illustrates the resulting competency profiles for South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, with each axis representing a standardized score derived from both SCSES means and curriculum emphasis. The application of Z-score standardization provides a robust operationalization of “educational alignment” by enabling the triangulation of subjective student perceptions with objective curriculum structures. By transforming these disparate metrics into a common scale, this approach allows for a direct visual comparison of relative institutional priorities versus student confidence, providing a clearer indication of curricular focus and perceived outcomes.

The combined profile indicates that South Korea demonstrates relatively stronger performance in communication and cultural awareness, while showing lower standardized scores in domains associated with financial management and business-related competencies. This pattern reflects an imbalance between students’ perceived strengths in soft skills and a comparatively lower curricular emphasis on quantitative and managerial areas.

Singapore exhibits the most balanced and consistently high profile across all competency domains. Elevated standardized scores in financial management and strategic planning suggest close alignment between the curriculum structure and students’ self-assessed competencies, indicating a coherent competency development framework.

Hong Kong presents a contrasting configuration. Although the curriculum places substantial emphasis on hospitality and business-related courses, students’ self-evaluations across corresponding competency domains remain moderate. This divergence suggests a weaker convergence between curricular focus and perceived competency outcomes.

Overall, the integrated competency profiles reveal distinct national patterns in the alignment between student perceptions and curriculum composition, providing an empirical basis for cross-country comparison of hospitality education structures.

5. Discussion

This study began with Proposition 1 (P1), which posited that the Student Competency Self-Evaluation Scale (SCSES) is a robust multidimensional measurement model. The results of the CFA and EFA (Section 4.1) provide strong empirical support for P1, confirming that leadership, communication, financial management, strategic thinking, and cultural awareness are distinct yet interrelated latent domains. By validating this structure, the study establishes a reliable framework for assessing how curriculum emphasis corresponds to student self-perception across different Asian contexts.

5.1. Cross-National Variation in Students’ Perceived Competencies (RQ1)

This study identifies clear cross-national differences in hospitality students’ self-perceived competencies across five domains. Singaporean students consistently reported higher perceived competencies, particularly in financial management and strategic planning, whereas South Korean students exhibited lower self-assessments across all domains. Hong Kong students demonstrated a more balanced, intermediate profile.

These patterns correspond to broader national education philosophies and pedagogical orientations. Singapore’s performance aligns with its emphasis on applied learning, industry integration, and innovation-driven curricula, which are designed to strengthen students’ strategic thinking and managerial confidence (Or, 2024; Tan & Ng, 2021). National workforce policies that prioritize employability, entrepreneurship, and digital readiness may further reinforce students’ confidence in complex decision-making contexts (Tan & Ng, 2021).

In contrast, the comparatively lower self-perceived competencies among South Korean students—particularly in finance and strategy—are consistent with prior research noting a curriculum orientation toward theoretical knowledge and operational training (S. S. Kim et al., 2008; Wang & Abukhalifeh, 2021). Such an approach, combined with a traditionally exam-oriented academic culture, may limit opportunities for experiential and interdisciplinary learning, thereby constraining students’ perceived readiness for managerial roles (Millar et al., 2013; Shi et al., 2022).

However, these results should also be interpreted with consideration for culturally patterned self-presentation. The lower mean scores in the South Korean sample may partially reflect a cultural tendency toward modesty (modesty bias) and a non-assertive self-evaluation style common in certain East Asian academic cultures. This suggests that while students’ perceived readiness is constrained by an exam-oriented approach, the numerical scores are also influenced by how students choose to present their confidence levels.

Hong Kong’s balanced competency profile may be linked to its hybrid educational model, which combines academic rigor with structured industry engagement through internships and capstone projects (Kwan & Lo, 2023; Tan & Ng, 2021). While this model supports broad competency development, the absence of pronounced strengths in entrepreneurial domains suggests that further integration of innovation-oriented pedagogy could enhance students’ perceived preparedness for global hospitality careers.

Overall, the findings suggest that students’ self-perceived competencies are closely aligned with national pedagogical priorities, reinforcing the importance of experiential and future-oriented curriculum design in hospitality education.

5.2. Curricular Structure and Emphasis Across Countries (RQ2)

The curriculum analysis reveals substantial variation in how hospitality programs allocate instructional emphasis across competency domains, reflecting distinct national pedagogical philosophies. South Korea’s curriculum exhibits a pronounced orientation toward industry-specific and operational training, as evidenced by the high combined weighting of Tourism and Related Courses (17.2%) and Hotel and Restaurant Management (13.0%). While this structure effectively supports foundational vocational skills, it presents a comparatively narrow focus on quantitative and strategic domains, with Accounting, Finance, and Economics receiving the lowest allocation at only 4.2%. This suggests a traditional “skills-based” educational model that prioritizes immediate operational readiness over broader managerial and analytical agility.

In contrast, Singapore’s curriculum demonstrates a more managerial and interdisciplinary focus, prioritizing Accounting, Finance, and Economics (10.6%) alongside Hospitality and Business Management (10.8%). This composition corresponds to national strategies that position higher education as a driver of innovation and economic competitiveness (Hein & Riegel, 2013; Or, 2024). By integrating analytical business modules with hospitality-specific content, Singaporean programs appear to adopt a “competency-based” model that aligns with the requirements of higher-level decision-making and strategic leadership roles in the global market.

Hong Kong demonstrates a unique strategic orientation, allocating the largest proportion of its coursework to Hospitality and Business Management–related subjects (18.1%). This weighting indicates a pedagogical priority on human-centered business skills and analytical management over purely tourism-specific coursework (5.6%). However, the relatively limited emphasis on formal Personal Skills courses (5.7%) suggests that while the curriculum is content-heavy in business theory, it may offer less formal space for the explicit development of transferable soft skills.

Across all three contexts, personal and soft skills receive comparatively limited curricular attention, ranging from 5.7% to 10.1%. Given the growing importance of communication, leadership, and adaptability in service-intensive industries, this pattern may correspond to challenges in the development of well-rounded graduates (Ivanov et al., 2020; Wang & Abukhalifeh, 2021). Collectively, these findings highlight a curricular gap where institutional structures remain heavily focused on domain-specific knowledge, potentially at the expense of the transferable competencies necessitated by the evolving hospitality landscape.

5.3. Comparative Competency Profiles and Curriculum Implications for South Korea (RQ3)

The integration of student self-evaluations and curriculum composition through Z-score standardization provides a robust theoretical operationalization of educational alignment. By triangulating subjective perceptions with objective institutional structures on a unified scale, the combined competency profiles allow for a precise identification of relative strengths and gaps without relying on implicit causal reasoning. South Korea displays relative strengths in communication and cultural awareness, but shows a notable correspondence between lower student confidence and the structural underrepresentation of business-oriented courses. Specifically, the lower self-perceived financial competency (M = 3.97) aligns closely with a curriculum that allocates only 4.2% to Accounting, Finance, and Economics. This structural gap suggests that when a curriculum is heavily skewed toward operational tasks, students may perceive a managerial void in their readiness, feeling less equipped for the quantitative and analytical rigors of higher-level leadership. However, this finding must be contextualized within the previously discussed modesty bias; the numerically lower scores in South Korea likely represent a conservative self-reporting style that is reinforced by an exam-centric academic environment.

Singapore demonstrates the strongest alignment between curriculum emphasis and perceived competencies, suggesting a high level of coherence between institutional intent and student internalization. The high self-assessment in Financial Management (M = 4.67) corresponds with a curriculum that is purposefully designed to bridge the gap between theory and industry application through applied business modules. This alignment may be attributed to Singapore’s “triple-helix” approach—where government, industry, and academia collaborate closely—fostering a pragmatic sense of professional confidence that is both structurally supported and culturally encouraged.

Hong Kong, by contrast, presents a significant divergence; despite having the highest curricular emphasis on business-related subjects (18.1%), student self-perceptions remain moderate. This divergence points to a potential learning transfer gap, where a high volume of course content does not automatically translate into high perceived competency. It suggests that while the curriculum is strategically oriented toward business, the pedagogical delivery might prioritize theoretical rigor over applied mastery, or perhaps an over-crowded curriculum limits the deep reflection necessary for students to internalize these complex skills.

For South Korea, the findings point to the need for targeted curriculum rebalancing that strengthens financial literacy, strategic thinking, and business analytics. Prior studies emphasize that these competencies are increasingly critical for leadership development and long-term employability (Arquero et al., 2024; Gkliatis & Koufopoulos, 2013; Papageorgiou et al., 2024). The transition from an operation-centric to a management-centric model necessitates a fundamental shift in the learning environment. Importantly, curriculum reform should extend beyond content redistribution to include pedagogical innovations such as case-based learning, project-based coursework, and industry collaboration, which have been shown to enhance higher-order thinking and practical readiness (Barron, 2008; Greetham & Ippolito, 2018). By fostering environments that simulate real-world strategic challenges, institutions can help students bridge the gap between knowing and feeling ready.

In summary, while South Korea’s emphasis on cultural and communicative competencies provides a valuable foundation, enhancing curricular and pedagogical support for financial and strategic domains is essential. Such realignment, viewed as a strategic correspondence rather than a causal fix, would improve the balance of competencies, strengthen student confidence, and enhance the global relevance of South Korean hospitality education.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the alignment between hospitality students’ self-perceived competencies and institutional curriculum structures across South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. By integrating student self-assessments with curriculum mapping, the findings reveal distinct national competency profiles shaped by differing pedagogical and policy orientations. Singaporean students reported the highest perceived competencies, particularly in financial management and strategic planning, reflecting curricula that emphasize managerial, interdisciplinary, and applied learning. Hong Kong students demonstrated moderate and balanced competency perceptions, consistent with a curriculum focused on business and strategic content. In contrast, South Korean students reported lower confidence across all domains, especially in finance and strategy, aligning with curricula that remain strongly oriented toward operational and service-based training.

These findings indicate that curriculum structure plays a critical role in shaping students’ perceived workforce readiness, yet the identified relationships should be interpreted as structural correspondences rather than direct causal effects, respecting the cross-sectional nature of the research design. While Singapore and Hong Kong show stronger integration of strategic and financial competencies, South Korean hospitality programs appear misaligned with the evolving demands of a complex and technology-driven hospitality sector.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes by applying a dual-layered analytical framework that integrates student self-perceptions and curriculum composition to assess educational alignment. Practically, the results highlight the need for curriculum recalibration in South Korea. To facilitate actual reform, South Korean institutions should consider a strategic reallocation of credits, shifting the emphasis from traditional operational training (currently 13.0%) toward hospitality business management (9.5%) and strategic thinking. Strengthening financial literacy and innovation-related content, supported by pedagogical shifts such as case-based and project-based learning, may enhance students’ perceived professional readiness.

Despite these contributions, the study has several limitations that provide avenues for future research. The reliance on self-report measures may be subject to social desirability or cultural modesty biases, particularly in the South Korean context. Furthermore, the curriculum analysis used the proportion of courses as a proxy for institutional emphasis, which constitutes a methodological constraint as it does not account for differences in credit weight, course depth, or pedagogical delivery. Future research should incorporate employer perspectives and adopt longitudinal designs to evaluate the long-term effects of curriculum reforms on actual graduate outcomes, while refining curriculum analysis to include qualitative assessments of syllabi and teaching methodologies. Overall, while each national system demonstrates distinct strengths, targeted curriculum realignment could significantly enhance the global competitiveness of South Korean hospitality education.