Drawing on critical theory for adult education, the authors of this article examine the Academic Credit Bank System (ACBS), an open educational system operating in the Republic of Korea since 1998. It was designed to provide both traditional-age and mature students with opportunities to earn academic qualifications, including Bachelor’s degrees, at low cost and in collaboration with the traditional system. In a literature review, the authors analyse the system with reference to the underlying ideology (i.e., credentialism, an emphasis on formal credentials) and hegemonic (dominant) characteristics (i.e., the foci of formal education and the educational norms created by the government-centred administrative system) in which ACBS operates, particularly in the context of lifelong learning. The authors investigate why an ACBS degree is still not considered to be equivalent to a traditional degree in the job market. Their data are drawn from the domestic and international literature relating to ACBS, including policy reports which tend to offer only descriptions of ACBS without subjecting the educational system itself to even small-scale analysis. The authors found that ACBS is limited primarily with regard to social recognition and that this systemic limitation is an outcome of Korea’s academic credentialism. In particular, they argue that a non-formal learning domain cannot be successful unless the credentials it produces are perceived as comparable to those from the dominant (i.e., traditional) system of higher education. Overall, this study advances the education field’s understanding of ACBS by using a critical lens to unveil tensions in practice and identify problems at the ground level, which cannot be identified merely through statistical evaluation. The authors conclude this article with a suggestion of in-depth, qualitative examinations and critical reflection on ACBS.

中文翻译：

---

大韩民国的学分银行系统：高等教育终身学习的有效媒介？

本文作者借鉴成人教育的批判理论，研究了学分银行系统 (ACBS)，这是一个自 1998 年以来在大韩民国运行的开放式教育系统。它旨在为传统年龄和成熟学生提供机会以低成本并与传统系统合作获得学历，包括学士学位。在文献综述中，作者参考了潜在的意识形态（即证书主义，强调正式证书）和霸权（主导）特征（即正规教育的重点和政府制定的教育规范）来分析该系统。中心管理系统），ACBS 在其中运作，特别是在终身学习的背景下。作者调查了为什么 ACBS 学位仍然不被认为与就业市场中的传统学位等效。他们的数据来自与 ACBS 相关的国内和国际文献，包括政策报告，这些报告往往只提供对 ACBS 的描述，而没有对教育系统本身进行小规模分析。作者发现 ACBS 主要在社会认可方面受到限制，而这种系统性限制是韩国学术证书主义的结果​​。特别是，他们认为非正规学习领域不可能成功，除非它产生的证书被认为与来自主流（即传统）高等教育系统的证书相当。全面的，本研究通过使用批判性视角揭示实践中的紧张局势并在基层发现问题，从而促进教育领域对 ACBS 的理解，这些问题无法仅通过统计评估来确定。作者以对 ACBS 进行深入、定性检查和批判性反思的建议来结束本文。