enhancing quality in higher education : the need for a ... · wong (2010, pp 126) states that...
TRANSCRIPT
Enhancing Quality in Higher Education : The Need for a Holistic
Approach
Mr Vinaiyan Teeroovengadum
PhD Student
Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius
ABSTRACT
From the time the world began to move towards a global village, terms like quality
assurance, total quality management and other related concepts have gained in importance.
Today in order to compete on an international level, organisations are under the compulsion
to adopt appropriate quality management models so as to ensure quality and hence their own
survival. Universities make no exception and in fact and indeed the need for assuring quality
in higher education is now a burning issue. However as opposed to other industries, in the
education sector the situation is quite unique. Mainly due to the fact, that education cannot
be limited to a product nor a service per se. Building on the current debate in the literature
on quality in education, this paper analyses the present need for a more holistic approach in
conceptualising and managing quality in higher education. Thus enabling not only the
provision of high quality services of international standard but also to make certain that the
core purpose of education itself which is the transformation of the student, is being catered
for. The study also proposes a conceptual framework which will be used as a basis for the
development of a Holistic Model for Quality in Education (HMQE).
… .. … ..
… .. … ..
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I would express my deepest gratitude to my spiritual master and best friend His
Holiness Swami Paramananda for His constant love and guidance. My sincere gratitude to all
masters of the past also, like Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, Buddha and Ramakrishna among
others. I would like to thank the whole existence, form and formless for constantly showering
its blessings upon me.
Thanks to everyone who contributed in one way or another to help me write this paper and
also to pursue my Mphil/PhD research including my supervisors Dr A.K Seebaluck and Prof.
T.J. Kamalanabhan. This paper is in fact written out of my thesis’ literature review.
Thanks also to the Tertiary Education Commission and the University of Mauritius for their
support in terms of financial, intellectual and any other form.
… .. … ..
… .. … ..
1 INTRODUCTION Quality in Education is one of the burning issues on the agenda of most governments around
the world and it is as ever a major concern for the welfare of the present society (UNESCO,
2009). As a matter of fact, the quality of education that is being provided will simply impact
on the future of humanity. In this vein, it is therefore not surprising to witness a growing
interest in the education sector for the enhancement of the quality of education. However
when assessing the driving forces which have accounted for the present strong need for better
and better quality in the higher education sector, two major forces can be highlighted, one of
which is based much more on a business perspective and economic success rather than
education per say. This paper attempts to examine these and to investigate into the move
towards adopting a more holistic approach to enhancing quality in education. Indeed as
Ehlers (2009) observes we are moving into “a new era in quality management for higher
education”, one which is shifting from a mechanistic to a holistic view of quality in
education.
2 THE ROOT OF THE NEED FOR QUALITY IN EDUCATION 2.1 EXTERNAL PRESSURE AND FOCUS ON SERVICE QUALITY
During the last two decades as access to colleges and universities kept on increasing, the
focus progressively shifted from quantity to quality. Indeed given that equilibrium between
the demand and supply is being reached in the higher education sector, choice is no more a
luxury but a reality. Apart from the increase in the student population (Blackmore, 2009;
Finnie and Usher, 2005), other factors such as growing public expenditure (Ngware et al,
2006), strain on universities to act in response to the requirements of stakeholders (Abukari
and Corner, 2010) and the rise in competition (Nasser et al, 2008; Gallifa and Betallé, 2010)
in the education market are “among the main reasons causing the growing concern for the
quality assurance within the expanding global higher education system” (Milisiunate et al,
2009). This state of affairs constitute a major driving force behind the rising need for quality
in education, that is, substantial external pressure on higher education institutions for being
more accountable and meeting required level of standard.
This perspective for the need of quality in higher education can be considered to be a top-
down approach, whereby educational institutions are seen more as service providers and
respond there off to pressure for meeting customer requirements to gain market share (Yeo,
2008). Gibbs and Iacovidou (2004) criticise the fact this market-driven approach is
responsible for over emphasis on customer orientation. Indeed, this approach as observed by
Ferreira (2003) has led to the tendency for universities to adopt manufacturing-based quality
management models, a trend which has not really proved effective as argued by Ehlers
(2009). This is further discussed in section 4.
2.2 INHERENT NEED FOR QUALITY IN EDUCATION AND FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL
TRANSFORMATION
Regardless of the above reasons for ensuring and improving quality in higher education, as
opposed to other, organisations in any manufacturing or service industry, it can be argued that
educational institutions do have an intrinsic moral duty to ensure proper delivery of education
per say. In fact Gibbs (2001) even contends that the alteration of education into a market
place have resulted into the failure of educational institution to live up to their implicit moral
responsibility to strive to allow students to experience their full potential. As a matter of
fact, good financial performance and customer satisfaction are only a means and cannot be
considered as an end in itself. Furthermore educational providers are not accountable solely
to government, nay even to society and all the stakeholders as pointed out by Rowley (1997)
but to humanity as a whole, whether present or future (Cheng et al, 2003). While it must be
conceded that universities cannot be expected to ensure the transformation of the student, the
focus should be on transformation (Srikanthan and Dalrymple, 2007) and therefore quality
initiatives should be geared towards the total development of the student.
3 MOVING BEYOND THE CONCEPT OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 3.1 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AS THE CENTRAL DIMENSION OF QUALITY
The essence of the concept of quality developed during last century by the so-called quality
gurus such as Deming, Juran and Feigenbaum among others is largely based upon the
concept of customer satisfaction (Hardie and Walsh, 1994). In the introduction of a chapter
on the customer satisfaction dimension of Total Quality Management, the following can be
read: “The most important asset of any organisation is its customers. An organisation’s
success depends on how many customers it has.Customers that are satisfied will increase in
number...” (Besterfield et al, 2008).
Assuming that the students are the primary customers in the education sector as agreed upon
by various authors (Hwarng and Teo, 2001; Lagrosen, 2004) that would imply that the
success of the educational institution will depend upon the number of students enrolling for
its programmes and satisfying them would be the main organisational aim.
3.2 EDUCATION: BEYOND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
It can be deduced from the above discussion, the concept of quality is strongly linked to the
element of customer satisfaction which can be considered as being a fundamental dimension.
However in education this approach is not fully applicable. Mainly due to the fact that, firstly
there is a difficulty in identifying who the customer of education really are, as Lomas (2007)
notes, the idea of customer in education is illusive. Secondly, education is not solely about
meeting customer requirements and satisfying them, but much more than that (Chua, 2004).
Law (2010) purports that, the consideration of students as customers may even go against
educational values. Indeed, higher education is about “transforming the person” and should
not be limited to the acquisition of skills (Milisiunate et al, 2009). Neither should it stop at
gaining new knowledge. “Education services are often intangible and difficult to measure,
since the outcome is reflected in the transformation of individuals in their knowledge, their
characteristics, and their behaviour” (Tsinidou et al, 2010). In this vein, students are seen
more as participant of the educational process than customers, a truth which certainly ought
not to be neglected.
4 THE NEED FOR A HOLISTIC APPROACH 4.1 CRITICISM ON ADOPTING INDUSTRIAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT MODELS
TO SCHOOLS
Quality Management models such as Total Quality Management, European Foundation for
Quality management (EFQM) excellence model and ISO 9000 among others all originate
from the manufacturing industry. Despite the fact that they have been successfully applied to
the service industry also after much struggle, in education the situation is still much
indecisive (Law, 2010). As Sahney (2006) argues these models when implemented in
universities have not yielded the expected results.
The applicability of Total Quality Management (TQM) in particular, one of the most popular
quality management models has been subject to much debate. As Svensson and Klefsjö
(2006), highlight that there is much criticism about the application of Total Quality
Management in the education sector, mainly about the use of business terminologies and
methodologies in schools. Indeed the adaptation of business and industrial concepts to higher
education is a matter under much discussion and as pointed out by Eagle and Brennan (2007),
the focus on standardisation and the machine-like approach which characterise TQM does not
fit smoothly to education.
As boldly stated by Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002), applying Quality Management models
being used in industry to Higher Education have failed to some extent, while Becket and
Brookes (2008) further adds that dependence on industrial models of quality management
have yielded only “partial success” and there is a strong need for fine-tuning. The authors
further argue that the usage of industrial models has been unsuccessful with respect to
catering to the teaching and learning dimension of education (Beckets and Brookes, 2008).
Some authors (Dollery et al, 2006; Srikanthan and Dalrymple 2007), even advocate that
adopting industry based quality management models is actually having an inverse effect on
the quality of teaching and learning.
However as stressed upon by Kleijnen et al (2011), “negative effects” do result from laying
too much emphasis on control and accountability when applying quality management models
but much “positive effects” have also been generated. Therefore this lead to the conclusion
that quality management as applied in manufacturing and service organisations can yield
much positive outcomes but still there is a missing dimension to it. In this vein, Mizikaci
(2006) states that the managing quality in education should be done in a way dissimilar to
that in other service organisations.
4.2 THE NEED FOR A HOLISTIC APPROACH THROUGH THE INTEGRATION OF
THE SERVICE AND EDUCATIONAL DIMENSION
Recognising the specificities of the education sector, the authors Gitachari Srikanthan and
John Dalrymple came to the conclusion that educational institutions carry on “two distinct
type of processes” which are: services to the student on one hand and the purely educational
processes on the other hand (Srikanthan and Dalrymple, 2002).
Building on the work conducted by Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002, 2003, 2005), Sultan and
Wong (2010, pp 126) states that “Quality management in higher education has two core
functions, service and education”. The present exigency to discriminate between these two
critical dimensions has given rise to another need, that of integrating the service and
educational aspects. Indeed as pointed out by Becket and Brookes (2008), instead of
neglecting the benefits of TQM and for that matter it could be added any existing quality
management models, another approach should be adopted one which emphasize on the
educational dimension without disregarding the “efficiency and effectiveness” of the service
dimension. This rationale previously espoused by Srikanthan and Dalrymple, led them to
develop a holistic model for quality management in education though a synthesis of the QM
literature and that of educationally oriented models. (Srikanthan and Dalrymple, 2007)
5 DEVELOPMENT OF A HOLISTIC MODEL FOR QUALITY IN
EDUCATION Based on the comprehensive model developed by Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002, 2003,
2005, 2007), a conceptual framework has been devised as a basis for the development of a
model termed as a Holistic Model for Quality in Education (HMQE) as depicted below.
Figure ... : Holistic Model for Quality in Education (HMQE)
Figure 1: Holistic Model for Quality in Education (HMQE)
5.1 SET OF HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED
So as to empirically test the model, a set of hypotheses have been developed as follows:
H1: There is a positive relationship between Attitude towards Education and Attitude towards
the Quality in Education
H2: There is a positive relationship between Attitude of towards Quality in Education and the
three core values (Commitment, Collaboration and Transformation Focus)
H3: There is a positive relationship between Commitment and level of Collaboration
H4: There is a positive relationship between level of Collaboration and perceived level of
Holistic Development of the Student
H5: There is a positive relationship between level of Collaboration and Service Quality
H6: There is a positive relationship between Transformation Focus and perceived level of
Holistic Development of Student
H7: There is a positive relationship between Transformation focus and Service Quality
H8: There is a positive relationship between Service Quality and Holistic Development of the
Student
Attitude towards
Education
Attitude towards
Quality in Education
Commitment
Collaboration
Transformation
Focus
Holistic Development of
the Student
Service Quality
Customer
Satisfaction
H9: There is a positive relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
H10: There is a positive relationship between Holistic Development of the Student and
Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
5.2 FUTURE WORK
This research paper is part of a doctorate research. It is intended to empirically test the above
model through the use the Structural Equation Modelling technique.
6 CONCLUSION From the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the debates on the subject of quality
enhancement in education points towards the need for a more holistic approach in
conceptualising and managing quality in education. It is worth noting that as highlighted
throughout this paper, it is of paramount importance to distinguish clearly between quality in
education as a “competitive tool” and quality in education as the very “raison d’être” of
higher education institution, that is, to ensure that students are being properly educated.
Well, put in simple language, we might say what is the use of being a first class university in
terms of offering high quality services and having outstanding financial performance. If the
students have not make at least some steps towards realising their full potential as human
beings at end of the educational process. It is certainly a major concern to which we are being
confronted today, with the over emphasis on institutional quality and “marketisation” of
higher education. The current world crisis show that we are already suffering from the
consequences of it.
The need for a more holistic approach to enhancing quality education seems therefore not a
mere alternative but a necessity. Both the academic literature and practical realities bear
testimony to it.
REFERENCES [1] UNESCO,2009. UN Decade Education for Sustainable Development. Gaudry.K.H/ UNESCO.
[2] Ehlers, U.D., “Understanding quality culture”, Quality Assurance in Education Vol. 17 Issue 4,
pp. 343-363, 2009.
[3] Blackmore,J., “Academic pedagogies, quality logics and performative universities: evaluating
teaching and what students want”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 34 Issue 8, pp. 857-872.
2009.
[4] Finnie, R. and Usher, A., “Measuring the Quality of Post-secondary Education: Concepts,
Current Practices and a Strategic Plan”, Research Report, Canadian Policy Research
Networks, Ontario, Canada, April 2005
[5] Ngware, M.W., Wamukuru, D.K. and Odebero, S.O., “Total quality management in secondary
schools in Kenya: extent of practice”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 Issue 4, pp. 339-
362, 2006.
[6] Nasser, R.N., Khoury, B. and Abouchedid, K., “University students’ knowledge of services and
programs in relation to satisfaction:A case study of a private university in Lebanon”, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 Issue 1, pp. 80-97, 2008.
[7] Gallifa, J. and Batallé, P., “Student perceptions of service quality in a multi-campus higher
education system in Spain”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 18 Issue 2, pp. 156-170,
2010.
[8] Milisiunaite, I., Adomaitiene, R. and Galginaitis, J., “Quality Management as a Tool for
Quality Culture”, Paper presented at the 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania,
August 2009
[9] Yeo, R.K., “Brewing service quality in higher Education: Characteristics of ingredients that
make up the recipe”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 Issue 3, pp. 266-286, 2008.
[10] Gibbs, P. And Iacovidou, C., “Quality as pedagogy of confinement: is there an alternative?”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol.12, Issue 3, p.p 113-119, 2004.
[11] Gibbs, P. “Higher education as a market: a problem or solution?”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 26 Issue 1, pp. 85-94, 2001.
[12] Rowley, J., “Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service
contract”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol 5 Issue1, pp. 7-14. 1997.
[13] Cheng, Y.C., “Quality assurance in education: internal, interface and future”, Quality
Assurance in education, Vol 11 Issue 4, pp. 202-213, 2003.
[14] Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J.F., “A conceptual overview of a holistic model for quality in
higher education”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol 21 Issue 3, pp. 173-
193, 2007.
[15] Hardie, N. and Walsh, P., “Towards a better understanding of quality”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 Issue 4, pp. 53-63, 1994.
[16] Besterfield, D.H., Besterfield-Michna, C., Besterfield, G.H. and Besterfield-Sacre, M.,
“Customer Satisfaction”, A book chapter, pp. 67-100, “Total Quality Management”, Pearson
Education.
[17] Hwarng, H.B. and Teo, C., “Translating customers' voices into operations requirements: A
QFD application in higher education”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol 18 Issue 2, pp.195-225. 2001.
[18] Lagrosen, R.S and Leitner, M., “Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education”,
Quality Assurance in education, Vol 12 Issue 2, pp. 61-69, 2004.
[19] Lomas, L., “Zen motorcycle maintenance and quality in higher education”, Quality Assurance
in Education. Vol 15 Issue 4, pp. 402-412, 2007.
[20] Chua, C. “Perception of Quality in Higher Education”, Proceedings of the Australian
Universities Quality Forum, AUQA Occasional publications, 2004.
[21] Law, D.C.S., “Quality assurance in post-secondary education: Some common approaches”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol 18 Issue 1, pp. 64-77, 2010.
[22] Tsinidou, M, Gerogiannis, V. and Fitsilise, P., “Evaluation of the factors that determine quality
in higher education. An empirical study”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol 18 Issue 3,
2010.
[23] Sanhey, S., Banwet, D.K. and Karunes, S., “An Integrated Framework for Quality in
Education: Application of Quality Function deployment, Interpretive Structural Equation
Modelling and Path Analysis”, Total Quality Management, Vol 17 Issue 2, pp. 265-285, 2006.
[24] Svensson, M. and Klefsjö, B., “TQM-based self-assessment in the education sector:
Experiences from a Swedish upper secondary school project” Quality Assurance in Education,
Vol. 14 Issue 4, pp. 299-323, 2006.
[25] Eagle, L. and Brennan, R. “Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol 15 Issue 1, pp. 44-60, 2007.
[26] Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J. “Developing a Holistic Model for Quality in Higher
Education”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol 8 Issue 3, pp. 216-224, 2002
[27] Becket, N. and Brookes, M., “Quality Management Practice in Higher Education – What
Quality Are We Actually Enhancing?”, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
Education, Vol 7 Issue 1, pp. 40 – 54, 2008.
[28] Dollery, B., Murray, D. and Crase, L. “Knaves or Knights, Pawns or Queens? An evaluation of
Australian higher education reform policy”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol 44
Issue 1, pp. 86-97, 2006.
[29] Kleijnen, J., Dolmans, D., Willems,J., and Hout, H., “Does internal quality management
contribute to more control or to improvement of higher education? A survey on faculty’s
perceptions.”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 19 Issue 2, 2011.
[30] Mizikaci, F. , “A Systems Approach to Programme Evaluation Model for Quality in Higher
Education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol 14 Issue 1, pp. 37-53, 2006.
[31] Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J.F., “Developing alternative perspectives for quality in higher
education”, International Journal of Educational Management. Vol 17 Issue 3, pp. 126-136.
2003.
[32] Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J.F., “Implementation of a Holistic Model for Quality in Higher
Education”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol 11 Issue 1, pp. 69-81, 2005.
[33] Sultan, P. and Wong,H., “Performance-based service quality model: an empirical study on
Japanese universities”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 18 Issue 2, pp. 126-143, 2010.