Editorial
With the notions of quality assurance in education becoming universal in their adoption, it becomes increasingly important to look at techniques for their effective implementation. Articles in this issue emphasise this aspect. They look at the subtle aspects of quality assurance: ways of interpretation of student responses; more meaningful collection of student experiences; nuances for responding to customer requirements; ways of bringing about real quality improvements and interpretation and understanding of student responses. Finally,book reviews appropriately round off the need for such attention to quality issues: fundamentally one of bringing about a transformation of higher education or in negative terms keeping the fraudsters at bay. Thus the current issue focussed towards information and inspiration for improving quality practices.
The first article in the issue by Jenny Darby looks at a possible favourable response pattern on scaled forms used as a means of evaluating training courses. This is an important issue as scales are frequently used to collect student feedback and also to measure attitude change as a result of training courses, in universities, colleges and industry. The study revealed that the majority of students responded at the favourable end of the evaluation scales. This means that the courses are likely to be evaluated favourably and therefore it is suggested that it is necessary to incorporate this tendency in any evaluation a means of comparison. Internal elements of courses need to be compared and courses should be judged in terms of how good they are when compared with other similar courses.
In the next article Jacqueline Douglas, Robert McClelland and John Davies introduce a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their higher education experience, based on Critical Incident Technique (CIT) that encouraged the recording of situations that the students themselves perceive as critical incidents. It is envisaged that these situations have occurred in their experience of HE teaching, learning and assessment, and their experience of other university ancillary service aspects, i.e. within and beyond the classroom experience. The implications for university managers is that of reducing the number of dissatisfying experiences, improving student recruitment, retention and ultimately financial stability for the Institution.
In the following article Marvin Gonzalez, Gioconda Quesada, Kent Gourdin and Mark Hartley illustrate the use of quality function deployment (QFD),benchmarking analyses and other innovative quality tools to develop a new customer-centered undergraduate curriculum in supply chain management (SCM). The authors contend that the study demonstrates the effective application of quality design tools to enhance academic programmes because the most important needs in a programme design are those of identifying the main customers and of clarifying their expectations.
In the next article Don Houston critically reviews dominant conceptions of and approaches to quality in higher education. He suggests an alternative approach with a potential to shift the focus of quality activities from accountability and control to improvement. The author contends that authentic quality improvement is more likely to result from approaches to systemic intervention that encourage exploration of questions of purpose and of the meaning of improvement in context than from the imposition of definitions and methodologies from elsewhere. Systemic approaches are complex but likely to be beneficial. Evidence to support the utility of systems approaches in higher education is limited. Hence more research into their use is needed.
In the final of the series of research articles in this issue, Ramzi Nasser,Bechara Khoury and Kamal Abouchedid, present a critical analysis of a survey students on their satisfaction with university services and programmes. The study attempts to relate self-assessed knowledge of the university procedures,rules and regulations on six dimensions of satisfaction. Generally, those who assessed their knowledge (of the services) as higher were more inclined to be satisfied. In addition, seniors in general were less satisfied with programs and services than freshmen students. Self-enhancement theory suggests that those individuals with greater self-worth have greater affective need to feel satisfied. Increased self-worth is manifested in active roles of decision making and judgments about events that the individual experiences (Wells and Sweeney, 1986).
In the book review section, Hamish Coates looks at the book Transforming Higher Education by Kogan, Bauer, Bleiklie and Henkel. It examines how interactions between commercial, collegial and governmental forces have shaped change in policy thinking and institutional management and academic practice. The book offers a detailed insight into the thinking of higher education policy researchers. Very little consideration is given to the nature of the student experience and learning. It concludes that change at the system or institution level does not necessary ripple through to change in practice.
In the next review, Gerald Vinten looks at the book Accreditation Millsby Allen Ezell which looks at the great assault on quality assurance in education by, what the author describes as, the “accreditation mills”and associated “degree mills”. The internet has made it easier and cheaper to perpetrate such fraud, as has the way that legitimate educational devices such as e-learning and credit recognition been turned on their head, to suit the convenience of such mills. The consumer is put to considerable trouble to sort matters out, and it is not helped by the fact that there is little help available from regulators. The book reckons that the problem will never go away completely, but urges more effort than before to make life as uncomfortable as possible for the educational fraudsters.
Finally, the team hopes that the articles included for your consideration in this issue will provide inspiration for reflection, individually and collectively, to review some of the perspectives on and practices for quality in education.
G. SrikanthanFor the Editorial Team
