Quality of teaching

https://doi

org/10.1177/1052562918787849

Journal of Management Education
1 –32

)

2018
Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1052562918787849

journals.sagepub.com/home/jme

Empirical/Theoretical/Review Articles

How Do Quality of
Teaching, Assessment,
and Feedback Drive
Undergraduate Course
Satisfaction in U.K.
Business Schools? A
Comparative Analysis
With Nonbusiness School
Courses Using the U.K.
National Student Survey

Dylan Sutherland1, Philip Warwick1,
John Anderson2, and Mark Learmonth

Abstract
How does quality of teaching, assessment, and feedback influence satisfaction
with overall course quality for students taking business school (BS)
undergraduate courses in the United Kingdom? Are these teaching-related
determinants of satisfaction in BS courses different to those in nonbusiness
school (NBS) courses? These questions currently figure prominently in
U.K. higher education owing to the introduction of a “Teaching Excellence
Framework,” linking student fee increases to levels of reported student
satisfaction. The elevation of student satisfaction as a determinant of higher
education delivery raises important questions about the possible longer term
consequences for teaching practices. To explore these, we test three sets

1Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham, UK
2University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Philip Warwick, Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham DH1 3LB, UK.
Email: philip.warwick@durham.ac.uk

787849 JMEXXX10.1177/1052562918787849Journal of Management EducationSutherland et al

research-article2018

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/jme

mailto:philip.warwick@durham.ac.uk

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1052562918787849&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-07-16

2 Journal of Management Education 00(0

)

of hypotheses relating to how teaching, assessment, and feedback quality
affects satisfaction in the BS context, as well as comparative differences (i.e.,
BS vs. NBS students). We draw from over 1 million responses recorded in
the U.K.’s National Student Survey. We find questions related to perceived
teaching quality are important satisfaction drivers for BS students. In terms
of differences with NBS students, we find intellectual stimulation appears of
lesser importance to BS students, whereas fair assessments are of greater
importance. BS students, we argue, exhibit a stronger orientation toward
“instrumental” learning. We consider policy implications.

Keywords
module evaluation, MEQ, student satisfaction, TEF, business school,
regression analysis

Introduction

This research was motivated by: (a) a curiosity to better understand the driv-
ers of reported course satisfaction for undergraduate business school (BS)
students, particularly teaching, assessment, and feedback-related ones; and
(b) to explore whether and in what ways these determinants differ from stu-
dents taking nonbusiness school (NBS) subjects. First point is of growing
practical importance to all BSs (and universities)—not just in the United
Kingdom. The United Kingdom is our focus, however, because the U.K. gov-
ernment has recently introduced a Teaching Excellence Framework (hereaf-
ter TEF) with the aim of making universities more accountable to students for
the fees they charge. Student fee increases are to become increasingly condi-
tional on meeting reported student satisfaction levels, particularly those
reported in the U.K.’s National Student Survey (hereafter NSS), a compre-
hensive nationwide survey sent to all undergraduates shortly after completion
of their courses. Universities that perform poorly in the TEF will be unable to
raise fees. Some may even see them decreased. Our analysis is of interest
outside the United Kingdom because the growing marketization of higher
education across the globe is placing considerable pressure on all universities
to raise reported satisfaction levels.

Despite the increased elevation of student satisfaction as an influence on
education delivery in U.K. universities, we still have comparatively little sys-
tematic empirical evidence on what drives overall student satisfaction in BSs
(or universities as a whole). To date, studies on student satisfaction tend to be
found in policy-related reports and usually focus on bivariate statistical asso-
ciations (Buckley, Soilemetzidis, & Hillman, 2015). Such analyses are unable

Sutherland et al. 3

to discriminate between the strongest and weakest drivers of overall reported
satisfaction. Similarly, BS and university administrators have tended to take
rather ad hoc, informal approaches to analyze student satisfaction data
(Williams & Mindano, 2015). For example, U.K. universities have identified
the quality and timeliness of assessment and feedback as receiving compara-
tively low NSS scores vis a vis other questions on the survey. New approaches
have therefore been put in place to improve assessment and feedback mecha-
nisms in many U.K. universities, with a view to increasing satisfaction levels
(Williams & Mindano, 2015). However, little is really known about how
improved assessment and feedback impacts overall course satisfaction.
While it may be an essential component of good pedagogic practice—what
impact does it actually have on reported course quality? And how important
is it when compared with other teaching-related drivers—such as the fairness
of assessments, staff enthusiasm or intellectual stimulation? To explore these
questions multivariate regression analysis, ideally using larger data sets, can
potentially provide further insights.

Having a more informed understanding of what drives course satisfaction
is important for several reasons. First, universities which crack the secret of
securing high overall student satisfaction rates will, most likely, outperform
others (Corduas et al., 2016). Via competitive evolutionary market-driven
processes (spurred by government policy) they will become more financially
successful and grow faster. The models and practices they adopt, for better or
worse, will become more influential and diffuse widely. At a practical level,
of course, this means better understanding what drives student satisfaction
will become crucial for senior BS administrators looking to improve their
institutions’ financial performance. In turn, frontline teaching staff, as they
negotiate their career progression in response to the incentive structures
placed before them (i.e., an increasing emphasis on reported student satisfac-
tion), will become more preoccupied with satisfying student demands.
Second, linked to the above but arguably much more important, it could be
that some of the positive teaching-, assessment-, and feedback-related drivers
of student satisfaction are in themselves antithetical to, or incompatible with,
student learning and intellectual development. For example, it might be that
lowering academic standards increases reported satisfaction. Or, alterna-
tively, it could be that some teaching approaches, ones which genuinely are
linked to student learning, actually register as being less important (or in the
worst case scenario, completely unimportant) as drivers of reported satisfac-
tion. Timely and detailed assessment feedback, for example, while arguably
central to student learning, does not register as a significant driver of overall
course satisfaction in our results (based on 1.6 million NSS responses). Will
this lead to the gradual relegation of educationally sound assessment and

4 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

feedback practices in BSs? In an increasingly competitive, market-driven
higher education system, might BSs and those that staff them simply become
more concerned with reported student satisfaction than the genuine educa-
tional development of their students? Without further systematic empirical
research into the underlying drivers of student satisfaction, we cannot be cer-
tain whether blindly following a consumer centric market-driven path will
actually be good for longer term student learning and development.

In relation to our second research question, to establish if the determinants
of satisfaction differ between BS students and those taking NBS subjects,
understanding the unique features of the specific drivers of BS student satis-
faction is interesting for several additional reasons. First, BSs are typically
large income generating units, though they are usually integrated within
fairly centralized university structures. University senior management may
be drawn from other university schools and departments and may lack famil-
iarity with the specific needs of BS students. Comparative analysis of reported
satisfaction drivers can shed further light on the specific characteristics of BS
students. Second, and again much more importantly, BS students are argu-
ably at the front line of the marketization process in U.K. higher education.
They are on the whole, we contend, more inclined to view their higher educa-
tion degree programs as investments related to career progression and life
time earnings than their NBS peers. As such, they are more likely to perceive
themselves as consumers of higher education. This could influence their
approach to learning and, in turn, their perceptions of educational quality.
Instrumental learning, for example, which describes the idea of studying pri-
marily for the sake of efficiently passing exams and gaining marketable qual-
ifications—and not out of an interest or curiosity to better understand a
subject—is considered common in U.K. BSs (Ottewill, 2003). So can we
pick up a more consumer-driven, instrumental orientation in BS students in
the U.K. NSS data? Looking at comparative differences between BS and
NBS students may provide glimpses into the ways in which perceptions of
educational quality may evolve in response to increased marketization of
higher education.

Interestingly, our findings comparing BS and NBS teaching-, assessment-,
and feedback-related drivers of overall satisfaction do suggest there are
important differences between BS and NBS students: intellectual stimula-
tion, for example, is a less important driver for BS students; fair assessment
and clarity of explanation, by contrast, is more important. These differences
appear broadly consistent with a more instrumental outlook. They raise the
question of whether BS educators should simply accept this—or try and do
something about it. Of additional concern, moreover, is the aforementioned
finding of insignificant relationships between quality of assessment and

Sutherland et al. 5

feedback and reported satisfaction. Government policy makers in the United
Kingdom may have to think more carefully about such relationships when
crafting the TEF. Similarly, BS administrators and educators must consider
whether blind pursuit of high student satisfaction ratings is always in the best
interests of their students. If it were to relegate in importance the quality of
assessment and feedback practices, it may not be.

We first outline two sets of hypotheses regarding the likely strength of
teaching-, assessment-, and feedback-related drivers of BS reported student
satisfaction. The first set focuses on teaching, the second on assessment and
feedback. Our underlying presumption is that these drivers, in general, should
be important positive drivers of satisfaction. After this, we propose three fur-
ther hypotheses regarding possible differences in these teaching-, assess-
ment-, and feedback-related drivers that may be found between BS and NBS
students.

What Drives Reported Student Satisfaction in BS
Subjects?

There is a long history of studies that empirically explore the various drivers
of student satisfaction, mostly published in education-related journals. We
draw from these studies, as they provide direct insights into the focus of our
study. Like ours, these articles predominately use student evaluation data
(Broder & Dorfman, 1994; Hearn, 1985; Krahn & Bowlby, 1997; Nadiri,
Kandampully, & Hussain, 2009; Neumann & Neumann, 1981; Rienties, Li,
& Marsh, 2015). Such studies have been undertaken at a number of different
levels of analysis. For example, some consider evaluations of entire courses,
programs or the university experience (Filak & Sheldon, 2003; Rienties et al.,
2015); some module satisfaction (Broder & Dorfman, 1994; Rienties et al.,
2015); others are more niche and look at determinants of curriculum satisfac-
tion (Tessema, Ready, & Yu, 2012).

There is considerable research on the determinants of satisfaction in spe-
cific subjects, or fields. This includes studies on drivers of satisfaction in
psychology (Green, Hood, & Neumann, 2015), sports sciences (Popp,
Weight, Dwyer, Morse, & Baker, 2015), music (Serenko, 2011), and also a
number in BS-related courses. Indeed, we identified eight BS-related studies,
making it the most studied subject area (Bennett, 2003; DeShields, Kara, &
Kaynak, 2005; Douglas, Douglas, McClelland, & Davies, 2014; Hill, Lomas,
& MacGregor, 2003; Letcher & Neves, 2010; Malik, Danish, & Usman,
2010; Shurden, Santandreu, & Shurden, 2016). The focus of most studies is
at the undergraduate level, involving U.S.- and U.K.-based students (Bennett,
2003; Douglas et al., 2014) although other countries have been studied (e.g.,

6 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

Greece [Nadiri et al., 2009], Pakistan [Malik et al., 2010], and the UAE
[Dodeen, 2016]). A central question the above studies look to address is as
follows: What are most and least important drivers of overall student satis-
faction with teaching? Or, as Hearn (1985) puts it in one of the earliest studies
on this topic: “how do students weight the various domains of satisfaction
and dissatisfaction (e.g., faculty availability, faculty teaching ability) in arriv-
ing at their levels of overall program satisfaction?” (Hearn, 1985, p. 415).

Following this literature, we propose a set of hypotheses on the relative
importance of the teaching-, assessment-, and feedback-related determinants
of course satisfaction for BS subjects. We develop them around the eight
questions found in the two general categories used in the U.K. NSS of teach-
ing effectiveness and assessment and feedback (the other four categories are
academic support, course organization and management, learning resources,
and personal development; see NSS Questionnaire, Table 2). Moreover, as
we wish to inform academics, deans of BSs and government policy makers
about the relative importance of these teaching-related drivers of satisfaction,
we incorporate the use of the labels “strong,” “moderate,” and “weak.” These
refer to the importance of each driver as determined by their ranking posi-
tions vis a vis all other drivers (i.e., explanatory variables in our model).
“Strong” refers to a driver ranked in the upper quartile of all drivers, “weak”
the bottom quartile and “moderate” all else in between.

Course Teaching as a Determinant of Satisfaction

Empirical research on general student satisfaction has typically (and perhaps
unsurprisingly) found a strong (i.e., comparatively large coefficient in the
empirical regression analysis) and statistically significant relationships
between survey questions gauging various aspects of teaching quality and
overall course satisfaction (DeShields et al., 2005; Hearn, 1985; Krahn &
Bowlby, 1997; Letcher & Neves, 2010; Thomas & Galambos, 2004). Hearn
(1985), for example, found especially strong effects “from indicators of
teaching ability” (Hearn, 1985, p. 421). Subsequently, Krahn and Bowlby
(1997) found teaching quality to be important: “our study demonstrates much
more conclusively that the experience of good teaching translates into greater
satisfaction with the overall university experience” (Krahn & Bowlby, 1997,
p. 171). Green et al. (2015) confirm this viewpoint in their summary of the
literature on course satisfaction: “Teaching variables, particularly teaching
quality and expertise, tend to show the strongest relationships with student
satisfaction” (Green et al., 2015, p. 131).

Sutherland et al. 7

Looking specifically at studies on BS student satisfaction, teaching quality
similarly emerges as an important determinant (Gibson, 2010). Bennett
(2003), for example, looking at satisfaction levels in one U.K. BS, confirms
the “critical importance of teaching quality as a determinant of student satis-
faction” (Bennett, 2003, p. 137). Deshields et al. (2005), looking at a U.S.
BS, finds faculty and classes as “key factors” in influencing satisfaction (p.
137), as do Letcher and Neves (2010). In general, the literature on student
satisfaction suggests teaching quality has a strong positive influence on satis-
faction, which is perhaps unsurprising. What particular aspects of teaching
quality, however, are most important to students? In this regard, the current
literature lacks detail. The methodologies employed often use somewhat
broad survey questions. Within the U.K. NSS, however, there is a compara-
tively fine level of detail. There are four questions, for example, related to
teaching quality (in the first section of the NSS). While we cannot be certain
which aspects of teaching are most important for students, based on the find-
ings of existing empirical research, we predict each of these to have a poten-
tially strong positive impact on overall reported student satisfaction. This is
based on the general finding of a strong positive relationship for teaching
questions as a whole.

Hypothesis 1a: Staff that are good at explaining things will have a strong
and positive impact on overall satisfaction with course quality for BS
students.
Hypothesis 1b: Staff that make the subject matter interesting will have a
strong positive impact on overall satisfaction with course quality for BS
students.
Hypothesis 1c: Staff that are enthusiastic about what they are teaching
will have a strong positive impact on overall satisfaction with course qual-
ity for BS students.
Hypothesis 1d: Intellectual stimulation is a strong determinant of overall
satisfaction with course quality for BS students.

Impact of Assessment and Feedback on Course Satisfaction

Studies focusing on the determinants of student course satisfaction are not
very clear on the impacts of assessment and feedback quality on course satis-
faction. Hearn (1985), for example, has no instrument to gauge impacts of
assessment and feedback. Similarly, many later studies lack coverage of
assessment and feedback (Athiyaman, 1997; Broder & Dorfman, 1994).
Krahn and Bowlby (1997) have a questionnaire item on feedback (“instruc-
tors provided helpful feedback throughout courses”). However, they use

8 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

factor analysis to create a single generalized “teaching environment” variable
(composed of nine questions). The specific impact of different elements of
assessment and feedback, therefore, cannot be isolated. The first NSS survey
question relates to the clarity of marking criteria. In the overall scheme of an
undergraduate course we suspect this to have a rather limited impact on over-
all satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2a: Clear marking criteria are a weak driver of course satis-
faction for BS students.

Rienties et al. (2015), in one of few useful studies in the area of assess-
ment and feedback, (but looking at module, not course-level satisfaction)
found that assessment considerations were the second most important driver
of overall learning satisfaction. Kandiko and Mawer (2013) using multiple
focus group discussions, found that the perception of thoroughness and fair-
ness in the assessment process was important to all U.K. students. We suspect
these findings may translate to the course or program level and hypothesize
that concern with fairness of assessments and marking processes are likely to
play at least a moderate role in shaping satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2b: Fair assessment and marking arrangements are a moder-
ate driver of course satisfaction for BS students.

Summative and formative assessment feedback, as mentioned, is not
covered in most of the empirical studies of satisfaction determinants.
Formative coursework should, in theory, strongly facilitate learning. If
learning is important to the formation of satisfaction with quality it should
strongly drive satisfaction. This being said, the volume of such feedback is
often limited and feedback, it is further suggested, is often poorly under-
stood by students (Kandiko & Mawer, 2013; Weaver, 2006). In the context
of all other potential factors, we hypothesize feedback quality and timeli-
ness therefore has at most a moderate impact on course satisfaction. The
final three questions of section two of the U.K. NSS deal with these aspects
of feedback delivery.

Hypothesis 2c: Timeliness of feedback on assessments is a moderate
driver of overall course satisfaction for BS students.
Hypothesis 2d: The detail of feedback on assessments is a moderate
driver of overall course satisfaction for BS students.
Hypothesis 2e: Feedback which helps clarify misunderstandings is a
moderate driver of overall course satisfaction.

Sutherland et al. 9

How Do the Teaching, Assessment, and Feedback Drivers
of Reported Student Satisfaction Vary Between BS and NBS
Courses?

How do the weights on teaching-, assessment-, and feedback-related satisfac-
tion drivers vary between BS and NBS students? These differences—referred
to in the pedagogic literature as “field differences”—have been found to vary
across different academic fields (Hearn, 1985). We now develop three
hypotheses related to the potential field differences between BS and NBS
related.

Within the pedagogic literature students have been thought of as adopting
either a deep or a surface approach to their learning (Marton & Saljo, 1976).
Deep learning involves attempting to understand underlying concepts and
ideas to find meaning. It implies high levels of intellectual engagement with a
subject. Rather than simply learning for extrinsic reasons (to pass tests, meet
targets, and gain qualifications) deep learners are motivated by intrinsic rea-
sons such as a desire to find enlightenment via improved conceptual under-
standing (Entwistle & Tate, 1990; Lucas & Myer, 2005). So called instrumental
learning has some similarities to surface and strategic learning (Dyer & Hurd,
2016; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999) but is more focused on desired outcomes,
namely to attain a good degree (Ottewill, 2003). Some evidence suggests stu-
dents have a preference toward BS-related subjects for extrinsic reasons. For
example, to improve starting salary prospects by possessing a good degree
from a good university. To do so, it has been suggested, they may be more
prone to adopting an approach that is focused on achieving grades rather than
mastering the subject (Koris, Ortenblad, & Ojala, 2016; Neves & Hillman,
2016; Ottewill & McFarlane, 2003). A lot of management learning literature
focuses on the unique characteristics of BS students (Wang, Malhotra, &
Murnighan, 2012). In particular, BS students are considered more strongly
driven by self-interest and personal gain than other students (Arieli, Sagiv, &
Cohen-Shalem, 2015). As such, a tendency toward “instrumental” learning has
been identified in the BS context (Ottewill & MacFarlane, 2003; Rynes,
Lawson, Ilies, & Trank, 2003). Thus, a starting point for developing hypotheses
on the differences between drivers of satisfaction in BS and NBS students is
that the former are, on the whole, more likely than the latter to adopt an instru-
mental approach to their studies than the rest of the general U.K. student popu-
lation (Ottewill, 2003; Ottewill & MacFarlane, 2003). This, in turn, may shape
their perception of teaching quality.

It is suggested instrumental learners show “antipathy towards subjects that
are not self-evidently relevant or make considerable intellectual demands”
(Ottewill, 2003, p. 189). Looking at specific teaching items on the U.K. NSS

10 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

Questionnaire (see Table 3), we might predict BS students may be less con-
cerned with intellectual stimulation when taking their degree programs
(Question 4).

Hypothesis 3a: Intellectual stimulation is a weaker driver of satisfaction
in BS than NBS students.

Instrumental learners also have “a high degree of dependence on tutors”
(Ottewill, 2003, p. 189). We might also predict BS students to be more con-
cerned with receiving clear, practical instructions about how to cover course
materials and successfully complete their course. This is because they may
prefer being given solutions or answers to questions rather than discovering
and creating meaning for themselves. We hypothesize, therefore, that BS stu-
dents place a higher premium on clear explanations (NSS Question 1) but
attach lesser importance to intellectual stimulation.

Hypothesis 3b: Clarity of explanation is a stronger driver of satisfaction
in BS than NBS students.

BS students may wish to obtain knowledge of how to do business and gain
qualifications that can lead to employment or better business opportunities.
An overriding purpose of attending university is to achieve a positive out-
come, namely a good degree which may lead to a good job. This instrumental
approach, it has been suggested, leads to: “an unhealthy preoccupation with
summative assessment” in BS students (Ottewill, 2003, p. 189). As a result,
their sensitivity to assessment processes may well be more acute than stu-
dents studying other subjects. This leads to our final hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3c: Fair assessment and marking is a stronger driver of stu-
dent satisfaction in BS than NBS students.

Method

Following similar approaches used in earlier student satisfaction studies,
regression analysis was employed to explore the statistical significance as
well as the relative magnitudes of student satisfaction determinants (Hearn,
1985; Krahn & Bowlby, 1997; Nadiri et al., 2009; Rienties et al., 2015;
Tessema et al., 2012). We use ordinary least squares (OLS) and include all 21
items from the six U.K. NSS categories, including eight questions on teach-
ing, assessment and feedback as explanatory variables. By doing so, we can
attempt to decompose the impacts of specific explanatory variables, following

Sutherland et al. 11

the approach used by others (Hearn, 1985; Krahn & Bowlby, 1997). We do
not, therefore, initially look to employ factor analysis for the purpose of creat-
ing composite variables (for further exploration of the data, however, we do—
see later Discussion section). An advantage of this approach is that is allows
us to explore in more specific detail individual drivers of satisfaction.

We use pooled data from 5 years of the U.K. NSS (2012-2016). We focus
on all full-time students.1 We used the averages of all 22 NSS questions for
course-level responses for all completed student responses undertaken at an
institutional level. These items are ordered into six NSS general categories
(see Tables 2 and 3). The questions use a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and are only publishable if there are at
least 10 responses with a response rate of greater than or equal to 50% for
each course. The NSS involves approximately 275 U.K. higher education
institutions annually reporting around 4,000 final average course subject-
level evaluations at the Joint Academic Coding System (JACS) subject level
two.2 We use the JAC Level 2 level of disaggregation as it allows us to iden-
tify all institutions offering BS-related subjects. Here, we use the categories
of “business” (JAC Code 25), “management” (26), “economics” (19),
“finance and accounting” (27), and “tourism, transport, travel, and others in
business and administrative studies” (28) to represent BS-related courses
(i.e., subjects often taught within BSs). Of the 20,054 institutional responses
reported over the 5-year period, 2,887 were BS-related courses. We converted
the reported percentage shares of respondents to the 22 standard questions
(using the 1-5 Likert-type scale) of the survey into a final average figure,
ranging from 1 to 5 (for each of the 22 questions). Thus, for each variable an
average score for each course by institution, ranging from theoretical mini-
mum of 1 to a maximum of 5, was obtained (Table 3).

Our dependent variable, similar to Lenton’s (2015) study, is NSS Question
22, “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course,” averaged for each
course (at JAC Level 2) by each institution. Independent variables included
in our study are NSS Questions 1 to 21 (see Table 3) plus year dummy vari-
ables and a BS-related subject dummy variable. Additionally, following
Hearn’s (1985) standard econometric approach for testing differences
between coefficients, BS interaction dummy variables are introduced. The
BS dummy is classified as one if it falls into JAC Level 2 Categories 19, 25,
26, 27, or 28. We do not standardize the data as in other studies (Broder &
Dorfman, 1994; Hearn, 1985), as all variables use identical Likert scales. We
run the model using the BS Sample (1), the NBS Sample (2), and the com-
bined full Sample (3). Using the business-related subject dummy variable we
then create a further 21 dummy interaction terms for each of the explanatory
variables and introduce them (labelled as “Interactions” in Table 2) along

12 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

with the intercept dummy in the full sample. This allows us to statistically
test for “field differences” between the magnitudes of the different coeffi-
cients on each of the explanatory variables for BS and NBS groups (Hearn,
1985). If the interaction coefficient is significant, it suggests the impact the
given explanatory variable differs between BS and NBS groups. We drop
insignificant interaction terms, testing them individually and finally as a
group simultaneously.

As noted, for our first and second group of hypotheses, we classify catego-
ries as “strong” if they are in the upper quartile by coefficient ranking or “weak”
if in the lower quartile by rank. “Moderate” lies in between (see Table 6).

Likert-Type Scales and Use of OL

The question of whether the sample averages of Likert-type scale responses
can be meaningfully employed using OLS regression analysis is debated.
Ideally, of course, we would use ordered logit modelling using the 1.6 million
individual student responses. These data, however, are not publicly available.
On the one hand, some argue parametric tests cannot be used on Likert-type
scales or their averages, as the underlying responses are nonparametric, based
as they are on ordinal, not interval, data (Jamieson, 2004). On the other hand,
however, it has been forcefully argued that such critics misunderstand para-
metric testing and that OLS can be employed on Likert averages. Nonnormality
and skewness typical with Likert data, for example, are not an issue: paramet-
ric statistics assume normality in distribution of sample means, following the
Central Limit Theorem, not the data itself. In practice, moreover, it is found
Pearson correlation is “robust with respect to skewness and non-normality”
(Norman, 2010, p. 629). Converting ordinal data to interval data, via, for
example, the addition of different ordinal responses (as we do) is, moreover,
theoretically justifiable (Norman, 2010). Norman (2010) concludes

Parametric statistics can be used with Likert data, with small sample sizes, with
unequal variances, and with non-normal distributions with no fear of “coming
to the wrong conclusion.” These findings are consistent with empirical
literature dating back nearly 80 years. (p. 63

In short, the use of OLS on averages of Likert-type scales is commonly
used across a broad range of academic disciplines and there is theoretical and
practical justification for it (i.e., the results are reliable). Recently, for exam-
ple, Lenton (2015) uses a similar dependent variable. By using this approach,
we are able to draw from a much larger student population (1.6 million stu-
dent responses) and from a much broader range of universities than any

Sutherland et al. 13

previous studies. In BS-specific studies, for example, Deshields et al. (2005)
used 143 student questionnaires (years not stated, U.S.-based students);
Letcher and Neves (2010) 352 (between 2004 and 2008, U.S. undergradu-
ates); Bennett (2003) 377 (U.K. undergraduates); and Malik et al. (2010) 240
(Pakistan-based students). To date, therefore, in total around 1,100 student
responses taken from different countries in different time periods have ana-
lyzed drivers of BS student satisfaction. By contrast, our total sample consists
of 245,469 BS student responses which we compare against over 1 million
NBS responses (see Table 1).

Diagnostic and Robustness Tests

Our data exhibit some of the issues commonly encountered with Likert
data (i.e., positive skewness, Tables 2 and 3). We, therefore, undertake a
series of additional tests. This includes, first, use of quantile regression
analysis, suggested as one suitable approach for data with skewed distribu-
tions. Second, we Winsorized our data at the 5% level (to remove outliers
causing skewness). All results remained basically unchanged and consis-
tent with our original OLS estimates. Pairwise correlations are given in
Table 4.

Furthermore, visual analysis of the predicted error terms (via histograms)
suggests the normality assumption is met, albeit heteroscedasticity may be
present. We addressed this issue by using robust standard errors as well as

Table 1. Number of NSS Responses by Business School-Related Topics at JAC
Level 2, 2012-2016.

JAC Subject 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

19 Economics 6,875 7,293 8,196 8,011 8,187 38,562
25 Business 16,696 17,969 19,489 19,013 18,723 91,890
26 Management 7,881 8,433 9,248 9,349 9,733 44,644
27 Accounting and

finance
8,405 9,476 10,479 10,455 10,654 49,469

28 Tourism, etc. 5,396 5,716 6,203 5,517 5,572 28,404
Total BS responses 45,253 41,594 53,615 52,345 52,869 245,676
All All responses, BS

+ NBS
291,987 312,940 334,610 341,824 324,633 1,605,994

BS as % of BS +
NBS

15.5% 13.3% 16% 15.3% 16.3% 15.3%

Note. NSS = National Student Survey; JAC = Joint Academic Coding; BS = business school;
NBS = nonbusiness school courses.

T
a
b

le
2

.
O

LS
R

eg
re

ss
io

n
R

es
ul

ts
, D

ep
en

de
nt

V
ar

ia
bl

e:
“

O
ve

ra
ll,

I
A

m
S

at
is

fie
d

it
h

th
e

Q
ua

lit
y

f
th

e
C

o
ur

se
.”

N
SS

q
ue

st
io

ns
B

S
N

B
S

+
N

B
S,

f
ul

l s
am

pl
e

In
te

a
ct

o
ns

T
ea

h
in

g
(1

-4
)

1
. S

ta
ff

ar
e

o
d

at
e

xp
la

n
in

g
th

in
gs

0.
14

(
7.

38
)

0.
06

4
**

*
(8

.4
3)

0.
08

10
**

*
(1

0.
69

)
0.

07
34

**
(

3.
23

)
2

. S
ta

ff
ha

ve
m

ad
e

th
e

su
bj

ec
t

in
te

re
st

in
g

0.
04

83
**

(
2.

73
)

0.
08

8
**

*
(1

1.
54

)
0.

**
*

(1
1.

78
)

−
0.

03
85

(
−

1.
86

)
3

. S
ta

ff
ar

e
en

th
us

ia
st

ic
a

bo
ut

w
ha

t
th

ey
a

te
ac

hi
ng

0.
03

68
*

(

2
.3

8)
0.

03
73

**
*

(

5
.5

03
37

**
*

(5
.4

)
−

0.
00

08
97

(
−

0.
05

)

4
. T

e
c

o
ur

se
is

in
te

lle
ct

ua
lly

s
ti
m

ul
at

in
g

0.
18

1*
**

(
14

)
0.

24
2*

**
(

45
.4

4)
0.

23
2*

**
(

48
.1

6)
−

0.
06

08
**

*
(−

4.
04

)
A

ss
es

m
en

t
an

d
fe

ed
ba

ck
(

5-
9)

5
. T

he
c

ri
te

ri
a

us
ed

n
m

ar
ki

ng
h

av
e

be
en

ea
r

in
a

dv
an

ce
−

0.
02

65
*

(

−
2.

42
)

−
0.

9*
(

−
2.

06
)

−
0.

01
09

**
(
−
2.

61
)

−
0.

01
7

(

−
1.

33
)

6
. A

ss
es
sm
en

t
ar

ra
ng

em
en

ts
a

nd
m

ar
ki

a
ve

b
ee

n
fa

ir
0.

10
7*

**
(

9)
0.

04
49

**
*

(

8
.7

7)
0.

05
23

**
*
(1
1.

1)
0.

**
*

(

4
.4

7
. F

ee
db

ac
k

o
n

m
y

o
rk

h
as

b
ee

n
pr

o
m

t
−

0.
01

38
(

−
1.

50
)

−
0.

00
30

8
(−

0.
95

)
−
0.
00

43
(

−
1.

41
)

−
0.

01
01

(
−

0.
96

)
8

I
h

av
e

re
ce

iv
ed

d
et

ai
le

m
m

en
ts

o
n

m
y

w
o

rk
0.
01

13
(

0.
91

)
0.

00
78

9
(1

.5
3)

0.
00

83
6

(

1
.7

6)
0.

00
28

1
(0

.1
9)

9
. F

ee
db
ac
k
o
n
m
y

w
o
rk

h
as

h
el

pe
d

m
e

cl
ar

fy
t

hi
ng

s
I
di

d
no

t
un

de
rs

ta
nd

−
0.

01
17

(
−

0.
85

)
−
0.
03

20
**

*
(−

5.
36

)
−
0.
03

02
**

*
(−

5.
51

)
0.

02
16

(
1.

35
)

A
ca

de
m

ic
s

up
po

rt
(

10
-1

5)
10

. I
h
av
e
re
ce
iv
ed

s
uf

ic
ie

nt
a

dv
ic

e
an

d
su

p
o

w
it
h

m
y

st
ud

e
s

0.
10

0*
**

(
6.

17
)

3*
**

(

.1
)

0.
14

7*
**

(
22

.2
)

−
0.

05
25

**
(
−
2.

75
)

11
. I

h
av

e
be

en
a

bl
e

o
c

o
nt

ac
t

st
af

he
n

I
ne

ed
ed

t
o

−
0.

00
24

6
(−

0.
20

)
0.

00
91

5
(1

.7
3)

0.
00

75
4

(

1
.5

5)
−

0.
01

19
(

−
0.

82
)

12
. G

o
o

d
vi

ce
w

as
a

va
ila

bl
e

w
he

n
I
ne

ed
ed

m
ak

e
st

ud
y

o
ic

s
0.

02
99

(
1.

94
)

0.
01
68
*

(

2
.4

7)
0.

01
75

**
(

2.
81

)
0.

01
53

(
0.

85
)

13
. T

e
t

im
et

b
le

w
o

s
ef

fic
ie

nt
ly

a
s

fa
r

m
y

ac
ti
vi

ti
es

a
re

c
o

er
ne

d
−

0.
06

59
**

*
(−

7.
58

)
−
0.
04

13
**

*
(−

10
.6

6)
−
0.
04

53
**

*
(−

2
.7

7)
−

0.
02

38
*

(−
2.

33
)

(c
on

tin
ue

15
N
SS
q
ue
st
io
ns
B
S
N
B
S
B
S
+
N
B
S,
f
ul
l s
am
pl
e
In
te
ra
ct

io
ns

14
. C

ha
ng

es
in

t
he

c
o
ur

se
o

ac
hi

ng
h
av
e
be
en

c
o
m

m
un

ic
at

d
e

ffe
ct

iv
el

y
−

0.
01
38
(
−
1.

18
)

−
0.

01
55

**
(

−
3.

19
)

−
0.

01
65

**
*

(−
3.

69
)

0.
00

23
(

−
0.
17
)

15
. T

he
c
o
ur
se
is

w
el

l o
rg

an
iz

d
a

nd
is

nn
in

o
th

ly
0.

32
3*

**
(

27
.3

)
0.

32
0*

**
(

67
.1

)
0.
32
3*
**
(

4
.3

)
0.

00
01

86
(

−
0.

01
)

Le
ar

ni
ng

r
es

o
ur

e
s

(1
6-

18
)

16
. T

he
li

br
ar

so
ur

ce
s

an
d

e
rv

ic
es

a
re

o
d

en
o
ug

h
fo

r
m

y
ne

ed
s

0.
04

56
**

*
(4

.8
1)

0.
03

7
**

*
(1
0.
95
)
0.

04
09

**
*

(1
2.

09
)

0.
00

55
8

(0
.5

17
. I

h
av
e
be
en
a
bl
e

o
a

cc
es

s
ge

e
ra

l I
T

re
so
ur
ce
s
w
he
n
I
ne
ed
ed
t
o
−
0.

00
72

4
(−

0.
56

)
−
0.
00

82
6

(−
1.

65
)

−
0.

01
00

*
(−

2.
15

)
0.
00
28
6
(−

0.
19

)

18
. A

bl
e
to
a
cc
es

s
sp

ec
ia

liz
ed

e
qu

ip
m

fa
ci

lit
ie

s,
o

r
ro

o
m

s
w

he
n

ne
ed

ed
−

0.
01

93
(

−
1.

48
)

0.
01
97
**
*
(4
.1
9)
0.
01

63
**

*
(3

.6
9)

−
0.

03
83

*
(−

2.
55

)

Pe
rs

o
na

l d
ev

el
o
pm

n
t

(1
9-

21
)

19
. T

he
c
o
ur

se
h

as
h

el
pe

d
m

e
pr

es
en

t
m

ys
el

f
w

it
h

co
nf

id
en

ce
0.

12
5*

**
(

6.
35

)
0.

11
5*

**
(

3
.5

9)
0.

11
8*

**
(

15
.1

3)
0.

00
88

4
(0

.3
8)

20
. M

y
co

m
m

un
ic

at
io

n
sk

ill
s

ha
ve

im
pr

o
ve

d
0.

04
27

*
(2

.2
8)

0.
01

35
(

1.
76

)
0.

01
99

**
(
2.
81
)
0.

02
93

(
1.
35
)

21
. A

s
a

e
su

lt
o

f
th

e
co

ur
se

, I
f
ee

l c
o
nf

id
en

t
in

t
ac

kl
in

g
un

fa
m

ili
ar

p
ro

bl
em

s
0.

13
5*

**
(

6.
57

)
0.

13
1*

**
(

15
.5

)
0.
13
1*
**
(

6
.7

)
0.

00
48

2
(0

.2
)

yr
20

13
−

0.
01

04
(

−
1.

62
)

−
0.

00
47

7
(−

1.
65

)
−
0.
00

54
8*

(
−

2.
07

)
−
0.
00

55
9*

(
−

2.
11

)
yr

20
14

−
0.

00
40

8
(−

0.
63

)
−
0.
00

93
0*

*
(−

3.
19

)
−
0.
00

84
6*

*
(−

3.
17

)
−
0.
00

85
8*

*
(−

3.
22

)
yr

20
15

−
0.

02
59

**
*

(−
4.

12
)

−
0.

02
96

**
*

(−
10

.6
1)

−
0.

02
94

**
*

(

−
11

.4
7)

−
0.

02
91

**
*
(−
11

.3
9)

yr
20

16
−

0.
02
83
**
*
(−

4.
40

)
−
0.
03

36
**

*
(−

11
.7

4)
−

0.
03

31
**

*
(−

2
.6

3)
−

0.
03

29
**

*
(−

2
.5

5)
_c

o
ns
−
0.

60
9*

**
(
−
11

.6
5)

−
0.

72
4*

**
(

−
32

.4
5)

−
0.

70
5*

**
(

−
34

.5
1)

−
0.

72
3*

**
(
−
32

.8
5)

B
us

in
es

s
sc

ho
o
l d

um
m

y
—

—
—

0.
10

4
(1

.7
1)

N
2,

88
7

17
,1

67
20

,0
54

20
,0

54
A

dj
us

te
d

R
2

.8
83

.8
92

.8
91

N
ot

e.
O

LS
=

o
rd

in
ar

y
le

as
t

sq
ua

re
s;

B
S

=
b

us
in

es
s

sc
ho

o
l;

N
B

S
=

n
o
nb

us
in
es
s
sc
ho

o
l c

o
ur

se
s.

*p
<

0
.0

5,
*

*p
<

0
.0

1,
*

**
p

< 0

.0
01

.
T
a
b
le
2

.
(c

o
n

ti
n

e
d

)

16 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

Table 3. NSS Questions and Their Descriptive Statistics.

NSS questions M SD Min Max

The teaching on my course
1 Staff are good at explaining things 4.17 0.24 2.04 5
2 Staff have made the subject interesting 4.07 0.28 1.85 5
3 Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching 4.28 0.28 1.97 5
4 The course is intellectually stimulating 4.19 0.31 2.25 5

Assessment and feedback
5 The criteria used in marking have been clear in

advance
3.98 0.32 1.89 5

6 Assessment arrangements and marking have been
fair

3.98 0.3 1.86 5

7 Feedback on my work has been prompt 3.73 0.43 1.34 5
8 I have received detailed comments on my work 3.87 0.4 1.76 5
9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I

did not understand
3.78 0.37 1.68 5

Academic support
10 I have received sufficient advice and support with

my studies
4.04 0.29 2.13 5

11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to 4.26 0.29 1.9 5
12 Good advice was available when I needed to make

study choices
4.05 0.29 1.92 5

Organization and management
13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my

activities are concerned
4.09 0.33 1.69 5

14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been
communicated effectively

3.98 0.41 1.38 5

15 The course is well organized and is running
smoothly

3.91 0.46 1.22 5

Learning resources
16 The library resources and services are good enough

for my needs
4.18 0.38 1.65 5

17 I have been able to access general IT resources
when I needed to

4.26 0.31 1.77 5

18 I have been able to access specialized equipment,
facilities, or rooms when I needed to

4.11 0.33 1.64 5

Personal development
19 The course has helped me present myself with

confidence
4.14 0.26 1.89 5

20 My communication skills have improved 4.27 0.25 2.15 5
21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling

unfamiliar problems
4.17 0.25 2 5

Overall satisfaction
22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course 4.16 0.34 1.54 5

Note. NSS = National Student Survey.

17
T
a
b

le
4

.
Pa

ir
w

is
e

C
o
rr

el
at

io
ns
.

Q
1

Q
2

Q
3

Q
4

Q
5

Q
6

Q
7

Q
8

Q
9

Q
10

Q
11

Q
12

Q
13

Q
14

Q
15

Q
16

Q
17

Q
18

Q
19

Q
20

Q
21

Q
22

Q
1

Q
2

.8
2

Q
3

.7
9

.8
6

Q
4

.7
2

.7
6

.7
1

Q
5

.6
1

.4
9

.4
8

.3
7

Q
6

.6
6

.5
6

.5
5

.4
9
.7
2
1

Q
7

.5
7

.5
2

.5
3

.4
4

.6
1

.6
2

Q
8

.5
9

6
.5

9
.3

6
.6

1
.6

.7
2
1

Q
9

.6
4

.6
3

.5
9
.4
4

.6
5

7
.7

2
.8

8
1

10
.7

8
.7
2
.7
2
.6
1
.6

4
.6

9
.6

1
.6
2
.7

1
1

11
.6

7
.5

8
.6

2
.5

9
.4

7
.5
6
.5
2
.4
2
.4

9
.7

4
1

12
.7

4
.7

.6
9

.5
9

.6
.6

5
.6

.6
.6

8
.8

7
.7

5
1

Q
13
.5
4
.4

8
.4

7
.4

8
.4
2
.4

8
.3

9
.3
7
.4
1
.5
2
.5
1
.5
1

Q
14
.6
1
.4
9
.5
3
.5
7
.4
9
.5
3

5
.3

6
.4

2
.5
9
.6
5
.5
8
.7
1
1

15
.6

8
.5

5
.5
8
.6

4
.5

3
.5
7
.5

3
.3

9
.4
4
.6

3
.6

8
.6
.6
9

.8
9

Q
16

1
9

.1
6

.1
9

.2
8

.1
3

.1
7

.1
9

.0
1

.0
9

.2
3

.2
9

.2
5

.1
8

.3
1

17
.2

4
.2

1
.2

2
.3

2
.1

8
.2

1
.2

2
.0

6
.1

5
.3

.3
4

.3
1

.2
2

.3
2

.3
2
.7
6
1

Q
18

.3
6

.3
2
.3
4

.4
2

.2
7

.2
9
.2
9

.1
2

.2
1

.4
.4

4
.4
2
.3
2
.4
4
.4

5
.7

1
.7
8
1

19
.6

5
.6
6
.6
1
.5
8
.5
4
.4
9
.4
7
.4

9
.5

4
.6
9
.5
1
.6
8
.4

1
.4

4
.4

9
.2

6
.3

1
.4
1

Q
20
.5
6

.5
8

.5
5
.5
3
.4
4
.3
6

.3
9

.4
3

.5
8
.4
4
.5
8

.3
3

.3
7

.4
1

.2
7

.3
.4

.8
7

Q
21
.6
5
.6
4
.6
1
.6
5
.4
9
.4
9

.4
7

.4
2

.5
1

.6
8

.5
4

.6
7

.4
1
.4
8
.5
3
.3
1
.3
6

.4
6

.8
7

.8
4

Q
22

.8
1

.7
5

.7
4

.8
.5

7
.6

4
.5
7
.4
9
.5
6
.7
8
.7
1
.7
4
.5
9
.7

4
.8

3
.3
4
.3
7
.5
.7
1
.6
3
.7
4
1
N
ot

e.
Q

=
N

at
io

na
l S

tu
de

nt
S

ur
ve

y
qu

es
ti
o
ns

18 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

employing a number of other remedial approaches (i.e., logarithmic transfor-
mations), to explore the robustness of our results. We tested the degree of
multicollinearity between explanatory variables using variance inflation fac-
tors (VIF; with maximum values of 6). Owing to the relatively large sample
size and relatively low VIF results, we do not consider multicollinearity to be
problematic to the interpretation of our results.

Omitted variables could potentially bias our estimates. The adjusted R2 in
our model, however, at around .9, is very high: about 90% of the variance in
satisfaction is explained by our explanatory variables. This is considerably
higher than that found in similar previous satisfaction studies, which vary
between .4 and .6. While it is possible we have omitted other important
explanatory variables form our model, we think this improbable given its
high overall explanatory power (based on the comprehensive 21 questions
from the U.K. NSS). It could be that such things as course size influence
satisfaction, or the prestige of the university (e.g., if it is a research focused
Russell Group university in the United Kingdom) influence satisfaction. We
run models with these additional explanatory variables but find them all
insignificant.3

Results

Results Related to Overall Drivers of Satisfaction

Course Teaching (Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d). Course teaching, perhaps
unsurprisingly, is an important category driving overall satisfaction. The
cumulative sum of the significant coefficients for Questions 1 to 4 of the NSS
Questionnaire, for example, sum to 0.41 for BS courses (and 0.44 for NBS
courses [Table 5]). All coefficients are significant (at the 5% level and above)
and many highly so (at the 0.1% level). The combined impact of teaching
(coefficients on Questions 1-4) is considerably larger than for any of the
other five remaining categories (i.e., assessment, academic support, organi-
zation, and management, learning resources and personal development, see
Table 5). The second strongest category, for example, is “personal develop-
ment” (0.27), followed closely by organization and management (0.26).

Although the coefficients on the teaching-related questions are positive
and significant, they do not all, however, register as being “strong” drivers
when ranked against the other explanatory variables in the model. In fact,
only Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis 1d are supported, albeit the drivers on
Hypothesis1b (“staff have made the subject interesting” and Hypothesis 1c
(“staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching”) are still moderate driv-
ers (and both statistically significant).

Sutherland et al. 19

Assessment and Feedback (Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 2e). Interestingly, the
assessment and feedback category as a whole in the U.K. NSS population
appears to have a relatively weak impact (the combined coefficients, for
example, sum to 0.011). The category, however, conceals considerable varia-
tion in the coefficients. Care with interpretation is also required. Fair assess-
ments and marking, for example, have a moderate impact on overall course
satisfaction in the BS sample, supporting Hypothesis 1b. Feedback, however,
appears to have limited impact (NSS Questions 7, 8, and 9). Hypothesis 1c,
proposing a moderate impact, is therefore not supported. Similarly, Hypoth-
eses 2d and 2e are not supported: neither detail of feedback nor feedback
clarifying thinking are strong drivers of satisfaction.

Differences in Teaching, Assessment, and Feedback-Related Drivers in BS and NBS
Samples (Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c). Table 2 shows that for Question 1 on the
NSS the BS coefficient is significantly larger, by 0.075 at the 1% significance
level, for BS students. For Question 4, by contrast, it is significantly lower,
by -0.06 at the 0.1% significance level. BS students are less concerned about
“intellectual stimulation”. Rather, clarity of explanations is more important.
This supports Hypotheses 3a and 3b. Fair assessment and marking, moreover,
is a stronger driver of student satisfaction in BS than NBS students. For BS
students the impact of Question 6 (“Assessment arrangements and marking
have been fair”) on overall perception of quality is considerably higher than

Table 5. Sums of the Significant Coefficients Reported for the Six NSS Categories
for BS/NBS Students.

BS courses NBS courses BS and NBS courses

Teaching (Questions 1-4) 0.41 0.437 0.429
Assessment and feedback

(Questions 5-9)
0.0805 0.0036 0.011

Academic support (Questions
10-12)

0.1 0.165 0.17

Organization and management
(Questions 13-15)

0.257 0.263 0.261

Learning resources
(Questions 16-18)

0.045 0.059 0.047

Personal development
(Questions 19-21)

0.30 0.25 0.269

Note. NSS = National Student Survey; BS = business school; NBS = nonbusiness school
courses.
Source. Table 2.

20 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

for NBS students (0.1 compared with 0.05, almost double), supporting
Hypothesis 3c. Question 6 ranks as the as the sixth most important determi-
nant of satisfaction for BS students. By contrast, for NBS students it ranks
eighth (Table 6).

Discussion

We first consider our broader findings regarding the main drivers of reported
student satisfaction for BS students within the U.K. NSS survey as a whole.
We then discuss the significance of our findings regarding differences in the
drivers of reported satisfaction with quality for BS vis a vis NBS students.

The Central Importance of Clarity of Explanation, Intellectual
Stimulation, and Organization

In some ways, it is reassuring to find that the most highly ranked drivers of
satisfaction in the U.K. student undergraduate population are teaching related.
Most students still perceive direct contact teaching time as one of the main
benefits higher education has to offer (albeit ideas of exactly what constitutes
teaching quality may vary between BS and NBS students).4 These findings
are broadly consistent with earlier research on student satisfaction (Broder &
Dorfman, 1994; Hearn, 1985; Letcher & Neves, 2010; Thomas & Galambos,
2004). When we dig deeper into which aspects of teaching drive satisfaction,
we find intellectual stimulation still registers very highly, in both BS (2nd
place) and NBS students (also 2nd). Perception of course quality is strongly
related to intellectual stimulation and clarity of explanation. These findings
are positive, in so far as they suggest overall student satisfaction is linked to
features of university teaching that we would expect also to be important for
learning.

Interestingly, NSS Question 15 “the course is well organized and is run-
ning smoothly” (in the section “Course organization and management” of the
NSS survey) registers as the strongest driver of satisfaction for BS students
(Table 6). This raises a further question: Does the question mostly capture the
administrative side of course organization and management, or that involving
interaction in classes with teaching staff? There are several pieces of evi-
dence pointing toward the latter interpretation. First, some other items in the
organization and management group more associated with the administrative
side of course management (i.e., timetabling scheduling, communications
regarding course changes) show no positive relationship with satisfaction
(and even negative ones, Table 2). Second, additional factor analysis of the

21
T
a
b

le
6

.
R

an
ki

ng
o

f
D

ri
ve

rs
o

f
Sa

ti
sf

ac
ti
o
n

in
B

S
an

d
N

B
S

Su
bj

ec
ts

.
N
SS

Q
ue

st
io
ns
B
S
N

SS
Q

ue
st

io
ns
N
B
S

5
.
T

h
e
c

o
u

rs
e
i
s

w
e
ll
o

a
n

iz
e
d

a
n

d
i
s

u
n

n
in

g
s

m
o

o
th
ly
0.

32
**

*
15

T
he

c
o
ur
se
is
w
el
l o
rg
an
iz
ed
a
nd
is

r
un

ni
ng

o
o
th

ly
0.
32
**
*

4
.
T

h
e
c
o
u
rs
e
i
s
in
te

ll
e
ct

u
a
ll
y

st
im

u
la

ti
n

g
0
.1

8
**

*
4
.
T

h
e
c
o
u
rs
e
i
s
in
te
ll
e
ct
u
a
ll
y
st
im
u
la
ti
n

g
0
.2

4
**

1
.
S

ta
ff

a
re

g
o

o
d

a
t

e
x
p

la
in

in
g
t

h
in

g
s

0.
14

**
*

1
0
.
I

h
a
ve

r
e
ce

iv
e
d

s
u

ff
ic

e
n

t
a
d

vi
ce

a
n

su
p

p
o

rt
w

it
h

m
y

st
u

d
ie

s
0
.1

5
**

2
1
.
A

s
a
r

e
su
lt
o
f
th
e
c
o
u

rs
e
,
I

fe
e
l
co

n
fi

d
e
n

t
in

t
a
ck

li
n

g
u

n
fa

m
il
ia

r
p

ro
b

le
m

s
0.

14
**

*
21

. A
s

a
re

su
lt
o

f
th
e
co
ur
se
, I
f
ee
l c
o
nf
id
en
t
in

ck
lin

g
un
fa
m
ili
ar

p
ro

bl
em
s
0.
13
**
*

1
9
.
T

h
e
c
o
u

rs
e
h

a
s

h
e
lp

e
d

m
e
p

re
se

n
t

m
ys

e
lf

w
it
h
c
o
n
fi
d
e
n
ce
0.
13
**

*
19

. T
he
c
o
ur
se
h
as
h
el
pe
d
m
e
pr
es
en
t
m
ys
el
f
w
it
h
co
nf
id
en
ce
0.

12
**

6
.
A

e
ss

m
e
n

t
a
rr

a
n

g
e
m

e
n
ts
a

n
d

m
a
rk

in
g

h
a
ve

e
e
n

f
a
ir

0.
11

**
*

2.
S

ta
ff
ha
ve

m
ad

e
th

e
su

bj
ec

t
in

te
re

st
in

g
0.

08
8*

1
0
.
I

h
a
ve
r
e
ce
iv
e
d
s
u
ff
ic

ie
n

t
a
d
vi
ce
a
n
d

su
p
p
o
rt
w
it
h
m
y
st
u
d
ie
s
0.
1*
**
1
.
S
ta
ff
a
re
g
o
o
d
a
t
e
x
p
la
in
in
g
t
h
in
g
s
0
.0
7
**
*

1
3
.
T

h
e
t

im
e
ta

b
le
w
o

rk
s

e
ff

ic
ie

n
tl

y
a
s

fa
r
a
s
m
y
a
ct

iv
it

ie
s

a
re
c
o

n
ce

rn
e
d

−
0.

06
7*

**
6
.
A

ss
e
ss
m
e
n
t
a
rr
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
ts
a
n
d
m
a
rk
in
g

h
a
ve

b
e
e
n

f
a
ir
0
.0

4
5
**

2
.
S

ta
ff

h
a
ve

m
a
d

e
t

h
e
s

u
b

je
ct

i
n

te
re
st
in
g
0.

04
8*

*
1
3
.
T

h
e
t
im
e
ta
b
le
w
o
rk
s
e
ff
ic
ie
n
tl
y
a
s
fa
r
a
s
m
y
a
ct
iv
it
ie
s
a
re
c
o
n
ce
rn
e
d

−
0
.0

4
1
**

1
6
.
T

h
e
l
ib

ra
ry

r
e
so

u
rc

e
s
a
n

d
s

e
rv

ic
e
s

a
re

g
o

o
d

e
n

o
u

g
h

f
o

r
m

y
n

e
e
d

s
0.

04
6*

**
16

. T
he

li
br

ar
y

re
so

ur
ce

s
an

d
se

rv
ic

es
a

re
g

o
o
d
en
o
ug
h
fo
r
m
y
ne
ed
s
0.
03

8*
**

2
0
.
M

y
co
m
m
u
n

ic
a
ti

o
n

s
k
il
ls

h
a
ve

i
m

p
ro

ve
d

0.
04

27
*

3.
S

ta
ff
ar
e

en
th

us
ia

st
ic

a
bo

ut
w

ha
t

th
ey

a
re

t
ea

ch
in

g
0.

03
7*

**
3
.
S

ta
ff
a
re
e
n

th
u

si
a
st

ic
a

b
o

u
t

w
h

a
t

th
e
y

a
re

a
ch

in
g
0.
03

68
*

9.
F

ee
db
ac
k
o
n
m
y
w
o
rk
h
as
h
el
pe
d
m
e
cl
ar
ify
t
hi
ng
s
I
di
d
no
t
un
de
rs
ta
nd
−
0.

03
2*

**
(c
on
tin
ue
d)

22
N
SS
Q
ue
st
io
ns
B
S
N
SS
Q
ue
st
io
ns
N
B
S
5
.
T
h
e
c
ri
te

ri
a
u

se
d

i
n
m
a
rk

in
g
h

a
ve
b
e
e
n

e
a
r

in
a

d
va

n
ce
−
0.

02
65

*
18

. A
bl

e
to

a
cc

es
s

sp
ec

ia
liz

ed
e

qu
ip

m
en

t,
f
ac

li
ti

,
o
r

ro
o

s
w
he
n
ne
ed

ed
0.

01
2*

1
2
.
G

o
o
d
a
d
vi
ce
w
a
s

a
va

il
a
b

le
w

h
e
n

I
n

e
e
d
e
d

m
a
k
e
s

tu
d

y
ch

o
ic
e
s
0.
02

99
12

. G
o
o
d

ad
vi

ce
w
as
a
va
ila
bl
e
w
he
n
I
ne
ed
ed

t
o

m
ak
e
st
ud
y

ch
o
ic

es
0.

01
7*

8
.
I

h
a
ve
r
e
ce
iv
e
d

d
e
ta

il
e
d

c
o
m
m
e
n

ts
o

n
m

y
w

o
rk
0.
01

13
14

. C
ha

ng
es

in
t

he
c
o
ur
se
o

r
te

ac
hi
ng
h
av
e
be
en

co
m
m
un
ic

at
ed

e
ffe

ct
iv

el
y

−
0.

01
6*

1
1
.
I

h
a
ve
b
e
e
n

a
b

le
t

o
c
o
n

ta
ct

s
ta

ff
w

h
e
n

n
e
e
d

e
d
t
o
−
0.
00
24

6
5.

T
he

c
ri

te
ri

a
us

ed
in

m
ar

ki
ng

h
av
e
be

en
c

le
ar

ad
va

nc
e

−
0.

00
93

1
7
.
I

h
a
ve
b
e
e
n
a
b
le
t
o
a

cc
e
ss

g
e
n

e
ra

l
IT

so
u

rc
e
s

w
h
e
n
I
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
−
0.
00
72

4
20

. M
y

co
m

m
un
ic
at

io
n

sk
ill

s
ha

ve
im

pr
o
ve

d
0.

01
4

9
.
F

e
e
d

b
a
ck

o
n

m
y
w
o

rk
h

a
s
h
e
lp
e
d

m
e

cl
a
ri

fy
t
h
in

g
s

I
d

id
n

o
t

u
n

d
e
rs

ta
n

d
−
0.
01

17
11

. I
h

av
e
be
en

a
bl

e
to

c
o
nt

ac
t
st
af
f
w
he
n
I
ne
ed
ed

to
0.
00
92

7
.
F

e
e
d
b
a
ck
o
n
m
y
w
o
rk
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
p
ro

m
p

t
−
0.
01

38
8.

I
h
av
e
re
ce
iv
ed
d
et
ai
le

d
co

m
m
en
ts
o
n
m
y
w
o
rk
0.
00

78
9

1
4
.
C

h
a
n

g
e
s

in
t
h
e
c
o
u

rs
e
o

r
te
a
ch
in
g
h
a
ve

e
e
n
c
o
m
m
u
n

ic
a
te

d
e

ff
e
ct

iv
e
ly

−
0.

01
38

7.
F

ee
db
ac
k
o
n
m
y
w
o
rk
h
as
b
ee
n
pr
o
m

pt
−

0.
00

30
8

1
8
.
A

b
le
t
o
a
cc
e
ss

s
p

e
ci

a
li
ze

d
e

q
u

ip
m
e
n
t,

fa
ci
li
ti

e
s,

o
r

ro
o

m
s

w
h
e
n

n
e
e
d

e
d
−
0
.0
1
9

1
7
.
I

h
a
ve
b
e
e
n
a
b
le
t
o
a
cc
e
ss
g
e
n
e
ra
l
IT

re
so
u
rc
e
s
w
h
e
n
I
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o

–0
.0

0
8
2
6

N
ot

e.
N

SS
=

N
at

io
na

l S
tu

de
nt

S
ur

ve
y;

B
S
=
b
us
in
es
s
sc
ho
o
l;
N
B
S
=
n
o
nb
us
in
es
s
sc
ho
o
l c
o
ur
se
s.
Q
ue
st
io

ns
in

b
o
ld

h
ig

hl
ig

ht
s

ta
ti
st

ic
al

ly
s

ig
ni

fic
an

t
di

ffe
re

nc
es

in
d

ri
ve
rs
o

f
sa

ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n

be
tw

ee
n

B
S
an
d
N
B

S.
*p

< 0

.0
5,

*
*p

< 0

.0
1,

*
**

p
<

0
.0

01
.

T
a
b
le
6
.
(c
o
n
ti
n

u
e
d

)

Sutherland et al. 23

21 survey items shows a strong loading on one teaching factor, with NSS
Question 15 on “smooth running of courses” falling into it.

Is this finding surprising? For most students, we would argue, firsthand
experience of course organization and management stems directly from their
daily interaction with teaching staff (in the classroom or via academic advis-
ing) rather than with administrators. A significant component of the “organi-
zation and management” element captured in the NSS survey thus likely
reflects the efforts of teaching staff. This further reinforces findings regarding
the importance of teaching quality, suggesting that it is not just what academ-
ics teach but also how they teach and manage their modules. Some existing
research at the module (not course) level supports this viewpoint. Thomas
and Galambos (2004), for example, have shown how teacher “preparedness”
is a strong driver of satisfaction (at the module level). So, it might be reason-
able to also expect a significantly positive impact of well-organized classes
on course satisfaction.

Our findings additionally suggest that aspects of teaching that may be con-
sidered more superficial in nature, such as an enthusiastic outward teaching
demeanor, does not greatly influence satisfaction (because the coefficient on it
is relatively small). The NSS data suggest that students typically value content,
delivery, and organization more highly than enthusiasm, albeit enthusiasm is
still not unimportant (Table 2). The high ranking of personal development as a
satisfaction driver, moreover, is indicative that students recognize what they
may gain from higher education. These findings are supported by earlier
research. Letcher and Neves (2010), for example, identify “self-confidence” as
the most important single factor explaining satisfaction in their BS sample.
Thomas and Galambos (2004) also found that what most satisfied students was
perceived “intellectual development” (Thomas & Galambos, 2004, p. 258).

The Limited Importance of Timely, High-Quality Assessment
Feedback

While many aspects of teaching delivery, such as intellectual stimulation and
clarity of explanation, act as positive drivers of satisfaction, our findings regard-
ing assessment and feedback, by contrast, give reason for concern. To date,
comparatively little is known about how assessment shapes student satisfaction
and our findings may be surprising for some. The insignificant or marginally
negative coefficients on most of the assessment-related variables suggests that
promoting tighter marking turnaround deadlines, explaining upfront marking
criteria more clearly, or giving more detailed feedback, may not greatly improve
overall reported course satisfaction. In general, our findings imply that students
are more concerned that their final mark reflects their efforts and capabilities

24 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

and is “fair,” rather than how (i.e., what feedback says) or when this mark is
actually arrived at. These finding should be of some interest to U.K. government
policy makers responsible for developing the TEF as well as BS administrators
and educators. Receiving adequate feedback is arguably of central importance to
learning processes (O’Donovan, Rust, & Price, 2016). Written work which is
assessed is an important, possibly the most important means, by which students
in higher education may receive critical feedback.

Interpreting these negative coefficients, of course, requires some care.
Reverse causality in our model is an important consideration. It may be, for
example, that those students who received feedback that has helped improve
their understanding of a subject (i.e., Question 9) tend to be weaker students
and those, therefore, who are (on the whole) more prone to being dissatisfied
with their courses. We cannot rule out this possibility. This being said, there
are also valid reasons for believing that some negative relationships may
exist. In the case of Question 5 regarding clarity of assessment criteria, for
example, being provided with long and detailed accounts relating to marking
criteria is likely to be a distraction. Similarly, fast turnaround times (Question
7) may lead to the perception (or reality) that student coursework or assess-
ments have not been properly marked. In other words, rushing to provide
feedback may not be helpful in improving satisfaction with quality.

Our results point toward the need for a more thorough investigation of the
impact of assessment on perceptions of education quality. High-quality feed-
back is essential for learning to take place. If, however, perceived course
quality is not strongly influenced by the assessment and feedback drivers we
identify here, policy makers may need to think more carefully about the use
of student satisfaction measures as indicators of quality teaching. If univer-
sity ranking systems or policy makers use overall student satisfaction to rate
educational quality, this may end up inadvertently penalizing the institutions
that are those most actively engaged in best practice learning and teaching
activities—that is, giving detailed and timely feedback. This is because such
schools will see little benefit to their overall rankings (based on overall satis-
faction), despite sacrificing considerable resources to providing high-quality
assessment and feedback mechanisms.

Instrumental Learning and Reported Satisfaction in U.K.
Business Schools

As noted, instrumental learners are characterized as being more extrinsically
driven than other learners (i.e., they study to get a good degree and enhanced
career prospects). They typically focus on attaining qualifications not master-
ing the subject via “deep learning.” They, therefore, have a preference toward

Sutherland et al. 25

clear guidance during their studies. It has been suggested, for example, they
may exhibit “a high degree of dependence on tutors” and by implication they
are less self-directed learners (Ottewill, 2003, p. 189).

Our results do indeed show that BS students have a stronger preference for
staff that can explain things well when compared with NBS students. By con-
trast, while Koris et al. (2016) argue that BS students also “value and identify
with intellectual curiosity, critical thinking and introspection” (p. 174), intel-
lectual stimulation appears to be considerably less important to BS students
than it is to NBS students. Our finding here is in line with Hearn’s (1985) early
empirical analysis of field differences. He compared satisfaction drivers in six
different categories and found significant differences in drivers across fields.
Specifically, he found that in the general category of what he termed “enterpris-
ing” majors, which included business and management studies, “course stimu-
lation” was a weaker determinant than in other fields. These findings seem in
keeping with a stronger instrumental profile in BS students.5 Interestingly, we
also found BS students placed a considerably larger emphasis on “fair” assess-
ments and marking (NSS Question 6).6 It has been suggested that instrumental
learners have “an unhealthy preoccupation with summative assessment”
(Ottewill 2003, p. 189). There may be some validity in this viewpoint, as our
results show striking differences between BS and NBS groups in this regard.
Whereas fair assessments are considered important, BS students appeared
rather indifferent about the feedback they received and when they received it
(although, admittedly, no more so then NBS students).7

Is the preoccupation with summative assessments or lesser concern with
intellectual stimulation in BS students illogical or even surprising? In an era in
which U.K. student fees have risen inexorably, some may consider it under-
standable for instrumental learners in the United Kingdom to exhibit the type
of preferences we have identified here. Interestingly, further longitudinal anal-
ysis of the data from the U.K. NSS (not reported here) shows that the coeffi-
cient on the “fair grades and marking” variable (Question 6) for BS students
has increased considerably between 2005 and 2015. Using similar methodol-
ogy as for our BS and NBS comparisons (composite dummy variables to test
differences in coefficient values between the two periods), we found a large and
statistically significant difference between the two coefficients in the two dif-
ferent periods. The importance placed on fair assessments by U.K. BS students
has therefore been growing. Given the rapid increase in student fees, is it sur-
prising that students have become much more concerned about the outcomes of
their increasingly expensive personal investments in their university courses?

Our results may seem unsurprising for some, particularly those who have
long commented on the prevalence of instrumental learning in BSs
(MacFarlane, 2015; Ottewill, 2003; Ottewill & MacFarlane, 2003). They also

26 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

resonate with some studies in the management learning literature that have
identified self-interested behaviors as being more prevalent among BS stu-
dents (Podolny, 2009; Wang et al., 2012). Nonetheless, evidencing the strong
tendency toward instrumentality at the U.K. national level in BS students, as
we do here, may give pause for further reflection and possibly spur discus-
sion of the phenomenon. Several implications follow.

Implications for Policy Makers, Management Educators, and
Business School Administrators

Delivering higher levels of student satisfaction—as measured by the NSS—has
become an increasingly important driver of education delivery in U.K. higher
education today. This is because of increased competition and the elevation of
student satisfaction which has become key to brand development (Corduas
et al., 2016). Our results imply, however, that teaching styles which reward
instrumental learning approaches are more strongly rewarded in the BS con-
text. This is concerning, as much pedagogic research decries instrumental
learning as inherently undesirable (Dyer & Hurd, 2016; Ottewill, 2003; Ottewill
& MacFarlane, 2003). Some have talked about how it “strikes at the very heart
of what has traditionally been regarded as the primary rationale of higher edu-
cation” (Ottewill, 2003, p. 195). Yet university administrators and managers,
responding to market forces and university funders, now place increasing value
on attaining ever higher levels of student satisfaction (MacFarlane, 2015).
University league tables afford student satisfaction prominent roles in their
ranking systems. Pressures to improve satisfaction scores and ranking are
transmitted daily to staff working in U.K. BSs. Our findings, however, suggest
careful consideration should be given to the impacts of using overall student
satisfaction as a means of measuring teaching quality. It is possible such met-
rics, through market-driven evolutionary processes, may lead to the growing
predominance of approaches to teaching that support instrumental learning at
the expense of what have traditionally been regarded as more desirable alterna-
tives, ones involving deeper engagement and learning.

As well as the tendency toward instrumental learning, it is of concern that
practices considered conventionally as central to learning often register as only
weak drivers of student satisfaction. High-quality assessment and feedback pro-
cedures, for example, are widely considered to be vitally important for learning
to take place. Yet our findings suggest it is mainly the fairness of assessments
that students care about. Is it possible that the increased marketization of higher
education, with the growing focus on student satisfaction, may progressively
lead to the weakening of assessment and feedback procedures in BS courses?
Will BSs that maintain a commitment toward high-quality assessment and

Sutherland et al. 27

feedback practices gradually slip down the satisfaction rankings, as competitors
focus their resources in areas that have stronger positive impacts on overall sat-
isfaction (such as assessment fairness)? Government policy makers, like those
in the United Kingdom, need to carefully consider these possibilities. Educators
and administrators in U.K. BSs, moreover, as guardians of the higher education
system, need also to confront the possibility of this reality. In the final analysis,
it may be that elevating students as consumers of higher education may not
always be beneficial for their learning.

Conclusion

Our results raise some interesting and challenging questions regarding the
growing reliance on student satisfaction measures as indicators of teaching
quality in the United Kingdom. Do ranking systems and league tables based
on student satisfaction encourage BSs to teach in ways that support instru-
mental learning? And might they, over the longer term, undermine the quality
of assessment and feedback practices employed in BSs? Given the elevation
of student satisfaction as a driver of higher education delivery, it is clear that
more research is needed to find out exactly what drives student satisfaction in
BSs. Are these drivers of student satisfaction antithetical to or incompatible
with student learning? Our novel attempt to explore satisfaction determinants
using the U.K. NSS and its 1.6 million responses suggests some of them may
be. Indeed, our results seem to lend support to those who warn of the
McDonaldization of the university (Parker & Jary, 1995), in which course
standardization driven by a desire to provide what the customer–student
(apparently) wants are privileged over more traditional academic values.

Limitations and Future Research

There are rich potential opportunities to further exploit the U.K. NSS data.
This work, for example, could involve more detailed comparative analyses
across specific subject areas. We used the JACs Level 2, and contrasted BS
and the very broad NBS category. It may make sense in future research to use
a more specific range of subject categories that seem likely to be similar to BS
students because they likely share instrumental motivation (e.g., law) or con-
trasting with BS students because instrumental motivation might seem less
likely (e.g., philosophy). By doing so, we will be able to get a better idea of the
factors that shape the field differences we observed. Also, we have limited
demographic data, as we use aggregated responses. BS students, as a popula-
tion, may of course be different to NBS students (i.e., in terms of sex, age,
nationality, etc.). While for the purposes of our key questions (differences

28 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

between NBS and BS groups) this does not necessarily matter, it may be rel-
evant in future studies. Future research could look more at how drivers have
evolved over time. We could use earlier survey results to explore, for example,
the introduction of student fees and how this influences the drivers of satisfac-
tion. International comparisons, moreover, are needed. Do students in the
United States or other European countries exhibit similar differences in driv-
ers of satisfaction? These are just some of the many areas requiring additional
research.

Ideally, future empirical modelling will also employ ordered logit model-
ling using individual-level response data. Some may consider our empirical
approach to modelling the NSS Likert data as a limitation. The practice we
use, however, is commonly used elsewhere and, as we have shown, there are
also strong theoretical and practical arguments supporting it (Norman, 2010).
We refer those still unconvinced to this literature. It should also be kept in
mind that empirical research on student satisfaction drivers in BSs that we
identified is based on a cumulative total of around 1,000 student question-
naires (see Method section). The findings from our sample—around 250
times larger—marks a considerable step forward in trying to better under-
stand the learning preferences of BS students and the possible implications.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Notes

1. We did not include part-time students as the available sample of respondents is
considerably smaller.

2. JACs is used by the U.K. Higher Education Statistics Agency and the Universities
and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) to categorize academic subjects.

3. This provides further justification for using the average of student responses
at the course level, an approach which weights each course equally, regard-
less of size. Course size does not appear to be an important driver of satisfac-
tion (a result we have also found at the level of individual modules in other
research).

4. As Thomas and Galambos (2004) put it: “teaching and learning appear to have
more effect on students’ general satisfaction than the campus services and ameni-
ties on which uncritical consumerism might focus attention” (p. 263).

Sutherland et al. 29

5. Since Hearn (1985), unfortunately, there has been limited research on field
differences (Broder & Dorfman, 1994). For example, no similar comparative
empirical studies of the determinants of satisfaction in BS and NBS subjects
exists, despite there being a number of studies on BS subjects alone.

6. This is somewhat ironic given that evidence suggests they are also much more
likely to cheat (Mccabe & Butterfield, 2006).

7. This is rather surprising from a pedagogical point of view, as one might expect
feedback to be central to learning processes. Indeed, the findings of significant
negative coefficients on Questions 5 (“The criteria used in marking have been clear
in advance”), 7 (“Feedback on my work has been prompt”), and 9 (“Feedback on
my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand”) may raise eyebrows.

References

Arieli, S., Sagiv, L., & Cohen-Shalem, E. (2015). Values in business schools: The
role of self-selection and socialization. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 15, 493-507.

Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions:
The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 528-540.
doi:10.1108/03090569710176655

Bennett, R. (2003). Determinants of undergraduate student drop out rates in a univer-
sity business studies department. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27,
123-141. doi:10.1080/030987703200065154

Broder, J. M., & Dorfman, J. H. (1994). Determinants of teaching quality: What’s
important to students? Research in Higher Education, 35, 235-249. doi:10.1007/
BF02496703

Buckley, A., Soilemetzidis, I., & Hillman, N. (2015). The 2015 Student Academic
Experience Survey. Retrieved from http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2015/06/AS-PRINTED-HEA_HEPI_report_print4

Corduas, M., Piscitelli, A., Lantz, B., Dennis, C., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E., &
Bourlakis, M. (2016). The role of brand attachment strength in higher education.
Journal of Business Research, 11(8), 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.020

DeShields, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business stu-
dent satisfaction and retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg’s two-
factor theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19, 128-139.
doi:10.1108/09513540510582426

Dodeen, H. (2016). Student evaluations of instructors in higher education: A struc-
tural equation modeling. Research in Higher Education Journal, 31, 1-15.

Douglas, J. A., Douglas, A., McClelland, R. J., & Davies, J. (2014). Understanding
student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: An interpretive study in the UK higher
education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 329-349. doi:10.1080/0307
5079.2013.842217

Dyer, S. L., & Hurd, F. (2016). “What’s going on?” Developing reflexivity in the manage-
ment classroom: From surface to deep learning and everything in between. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 15, 287-303. doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0104

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AS-PRINTED-HEA_HEPI_report_print4

30 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

Entwistle, N., & Tate, H. (1990) Approaches to learning, evaluations of teachng, and
preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2),
169-194.

Filak, V. F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Student psychological need satisfaction
and college teacher-course evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23, 235-247.
doi:10.1080/0144341032000060084

Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: a review and summary of
the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32,
251-259. doi:10.1080/13600801003743349

Green, H. J., Hood, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2015). Predictors of student satisfaction
with university psychology courses: A review. Psychology Learning & Teaching,
14, 131-146. doi:10.1177/1475725715590959

Hearn, J. C. (1985). Determinants of college-students overall evaluations of their academic
programs. Research in Higher Education, 23, 413-437. doi:10.1007/Bf00973688

Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in
higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11, 15-20. doi:10.1108/
09684880310462047

Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38,
1212-1218.

Kandiko, C., & Mawer, M. (2014). Student expectations and perceptions of higher
education, a study of UK higher education. Kings College Londo/QAA. Retrieved
from https://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/learningteaching/kli/People/Research/DL/
QAAReport

Koris, R., Ortenblad, A., & Ojala, T. (2016). From maintaining the status quo to pro-
moting free thinking and inquiry: Business students perspective on the purpose
of business school teaching. Management Learning, 48, 174-186. doi:10.1177/
1350507616668480

Krahn, H., & Bowlby, J. W. (1997). Good teaching and satisfied university graduates.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 27, 157-179.

Lenton, P. (2015). Determining student satisfaction: An economic analysis of
the National Student Survey. Economics of Education Review, 47, 118-127.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.05.001

Letcher, D., & Neves, J. (2010). Determinants of undergraduate business student sat-
isfaction. Research in Higher Education Journal, 6, 1-26.

Lucas, U., & Myer, J. (2005). “Towards a mapping of the student world”: the identi-
fication of variations in students’ conceptions of, and motivations to learn, intro-
ductory accounting. The British Accounting Review, 37, 177-204.

MacFarlane, B. (2015). Student performativity in higher education : Converting
learning as a private space into a public performance as a private space into a
public performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 34, 338-350.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.956697

Malik, M. E., Danish, R. Q., & Usman, A. (2010). The impact of service quality
on students’ satisfaction in higher education institutes of Punjab. Journal of
Management Research, 2, 1-11. doi:10.5296/jmr.v2i2.418

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/learningteaching/kli/People/Research/DL/QAAReport

Sutherland et al. 31

Mccabe, D. L., & Butterfield, K. D. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate busi-
ness programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action, 5, 294-305. doi:10.5465/
AMLE.2006.22697018

Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students’ perceptions of service
quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
20, 523-535. doi:10.1080/14783360902863713

Neumann, Y., & Neumann, L. (1981). Determinants of students satisfaction with
course work: An international comparison between two universities. Research in
Higher Education, 14, 321-333. doi:10.1007/Bf00976682

Neves, J., & Hillman, N. (2016). The 2016 student academic experience survey.
York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.
ac.uk/system/files/student_academic_experience_survey_2016_hea-hepi_final_
version_07_june_16_ws

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics.
Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625-632. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-
9222-y

O’Donovan, B., Rust, C., & Price, M. (2016). A scholarly approach to solving the
feedback dilemma in practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
41, 938-949. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1052774

Ottewill, R. M. (2003). What’s wrong with instrumental learning? The case of
business and management. Education + Training, 45, 189-196. doi:10.1108/
00400910310478111

Ottewill, R. M., & MacFarlane, B. J. (2003). Pedagogic challenges facing business
and management educators: Assessing the evidence. International Journal of
Management Education, 3(3), 33-41.

Parker, M., & Jary, D. (1995). The McUniversity: Organization, management and
academic subjectivity. Organization, 2, 319-338.

Podolny, J. M. (2009, June). The buck stops (and starts) at business school. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2009/06/the-buck-stops-and-
starts-at-business-school

Popp, N., Weight, E. A., Dwyer, B., Morse, A. L., & Baker, A. (2015). Assessing
student satisfaction within sport management master’s degree programs. Sport
Management Education Journal, 9(1), 25-38.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The expe-
rience in higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Rienties, B., Li, N., & Marsh, V. (2015). Modelling and managing student satis-
faction: Use of student feedback to enhance learning experience subscriber.
Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49b8/a37b6090d179b31b93cb-
d5bc9fdce5c93e5d

Rynes, S. L., Lawson, A. M., Ilies, R., & Trank, C. Q. (2003). Behavioral coursework
in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis, 2, 269-283.

Serenko, A. (2011). Student satisfaction with Canadian music programmes: The
application of the American customer satisfaction model in higher education.

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/student_academic_experience_survey_2016_hea-hepi_final_version_07_june_16_ws

https://hbr.org/2009/06/the-buck-stops-and-starts-at-business-school

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49b8/a37b6090d179b31b93cbd5bc9fdce5c93e5d

32 Journal of Management Education 00(0)

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 281-299. doi:10.1080/
02602930903337612

Shurden, M., Santandreu, J., & Shurden, S. (2016). An application of partial least
squares path analysis to student satisfaction. Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal, 20(2), 51-62.

Tessema, M. T., Ready, K., & Yu, W. W. (2012). Factors affecting college stu-
dents’ satisfaction with major curriculum: Evidence from nine years of data.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(2), 1-44.

Thomas, E. H., & Galambos, N. (2004). What satisfies students? Mining student-
opinion data with regression and decision tree. Research in Higher Education,
45, 251-269.

Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2012). Economics education and greed.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 643-660. doi:10.5465/
amle.2009.0185

Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’
written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 379-394.
doi:10.1080/02602930500353061

Williams, J., & Mindano, G. (2015). Subscriber Research Series, 2015-16: The role
of student satisfaction data in quality assurance and enhancement: How provid-
ers use data to improve the student experience. Gloucester: Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education.

Article

Improving the quality of
teaching and learning
through leadership for
learning: Changing scenarios
in basic schools of Ghana

Suseela Malakolunthu, John McBeath and Sue Swaffield

Abstract
This article emerged as a case study from a fact-finding mission of a joint programme between the
Centre for Commonwealth Education (CCE) in Cambridge University and the Institute for Educa-
tional Planning and Administration (IEPA) in University of Cape Coast, Ghana, to embed innovative
approaches to teaching and learning in the basic schools of the latter country. The strategy was to
enhance the leadership capacity of the headteachers. A leadership for learning (LfL) model with five
seminal principles was used to guide and direct the change process. It was organized on the basis of
capacity building whereby CCE provided expertise consultation and Ghanaians contextualized
learning materials, and their execution. At the close of the second year, the qualitative case study
involving four schools revealed that conspicuous changes were indeed taking place at different lev-
els. The case study also provided evidence that LfL tended to be a broad systemic ideology that
relied on the collective effort of various stakeholders.

Keywords
capacity building, education development, Ghana leadership for learning, teaching-learning

Introduction

In 2009, the sub-Saharan state of Ghana embarked on a collaborative programme with the UK to

build headteachers’ leadership capacity to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in the coun-

try’s basic schools. Ghana was represented by the Institute for Educational Planning and Admin-

istration (IEPA), University of Cape Coast, while the UK was represented by the Centre for

Commonwealth Education (CCE) of the University of Cambridge. CCE, on its part, had a close

working relationship with the Leadership for Learning Network in Cambridge, and had earlier

completed development of a Leadership for Learning (LfL) framework from the Carpe Vitam

Corresponding author:

Suseela Malakolunthu, Institute for Educational Leadership, University of Malaya, 59990 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Email: suseela@um.edu.my

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
2014, Vol. 42(5)

701

–

717

ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143213510510
emal.sagepub.com

701

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://emal.sagepub.com

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1741143213510510&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-01-27

programme – a 3-year study of 8 higher education institutions and 24 schools in 7 western coun-

tries namely Austria, Australia, Denmark, the UK, Greece, Norway and the USA (MacBeath and

Dempster, 2008). The Carpe Vitam programme explored the links between leadership and learn-
ing and emerged with five seminal principles that provided a framework for school success and

improvement. These five principles are: (1) a focus on learning; (2) an environment for learning;

(3) a learning dialogue; (4) shared leadership; and (5) mutual accountability. Within these broad

framing principles a set of more specific performance indicators were identified.

From the perspective of policymakers in Ghana, LfL is the latest development partnership pro-

gramme in its continuous effort to improve basic education. Since the launch of Ghana’s Educa-

tional Reform Programme in 1987, the government had been gaining from many policies and

interventions with the help of donor organizations to raise the conditions and standard of basic edu-

cation by 2015 in line with the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal of Universal Pri-

mary Education (Adamu-Issah et al., 2007), for example the Primary School Development

Programme and Basic Education Sector Improvement Program (BESIP) (World Bank, 2004).

Also, in 1997, the Quality Improvement in Primary School (QUIPS) programme was sponsored

by USAID to improve teaching and learning (Osafo-Acquah and Asamoah-Gyimah, 2009). The

government’s initiatives and commitment have helped to improve awareness of and access to basic

education with a current enrolment rate of 80% and gender parity ratio of boys to girls at 1:0.7
(Modern Ghana News, 2009). However, the quality of education at the foundation level continued

to be a major concern (MacBeath et al., 2010).

Between 2004 and 2010, Ghana benefitted further from the EdQual programme launched by a

Consortium of the IEPA, University of Cape Coast in Ghana, the Institute of Educational Planning,

University of Dar e Salaam, Tanzania, and the Faculty of Education, University of Bath, UK. It was

funded by the Department for International Development (DfID) in the UK to improve quality of

education in low income countries, and was directed by the University of Bristol (Oduro and Bosu,

2010). Related research in the programme with regard to Ghana accentuated school leadership as a

relevant area that had to be addressed, as Oduro and Bosu (2010: 2) reported, ‘ . . . our research
suggests strongly that it takes effective school leadership to achieve effectiveness and improve-

ment in teaching and learning. The leadership of the headteacher can make a positive difference

in the implementation of quality education initiatives in Ghana.’

The LfL programme, naturally, appeared to be the next sequential intervention for Ghana. It was

agreed by those involved that LfL would foster capacity building as innovation and commitment

would embrace not only the headteachers but all other stakeholders in the system. The partners

adopted a multiplier approach to the dissemination and embedding of the LfL principles whereby

CCE members would train the initial batch of 15 professional development leaders (PDLs) from

the University of Cape Coast, University of Winneba, Colleges of Education and Ghana Educa-

tional Services. They in turn would raise the awareness of education officials at the district and

regional levels. The Ghanaian team would then assume responsibility for the contextualization

of dissemination materials according to local needs and conditions.

Subsequently, the 15 PDLs trained the first cohort of 125 specially selected headteachers from

the 10 regions in the country. It was crucial that they modelled effective leadership themselves

with openness to challenge and a readiness to embrace new ways of learning. The training was

supervised by CCE personnel and conducted over 38 days on three occasions. The trained head-

teachers chose to describe themselves as school transformation leaders (STLs). All the training

for the PDLs and STLs were completed between May 2009 and April 2010. During the same

period, the first batch of 22 circuit supervisors, later increased to 60, were also exposed to the

702

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

702

LfL principles. The demonstrable impact of the first cohort of the headteachers was such that the

Ministry was persuaded to take responsibility for the future professional development of head-

teachers incorporating the five LfL principles. The Ghana Education Service (GES) incorporated

the LfL principles into the in-service training programmes of the Teacher Education Division

(TED). Thus, in a matter of one and a half years since commencement, over a thousand headtea-

chers in the basic school system and 632 district assistant directors and circuit supervisors had

taken part in sessions, such as one-day colloquium and two-week follow up workshops in which

they discussed the applicability and challenges of adopting the five LfL principles. All the third

tier training was undertaken by GES in collaboration with IEPA and with the help of the PDLs

and STLs (Bosu, 2011).

This article emerged from a fact finding mission in 2011 to gauge the impact and progress LfL

has made. The motivation for the article came from recognition of the effect LfL intervention had

reportedly produced on an educational system trying to re-invent itself. The intellectual curiosity

centred on the issue of how a school improvement model formulated in the western context of more

advanced countries could cater for the needs and conditions of a culturally different and less eco-

nomically developed country. Hence, the inquiry for the article aimed at resolving the potential

questions of, first, what kind of leadership impact did LfL make in basic schools subjected to the

intervention? Second, to what extent is there evidence that capacity building has actually taken

place in the case study schools? And, third, how have potential cultural conflicts or sensitivities

been addressed in the LfL schools?

Ghana’s Basic Schools

At the time of the LfL initiative, most basic schools were still grappling with fundamental prob-

lems. There were not enough places for the students and teacher availability was precarious. Place

shortage was managed by ‘shift schools’ using the same building at different times; but teacher

shortage seemed insurmountable. According to the Ministry of Education about 1000 teachers left

the service each year, an attrition rate that could not be compensated by the 9000 new entrants over

the same period. The primary reasons for teachers quitting were poor working conditions and sal-

aries, or a desire for further study. With regard to working conditions and salary the former

appeared to be a greater incentive in teacher retention. Moreover, because of an earlier generation

and increasing numbers of primary and junior high schools, many teachers in basic schools, espe-

cially in rural areas, barely possessed post-secondary education (Etsey et al., 2009).

Teaching and learning was also constrained by limited resources. Many schools lacked facilities

such as buildings, desks, chairs and books. Classes were held outside with children sitting on the

ground exposed to the elements or perhaps under a tree infested with ants. Lessons typically

reflected teachers’ own prior pedagogical experiences involving direct instruction, repetition and

rote learning. Classroom interactions were characterized by closed questions and one-word

answers often echoed by the whole class (Segura, 2009). Teacher-centred classroom practices

requiring a high degree of authority and sanctions in order to maintain discipline was a common

scenario (Dull, 2004). A major setback in most schools was a failure to adhere to a timetable, which

was commonly posted on the walls of the headteacher’s office; additionally, teacher absenteeism

and tardiness appeared to be a common problem (Abadzi, 2007). Other factors curtailing effective

teaching and learning were malnourishment and chronic illnesses, such as malaria.

The headteachers were appointed on the basis of teaching experience and seniority. They had no

structured pre-service preparatory courses. Once in post, training was typically very limited: in a

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning

703

five-year period (2002–2007), 75% of headteachers had received less than a week’s training (Mac-
Beath and Swaffield, 2009). Otherwise, they had to make do with random offerings provided by

foreign aid initiatives. The mind set of many headteachers was to see themselves as custodians who

guarded resources, such as text books, maintained registers of teachers’ attendance and punctual-

ity, and checked lesson plans. Very few viewed themselves as leaders with linking their role and

pupil learning (Oduro and Bosu, 2010; Oduro et al., 2011).

Leadership for Learning

In the past decade, leadership for learning has gained popularity, viewed as an emergent model for

educational improvement in schools (Hallinger, 2010). Unlike earlier models of instructional and

transformational leadership, the new paradigm emphasized the relationship between school lead-

ership, system-wide context and learning at all levels. Hallinger (2010) described it as the reincar-

nation of instructional leadership, noting the scope of influence it required. He differentiated the

two formats as personalized at principal level (instructional leadership) and collaborative at stake-

holder level (leadership for learning). He added that leadership for learning had to build on

the nature and needs of the schools’ particular contexts, and alluded to it as academic capacity.

In a four-year longitudinal study of 192 elementary schools in one state in the USA, Hallinger and

Heck (2010) found evidence to support their claims. The authors described it as collaborative or

distributed leadership.

A distinctive feature of the leadership for learning is capacity building (Stoll, 2009; Swaffield

and MacBeath, 2010). Stoll (2009: 15) wrote of capacity as follows.

A habit of the mind focused on engaging in and sustaining the learning of people at all levels of the

educational system for the collective purpose of enhancing student learning in its broadest sense. It’s

a quality that allows people, individually and collectively, routinely to learn from the world around

them and to apply this learning to new situations so that they can continue on a path toward their goals

in an ever-changing context.

Fullan (2006: 60) defined capacity building as: ‘A policy, strategy, or action taken that increases

the collective efficacy of a group to improve student learning through new knowledge, enhanced

resources, and a greater motivation on the part of the people working individually and together.’

Capacity building was not a new concept but its potential role in education appeared to be gain-

ing attention only in recent years (Dinham and Crowther, 2011). Scholars also characterized it as a

very demanding, dynamic and multifaceted process (Hopkins et al., 1997; Stoll, 2009). But, it

allowed every entity, context and personnel in a system to participate, learn and contribute, which

augured well for its sustainability (Hopkins et al., 1997). Because of its all-encompassing nature,

capacity building also incorporated a cultural dimension (Peterson and Deal, 1998), as acknowl-

edged by Fullan (2006).

Method

The qualitative case study method was chosen to gain an holistic and in-depth understanding of the

impact of the LfL programme in Ghana’s basic schools. Four schools were selected as units of

assessment from the 125 led by the STLs. They were identified using the maximal variation sam-

pling technique (Creswell, 2005) by a local coordinator based on their geographical and

704

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

704

socioeconomic status, and gender composition of headteachers in three regions of Ghana: Eastern,

Central and Greater Accra.

A total of 68 respondents including 4 headteachers, 6 circuit supervisors, 22 teachers, 23 stu-

dents, and 13 parents and community members were involved in the study. The selection of head-

teachers and circuit supervisors was determined by their schools and districts, respectively, while

teachers were chosen based on their length of service, availability and willingness to participate,

and students were selected mainly from older classes (primary 4–6) because of their ability to

express themselves in English. Parents and community members were selected according to avail-

ability and ability to converse in English. Headteachers and circuit supervisors participated in one-

on-one interviews lasting about two hours; the others participated in focus group sessions lasting

about one and a half hours. The group sessions allowed informal interaction among the members.

As Kamberelis and Dimitradis (2008) have argued, interactional dynamics among group members

is a factor in generating information valuable to the study. The multiple sources provided a

variety of perspectives that helped to frame, challenge and reframe preconceptions (Atkinson and

Delamont, 2008). With a broad-based inquiry, the case study method required (Merriam, 1998;

Yin, 1994), on the one hand, advanced preparation of questions for various categories of respon-

dents and, on the other, spontaneous probing as discourses developed between interviewer and par-

ticipants. The two strategies provided the basis for rich data that could be used for comprehensive

interpretation (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2002; Merriam, 1998). All the data collection exercises

were carried out over 14 days on tight schedules. Responses were audio taped with the participants’

consent and were later transcribed verbatim. At the same time, observations, document analysis

and field notes were made in each school. The multiple sources of data helped in the triangulation

process and enhanced the findings of the study.

Headteachers were asked mainly about their understanding of the LfL principles and the chal-

lenges they faced in applying them. They were also asked to comment on the changes taking place.

With the teachers and students the emphasis was on their awareness of the LfL implementation and

how they experienced it personally. Parents and community members shared their views on the

kind of changes they observed in their children and in their schools.

Observations and field notes centred on the general atmosphere and ethos of the schools and

classrooms. They also included conditions in the school compound, buildings, toilets and play-

grounds. On the social and cultural front the general conduct of headteachers, teachers and students

as well as parents were explored. In classrooms the focus was on the nature of teacher–pupil inter-

actions, learning activities, use of illustrative materials and creative resource use of the immediate

environment. Documents for analysis included newsletters, school profile brochures, pictures, pos-

ters, teachers’ lists of responsibilities, duty rosters, teacher attendance records, teaching records,

students’ workbooks, and charts in the headteachers’ room.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using the constant comparative method. Coding the data and comparing and

categorizing according to emergent themes helped to make sense of the voluminous data (Bogdan

and Biklen, 2003). Data coding was conducted at three levels, namely, descriptive, topical and ana-

lytic (Morse and Richards, 2002). In the descriptive coding, data were sorted according to the indi-

vidual schools. The product was then re-analysed and re-categorized under topical coding. Finally,

the analytic coding helped to shape the data into six themes that told the story of LfL in the four

case study schools, namely headteachers’ transformation, emergence in collaboration, teacher

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning

705

professional growth, pedagogical adaptations, parent and community involvement, and student

outcomes. They captured largely positive sentiments from the respondents as, evidently, LfL was

making a positive impact, although inhibited by a number of lingering problems from the past.

Headteacher Transformation

The various stakeholders concurred that headteachers showed more leadership after their induction

into LfL. They appeared more ‘knowledgeable, committed and confident’ in their job; maintained

a cordial relationship with the teachers and others in the community; and, displayed greater con-

cern for the ‘growth of the children’. As a result, there was a sudden burst of vibrancy in the

schools. As one circuit supervisor elucidated:

There is a big difference between the LfL schools and others. It has impacted the life of the

pupils, teachers and headteachers. Headteachers are now open. They run an open administration;

delegate duties to teachers; and, even involve pupils in administrative chores. There is a free flow

of information.

Another circuit supervisor commented on the headteacher in his district:

She is dynamic, approachable and introduces new ideas. She listens and is ready to change and respects

authority. Since 2008, I have been a circuit supervisor here, but in the past year I see tremendous

changes in this school.

Headteachers had begun to build and nurture relationships with teachers, parents and commu-

nity members. Their efforts to engage with them in school matters were described as ‘unprece-

dented’. One headteacher went out of his way to meet up with a parent who had not turned up

for a parent teacher association (PTA) meeting because of work difficulties. These heads also

appeared to have a positive influence on teachers. A circuit supervisor pointed out, ‘The teachers’

relationship with the community is different; the way they talk to parents is different.’ The head-

teachers also commented that parents and other community members were ‘ . . . keen to participate
in school activities; show interest in the children’s learning; the SMC [school management com-

mittee] makes regular visits to the school and provides necessary support’. Records showed that

more parents attended the PTA meetings and were open in highlighting issues of concern.

Furthermore, headteachers took the initiative in organizing functions and events for the public.

One had recently introduced an ‘open day’ for parents to encourage them to spend time in the

school, reviewing their children’s workbooks and discussing their children’s performance and

progress with teachers. Another head had invited the local pastor to talk to staff and parents about

moral issues, while others invited retired public servants to assist in teaching and learning activ-

ities. Two of the four heads had succeeded in persuading members of the public to contribute to

their school’s resources. Another had convinced the local Volta River Authority to look into the

school building and its maintenance and named outside organizations that had made contributions

as ‘friends of the school’. Generally, a trend was developing for headteachers to take the initiative

to harness community resources for both maintenance and further development of the school. The

support of the district assembly and school alumni was also sought.

Headteachers were now paying greater attention to teaching and learning, providing their teach-

ers with teaching aids and learning materials with the promise of more. One talked about his

706

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

706

instruction to teachers: ‘If you want special equipment, material or aid you don’t have to wait until

the last minute. Tell me what you need, I will try to get them.’ Teachers concurred with his new

found initiative: ‘He in his own way tries to obtain the teaching learning materials so that we can

teach the concept well.’ These heads also observed classes in session and provided feedback to

teachers. One teacher commented: ‘He is not sitting in his room, but moves around class to class.

He always asks, ‘Master you have done this way, what about that way?’ He guides us on our teach-

ing.’ These visits were often followed by dialogues. ‘For this reason’, said another teacher, ‘ . . .
even our environment has improved. Last time, the place was not clean. Now we focus on health

and sanitation, teach on how to keep the surroundings clean. Last time they had flu and cholera.

I came up with ‘‘veronica buckets’’ where children have running water to wash their hands . . .
the children themselves are now learning basic hygiene.’

Although the headteachers appeared to have taken charge of leading the schools in a certain

way, they were not without their complaints. All of them regretted that the capitation grant from

the government was not disbursed on time. ‘The first term money would come in the third. We try

to get funds from NGOs and the community but we use them to make things better around here.

Moreover, I have to use my own funds to purchase materials.’ Two of them struggled with large

class sizes sometimes in excess of 65 students. But, they did not want to limit the intake for fear of

depriving children of their education.

Emergence in Collaboration

Unlike the past, teachers willingly took up more jobs. They felt honoured and empowered by their

new roles and greater decision-making power. One teacher explained, ‘At first, there was one per-

son who was doing all responsibilities, but now each one of us has a responsibility. We are moti-

vated, because it is recognition. It is a great feeling.’

For the heads, getting teachers to join a management team meant that they were able to muster

greater cooperation and support to make things happen. They were able to talk through issues and

work out ideas collectively and collaboratively. One headteacher presented a chart to show how he

had shared leadership with his teachers:

Everyone has a responsibility, a role to play. There is a teacher in charge of curriculum, examination,

culture, sanitation, counselling, and chapel service. Shared leadership – the roles are distributed. They

feel good being part of the system.

Efforts were also made to engage students more actively in school administration with the aim

of developing their leadership and sense of responsibility. As one teacher described it:

We also give our students some roles to play – as prefects, class assistants, chaplains, etc. In the class-

room we have group leaders who are responsible for discipline and learning of the group members. In

the group, they talk, they share ideas and discuss among each other.

Another teacher spoke equally positively about the school prefect board: ‘We have prefects who

help teachers. We have different responsibilities given to prefects. They help in the classroom and

out of classroom activities. They help out in the classroom management.’ She added that students

with these special responsibilities felt good about it, which was confirmed by one student: ‘I am a

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning

707

prefect in the school. I feel good to be a prefect because I get good name, teachers ask me to do

work and give me responsibilities. We are in charge of clubs, in the school.’

Teacher Professional Growth

A sense of professionalism appeared to be taking shape among the teachers with regard to teaching

and learning. The headteachers often talked to them and shared their views and ideas on teaching

and classroom management. They helped teachers to become more aware of collaboration, colle-

giality and collective learning – a move that, it was widely agreed, generated a great deal enthu-

siasm and excitement. One teacher said, ‘We share knowledge on subjects or topics and

discussions on helping students improve their learning.’ Teachers were inclined to seek help from

one another. Another added:

Sometimes, when we are not familiar with a topic ask a teacher who is good at it; we consult. One per-

son can help the other. With the little we know, we share.

Teachers showed concern about their own knowledge and preparation for a teaching session.

They talked about the ethics of not ‘polluting the kids’ by being ill-prepared and ill-informed. They

also used staff meetings to address their knowledge gaps: ‘We are all each other’s keepers. We

exchange ideas.’ In a couple of schools, teachers met on a regular basis, in addition to staff meet-

ings, to exchange professional ideas and teaching strategies. With a newfound spirit of collabora-

tion, collegiality and collective learning they were now embedding new approaches within formal

school routines and protocols.

We have school conferences where teachers meet once a term. We discuss ways of improving our prac-

tices. Also, when need arises we meet informally to discuss our topical issues to learn from our friends

and upgrade our knowledge.

While things were turning improving among the teachers with regard to their job roles, head-

teachers pointed out that many were ‘not properly qualified or trained’. From their perspective,

teachers with past experience and formal training (at least through distance learning) did a better

job of teaching. The school management committee of one school made sure to appoint only

trained teachers for teaching at all class levels.

Pedagogical Adaptation

Teachers were making amendments and readjustments to their pedagogical style, producing pos-

itive reactions from the students in terms of attendance and classroom participation. They were

more sensitive to student needs and learning difficulties. As one teacher described it:

Formerly some students were not coming to school on time. Now we can testify that early morning they

are already here. The children are serious in their class, they are not moving around. Last time some

were not serious. Students’ attitude towards school and learning has changed.

Asked about the nature of pedagogical changes, teachers said they now focused on students’

understanding of the subjects and topics, planning and teaching them in a way that students could

708

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

708

easily comprehend. They paid attention to the language they used and encouraged students to

speak out and ask questions, as one teacher explained:

Students participate because we interact easily with them. We ask questions, they answer without

panicking. They talk freely. Cordial relationship is also flowing in the class.

The teachers had also migrated from verbal dissemination of information to learning activities

and use of teaching aids. With the help of the headteachers, they procured teaching-learning mate-

rials and used them creatively to engage students more actively. The variety and simplicity of the

materials aroused students’ interest and curiosity. As one teacher

commented:

We were focusing on teaching like talking. Now we use different kinds of materials for all subjects.

Students are excited because they can see, touch, and hear. We are also creative to draw our own mate-

rials; sometimes, students also help make them. They have the skills.

They formed small study groups with a nominated leader in which stronger students helped

weaker ones. These proved useful in encouraging independent learners. ‘They now learn on their

own; stay quiet, and do their work.’ The students have become so comfortable with the idea that

they practiced it even when the teachers were away. Students’ comments on the study groups:

‘Now we learn in groups. This is good because friends can teach.’ ‘We do work in groups. We learn

from friends.’ ‘Teachers give us homework. We have quizzes, spelling bees. We prepare together

to answer.’

There was a strong conviction among the teachers that these alternative forms of presenting

information engaged the students more meaningfully. Students, for their part, were quick to cele-

brate the change: ‘Now teachers use flash cards, diagrams, and posters. We can understand better.’

There was evidence of these in classrooms. Posters and other kinds of materials were also dis-

played outside the classrooms. In one school, posters on various topics hung on the tree trunks

in the courtyard. Teachers in that school said that learning was no longer restricted to the class-

rooms but carried out in the open space. Moreover, the posters on the trees helped students in their

revision, as was explained by some: ‘We have the posters and pictures pasted on the trees. It is nice

to see. We feel good because we can read as we play and during breaks.’

Homework had been a long-standing problem. The reasons cited were lack of resources such as

lighting, text books and relevant stationery, including note books and pencils. Most parents were

unable to support or supervise their children’s work. In some cases, students had to do domestic

chores. However, the teachers said they were managing homework more effectively now and con-

sidered it their responsibility to manage students’ learning beyond the classroom. As one teacher

explained: ‘Learning on the part of students is our problem. Now, our focus is how to prepare them

to sit down and work by themselves.’ They also worked on the quantity and quality of homework

they assigned.

There were also some parental comments as to the changes they observed in their children with

regard to homework. One of them said:

Last time he could not read. Now he can. Now he can speak good English. He does all the homework.

Every weekend he comes with plenty of homework and he is tidy and he is busy doing school work. I

am grateful to teachers.

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning

709

Another parent remarked: ‘My son is better now, he is improving. I am glad that they give

homework.’ The words of a sibling to a student reinforced the point: ‘Last time my brother never

did any homework. I was thinking ‘‘how come no homework?’’ Now he has a lot of homework.

Now every time he is doing homework.’

However, the schools were not without problems related to teaching and learning. There were

insufficient text books, even for the core subjects of English, maths and science. So, two or more

students would share one book. For moral and religious courses the whole class had to share one

book. Sometimes the textbooks did not match the syllabus. ICT classes had commenced but they

did not have the benefit of computers and trained teachers. One teacher raised the issue: ‘How

could we teach science when there are no beakers and mercury?’ Teachers involved in physical

education expressed a desire for better facilities and support. They believed they would help to

keep the students in the school.

Parent and Community Involvement

There appeared to be an emerging understanding regarding the role that parents and other commu-

nity members could play in school matters, as one headteacher explained:

Now we are trying to bring in the parents and other stakeholders. If we are really focusing on learning,

teachers alone cannot do everything. Parents and people from the district education office all should

come on board, so we all strive for a common goal.

One of the issues being addressed through this emerging collaboration was teacher shortage.

One school management committee chairperson said, ‘Last year, no teachers in the class. Now bet-

ter, through parent teacher association and school management committee, we have managed to

get trained teachers for every class.’ Others aimed at material benefits. In one of the schools, par-

ents and community members helped to raise money for a new kindergarten building to replace a

dilapidated shed. Skilled parents also made new benches for the students. ‘Previously, three or

more students shared a bench. Now, only two students are seated on [each] bench.’

Parental involvement in school matters also helped to ignite greater personal interest in chil-

dren’s education, which in turn enhanced teaching and learning, as another headteacher

commented:

Every PTA meeting we talk about the measures, how they can help their kids. Parents may not be edu-

cated; at least, they can ask ‘What did you learn today at school?’ This will show the kids that parents

care for their education. This will promote learning. I also ensure that parents provide their kids with

learning materials, pens, books, etc.

On the parents’ side, ‘I make sure that my child comes to school every day. I come to see, check

on her attendance.’ ‘I try to explain as much as I can to help my kids.’ ‘I make sure my children do

homework every evening. I check their books and ask questions about school.’

Parents, on their part, benefited from various discussions, for example, in relation to parenting.

Open days and events that some schools had initiated provided avenues for them to participate and

express their views. Also, these kept them informed about what was happening in school and in

relation to their children’s performance. One teacher said, ‘We are approachable, so they can come

and meet us, talk about their children.’ This was confirmed by the parents, as one stated: ‘Madam

710

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

710

[headteacher] invites us to school to talk to her and teachers.’ Another, who was a guardian to a

student, said, ‘We can come to school anytime and talk to headteacher. She talks to us about our

wards and motivates us to assist our wards in their studies. We understand our role now.’

Teachers even met the parents and guardians in their own villages, as described by a senior

teacher:

I live in the community, I usually meet them, and now they come and talk to me. We interact a lot about

their children. Parents will ask, ‘This boy is my son, this girl is my daughter, how is he or she perform-

ing?’ Then I ask ‘How is he at home?’ It is because they feel closer to us.

Student Outcomes

Attendance at school was still considered as a baseline measure for student outcomes which,

headteachers and teachers claimed, showed remarkable improvement. Along with it, classroom

conduct and participation, homework and execution of responsibilities served as key indicators.

‘We see a positive trend’, explained one headteacher. ‘I think it is because of the changes we are

making. There is a better environment around the school and in the classroom. And, the students

appreciate it.’

The first thing they did after becoming STLs, all four headteachers agreed, was to ‘to clean and

beautify the school, planting different kinds of plants, shrubs, and trees in the school compound’.

Teachers from a school situated on a hill slope commented: ‘It is a new initiative to plant here. This

also helps in controlling erosion along the slopes.’ ‘We provide a good environment by sweeping,

weeding, and planting new trees and keeping the school clean.’

The students echoed the same message:

Our toilets are clean, our ground is clean. We have many trees. The other schools here don’t have trees

like this. We were told to keep our school clean so that we won’t have diseases. No snake bites.

Teachers also acknowledged that their own behaviour towards students had changed from auto-

cratic and punitive to caring, rewarding and encouraging. This had contributed to the students’

engagement and enjoyment. Whereas teachers had used caning, harassment, intimidation and

insults to maintain discipline, they said that they did not have to do this anymore. Several teachers

made comments such as: ‘We praise them, sometimes we hug them, at times we give little gifts

when they do well.’ ‘We give them pens, pencils, erasers to encourage them.’ ‘We sing and dance.

We give them prizes. Everyone wants to get the prize, so they compete to get it.’

Students themselves testified to the change in classroom climate and relationship with their

teachers: ‘Teachers ask us questions. When we answer correctly they praise us. When we do well

in the exam, we also get small gifts.’ ‘Now our classrooms are quiet, we do our homework. Our

teachers don’t allow us to play around. We do our homework.’ ‘School is quiet, because children

don’t run around. All stay in class and do work. When teacher is not there, the class leader controls

the class. We have section leaders and we do work in groups.’

Schools have initiated clubs and societies that appealed to students. In the words of one student:

‘We have clubs; happen regularly. We have math and science club, scripture union, environmental

awareness club. We have club meetings after worship every Wednesday in the morning.’ They

paved the way for personal growth and created opportunity to hold positions. Students had become

more self-expressive, displaying self-esteem and demonstrating a greater sense of responsibility.

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning

711

Students also had their share of misgivings. Some of them lived with aged grandparents because

their parents were earning money elsewhere. Their grandparents could not help them with their

school work. Some children had to walk long distances and were late and tired when they reached

their school. Some went to fish early in the morning to earn extra money for the family. These stu-

dents found schooling very challenging although their teachers helped them by working late and

holding extra classes. Many teachers shared concerns about the lack of reading materials and pic-

tures, and computers that could help in student learning. The school library was cramped and also

did not have many books. The students also wanted to have more sport activities, such as football,

netball, volleyball and athletics. Some students were keen on music and suggested creating a band.

Discussion

The summative finding of the six major themes in the case study of the four schools makes a case

for the kind of changes and influence that may be attributed to LfL with regard to teaching and

learning. There were a lot of individual contributions by the various stakeholders of the school but,

more importantly, they programmed a communal involvement and collective effort to turn things

around. When the developments of the LfL schools were set against the background of the general

conditions of the basic schools across the country they presented two major findings. First, they

proved that significant and positive changes were possible even in dire conditions and in spite

of them. While the schools in the study may not yet measure up to what would be seen as an accep-

table standard of quality in teaching and learning, the progress achieved is, nevertheless, com-

mendable. Second, a strong and committed leadership with a clear vision and understanding of

the dynamics involved to bring about change was essential as demonstrated by the cadre of school

transformation leaders.

The leadership literature offers differing views as to the central role of school heads as leaders

and their impact on student outcomes as measured by standardized testing (Gaziel, 2007). Some

researchers have argued that there is no evidence as to the direct relationship between school lead-

ership and student outcome (Hallinger, 2010). This case study does offer evidence to the contrary;

school leadership does matter. It shows that there are both direct and indirect effects, on the one

hand, by personal intervention with children and classes and, on the other, through creating a more

positive school ethos and influencing teachers’ morale and pedagogical knowledge. It was

the headteachers’ initiative, personal modelling behaviour, approach to challenges and embrace

of the various stakeholders that was critical in the change process.

This raises the question as to why the headteachers did not or were not able to do the same

before their induction into LfL principles and practice. There may have been, until then, little

incentive to change their practice nor the knowledge and strategies to do so. They have now a

clearer vision of how to lead learning of their students, their teachers and themselves. They have

a sharper focus on the role of other stakeholders, how to connect with them, empower them and tap

into their hidden talents. It may be noteworthy that the four case study headteachers along with the

others in the first cohort of 125 had been screened and selected to ensure success of the LfL inter-

vention. They had already possessed leadership qualities but these had to be allowed to surface in a

context where these heads were able to review and reframe their thinking and practice.

At the same time, notice had to be taken of the other stakeholders’ voices such as the circuit

supervisors, teachers and community members. Many of them, at one time or another, had

expressed their hope that there would be improvement in basic education not only for the good

of their children but for the nation. There was a willingness to learn, work hard and make sacrifices

712

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

712

as they demonstrated. All they needed was inspiration, guidance and support. As events began to

unfold and good things started to happen all the stakeholders demonstrated they could also exercise

leadership on their own behalf – distributed leadership in action.

The LfL framework proved the catalyst, its five principles (a focus on learning, an environment

for learning, a learning dialogue, shared leadership and mutual accountability) offering a compre-

hensive and systemic road map. The premise of the framework is that each of these five principles

is inter-dependent and intrinsic to the change process (MacBeath and Dempster, 2008). While the

adoption of the principles could be seen as playing out in the case study schools, the most ambi-

tious of the principles, perhaps – mutual accountability – still had some way to grow in the climate

of lingering historic problems, lack of text books, delay in disbursement of capitation funds, and

lack of computers and trained teachers.

The implementation of LfL in Ghana’s basic schools has to be seen in the wider context of local,

regional and national decision making. While the focus has been on capacity building that would

be sustainable, any sense of ownership at school level has had to be endorsed and even promoted

by authorities at each of these hierarchical levels. While the consulting institution, in this case the

CCE in Cambridge, could offer ideas, reference to relevant knowledge and skills promotion

through workshop activities, there could be no guarantees or continued oversight in the implemen-

tation process. Moreover, consideration needed to be given to how a theoretical framework devel-

oped in certain western and more advanced countries might be culturally and contextually

compatible in a quite different and challenging context of an underdeveloped country.

While the 15 PDLs were essential to the implementation process they did not have to carry the

responsibility for its accomplishment. Their salient contribution was in helping to bridge the cul-

tural gap, contextualizing the LfL principles and acting as the crucial link and mediator with the

various levels of authority within the system. Their task was facilitated by the selection of the cru-

cial 125 headteachers allowing a pace of implementation which could not have been achieved with

a different less willing cohort. But, of course, all of these could not have been possible without the

crucial institutional support from the IEPA at the University of Cape Coast, the local collaborator.

In a catch phrase of the LfL principles, IEPA played the role of the critical friend in LfL Ghana

bringing together the authorities of the University’s Academic Board, Ghana Education Service,

the Association of Basic School Headteachers, the Ghana National Association of Teachers, and

the (then) Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (MacBeath, et al., 2010).

Another aspect that appears to have played out rather effectively in the implementation of LfL

in Ghana’s Basic Schools is the on-going research, development and adaptation of the programme.

Besides constituting a steering committee of representatives from both sides of the collaboration,

CCE conducted, prior to commencement, extensive research to understand the political-cultural

context of education in Ghana and the experiences of previous professional development pro-

grammes. Then, there was the anticipatory investigation of the opportunities and challenges espe-

cially with the PDLs on how LfL would impact the people on the ground. The ‘emphasis is on

understanding and exploring the applicability of a conceptualization of ‘‘Leadership for Learning’’

in the context of basic schools in Ghana’ (MacBeath et al., 2010: 8). This was followed further with

participant feedback from the training sessions and workshops. The findings were incorporated

into the development and adaptation of dissemination materials and training interventions to avoid

unwarranted set-backs. Where appropriate remedial actions were recommended and taken as in the

case of remuneration for headteachers to attend workshops. The awareness sessions on LfL for the

district directors and circuit supervisors were also planned and executed as the headteachers raised

concerns about system level commitment and support. Other issues that came up included the

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning

713

context of leadership, headteachers’ qualification and knowledge-base, teacher participation, cur-

rent practice of teaching-learning and assessment, and parental involvement. Nonetheless, the

strategy to prepare and commit cooperation and support from the various stakeholders seemed

to have worked well, at least, in the case study schools.

Conclusion

While this article has drawn on a small sample of schools, there is unambiguous evidence of the

LfL intervention having an impact not only on the quality of teaching and learning in basic schools,

but on the capacity of headteachers to revitalize their staffs and their communities. The four

schools studied provided evidence of an early stage of a long journey of transformation. They also

exemplified the process that may resonate with leaders who were enlightened on the LfL principles

and would translate them, with support from critical friends, as desirable practices at the classroom

and school level. Moreover, the Ghana government has fundamentally adopted the LfL framework

as a way forward at the policymaking level and incorporated it into in-service professional devel-

opment activities for the headteachers and teachers as well as other stakeholders. In fact, it was a

local initiative and collaboration among indigenous educational institutions such as IEPA, Univer-

sity of Cape Coast and GES that continued to educate and train about a thousand basic school per-

sonnel on the LfL principles after the Cambridge counterparts ceased their active involvement.

Indeed, there is a good chance of concluding that the LfL intervention in Ghana to develop the

leadership capacity of headteachers in order to improve the quality of education in the basic

schools is well set to succeed.

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Commonwealth Education Trust (CET) who through their funding of the Centre for

Commonwealth Education (CCE) made the Leadership for Learning Ghana programme and this research pos-

sible. We also extend our appreciation for the support and cooperation from our partners in Ghana: the Uni-

versity of Cape Coast; the Ghana Education Service; and the Ministry of Education.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-

cation of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abadzi H (2007) Absenteeism and Beyond: Instructional Time Loss and Consequences. The World Bank,

Independent Evaluation Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Adamu-Issah M, Elden L, Forson M, et al.. (2007) Division of policy and planning working papers achieving

universal Ghana by 2015: A reality or a dream? UNICEF.

Atkinson P and Delamont S (2008) Analytic perspectives. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Collecting

and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand

Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Bogdan RC and Biklen SK (2003) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and

Methods, 4th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

714

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

714

Bosu R (ed.) (2011) Leadership for Learning Ghana Program. LfL Ghana Newsletter, 1(1): 3.

Centre for Commonwealth Education (2012) Programme briefing: the leadership for learning Ghana pro-

gramme. Available at: http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/cce/publications/Programme%20briefings/

LfL_final8_AugRM

Coe C (2005) Dilemmas of Culture in African Schools: Youth, Nationalism and the Transformation of

Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Creswell JW (2005) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and

Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Dinham S and Crowther F (2011) Sustainable school capacity building: one step back, two steps forward?

Journal of Educational Administration 49(6): 616–623.

Dull LJ (2004) Democracy and discipline in Ghanaian education. International Journal of Education

Development 24: 303–314.

Etsey K, Smith TM, Gyamera E, et al. (2009) Review of Basic Education Quality in Ghana. Basic Education

in Ghana: Progress and Problems. Final report. Washington, DC: USAID.

Fullan M (2006) Turnaround Leadership. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Gaziel HH (2007) Re-examining the relationship between principal’s instructional/educational leadership and

student achievement. Journal of Social Science 15(1): 17–24.

Hallinger P (2010) Leadership for 21st Century School: From Instructional Leadership to Leadership for

Learning. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Hallinger P and Heck RH (2010) Leadership for learning: does collaborative leadership make a dif-

ference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(6):

654–678.

Hammersley M and Atkinson P (2002) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.

Hatch T (2001) It takes capacity to build capacity. Education Week 20(22): 44–47.

Hollins E (1996) Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hopkins D, Harris A and Jackson D (1997) Understanding the school’s capacity for development: growth

states and strategies. School Leadership and Management 17(3): 401–411.

Kamberelis G and Dimitradis G (2008) Focus groups: strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and

inquiry. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

MacBeath J and Dempster N (eds) (2008) Connecting Leadership and Learning: Principles for Practice.

London, UK: Routledge.

MacBeath J, Frost D and Swaffield S (2008) Editorial. School Leadership & Management 28(4): 301–306.

MacBeath J and Swaffield S (2009) Leadership for Learning: The Ghana Programme Report. Cambridge:

Centre for Commonwealth Education, University of Cambridge.

MacBeath J, Swaffield S, Oduro G, et al. (2010) Developing leadership for learning in Ghana: opportunities

and challenges. Paper presented at the 23rd International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improve-

ment, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–8 January.

MacBeath J and Swaffield S (2011) Leadership for learning in Ghana. Paper presented at the 24th

International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Limassol, Cyprus, 4–7 January.

Merriam SB (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Modern Ghana News (2009) Making schools safer for girls. Available at: http://www.modernghana.com/

news/221253/1/making-schools-safer-for-girls.htm.

Morse JM and Richards L (2002) Read me First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning

715

http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/cce/publications/Programme%20briefings/LfL_final8_AugRM

http://www.modernghana.com/news/221253/1/making-schools-safer-for-girls.htm

Oduro G, MacBeath J and Swaffield S (2011) Transforming school leadership, policy and practice in Ghana.

Paper presented at the UK Forum for International Education and Training, Oxford, 13–15 September.

Oduro G and Bosu R (2010) Leadership and management of change for quality improvement. EdQual –

Ghana Policy Briefs. University of Cape Coast.

Osafo-Acquah A and Asamoah-Gyimah K (2009) Impact of quality improvement in primary schools (QUIPS)

programme on the academic performance of pupils in new Edubiase Methodist primary school in the

Adansi east district of Ghana. Edo Journal of Counselling 2(2): 142–154.

Peterson K and Deal T (1998) How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational Leadership 56(1): 28–30.

Segura CC (2009) Lost in translation: why the structures of formal schooling are not translating in rural

Ghana. Thesis, University of Toronto. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/17583

Stoll L (2009) Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity of learning? A changing land-

scape. Journal of Educational Change 10(2): 115–127.

Swaffield S and MacBeath J (2010) Leading professional development to build the capacity of headteachers

in Ghana. Paper presented at CamERA 2010.

World Bank (2004) Programme performance assessment report, Ghana. Report No. 29581.

Yin RK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Author biographies

Suseela Malakolunthu is Associate Professor and the Director of the Leadership for Learning

and Research Network (LLRN) at the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. From 2005—

2006, under the Fulbright Fellowship, she conducted research on Multicultural education and

leadership at Stanford University. In 2009, she was appointed as a Research Fellow at the Hong

Kong Institute of Education. Since 2012, she is a Fellow at the Centre for Commonwealth Edu-

cation (CCE) at the Faculty of Education, Cambridge University. In 2013 she was appointed as

the Teacher Education Advisor to the Commonwealth Education Trust, UK. She is currently col-

laborating with CCE on a Teacher Learning Circle project and involved in a Leadership for

Learning (LfL) pilot study of the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE). She serves in the

editorial board of the Leadership and Policy Quarterly (LPQ) and reviews papers for several

international journals including the Comparative Education Review. She also provides consult-

ing services on school improvement and leadership development in the region.

John MacBeath, O.B.E., is Professor Emeritus at the University of Cambridge where he held the

Chair of Educational Leadership since 2000. Prior to that he was Director of the Quality in Education

Centre at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. From 1997 to 2001 he was a member of the Tony

Blair Government Task Force on Standards and from 1997 to 1999 a member of the Scottish Govern-

ment Action Group on Standards. Other consultancies have included OECD, UNESCO and ILO

(International Labour Organisation), the Bertelsmann Foundation and the European Commission on

a school self-evaluation and member of a EU working party on European indicators. He has been work-

ing as a researcher and consultant to the Education Bureau in Hong Kong since 1997. He is Past Pres-

ident of the International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement, Director of Leadership

for Learning: the Cambridge Network and Projects Director for the Commonwealth Centre for Edu-

cation. He was awarded the OBE for services to education in 1997 and an honorary doctorate from the

University of Edinburgh in 2009.

716

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

716

http://hdl.handle.net/1807/17583

Sue Swaffield is a senior lecturer at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education where she

teaches on masters and doctoral programmes and researches in the fields of leadership, school

improvement and assessment. Leadership for learning, critical friendship, support for headtea-

chers and assessment for learning are particular interests. She is currently working with schools

in Europe, Malaysia and New Zealand, as well as in Ghana. She is an executive editor of the

international journal Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, associate editor

of Professional Development in Education, and is on the editorial board of Reflective Teaching.

Her work in higher education builds on previous experiences as a school teacher and local

authority advisor.

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 717

717

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages false
/GrayImageMinResolution 266
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Average
/GrayImageResolution 175
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages false
/MonoImageMinResolution 900
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
/MonoImageResolution 175
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/Description << /ENU
>>
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(Common)
(1.0)
]
/OtherNamespaces [
<< /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >>
<< /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >>
<< /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >>
/FormElements true
/GenerateStructure false
/IncludeBookmarks false
/IncludeHyperlinks false
/IncludeInteractive false
/IncludeLayers false
/IncludeProfiles true
/MarksOffset 9
/MarksWeight 0.125000
/MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(CreativeSuite)
(2.0)
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK
/PageMarksFile /RomanDefault
/PreserveEditing true
/UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UseDocumentBleed false
>>
]
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

PolicyFutures in Education
Volume 11 Number 6 2013
www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE

660 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.6.660

Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century:
what will count as teaching quality in higher education

ANNE JASMAN
University of Southern Queensland, Toowomba,

Australia

EDDIE BLASS
Learning Innovations Hub, University of New England, Armidale, Australia
STEVE SHELLEY
University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This article explores quality in university teaching using a ‘futures’ perspective. In a recent
article by Blass and colleagues, a number of scenarios were developed to explore the type of higher
education workforce that might be needed within the UK by 2035. In discussion of these scenarios –
leading knowledge creation, responsive knowledge creation, regional conglomerates, no government
funding and total government funding – the team were mindful of how these scenarios would impact
on academic work and the workforce needed to undertake different and perhaps a more differentiated
set of work roles, responsibilities and ways of working. However, the issue of what counts as quality
within these possible scenarios was not considered. In this article the definitions and differentiation of
teacher and teaching quality are explored. Recent trends in Australian and English higher education
policy in relation to teaching quality are also discussed. Teaching quality is then considered in relation
to the underlying values and assumptions that might operate within each of these scenarios about
teaching. The authors then speculate on the impact this would have on what might count as quality in
teaching in 2020, and what academics may have to face within each of these scenarios in relation to
their work roles, ways of working and opportunities for career progression. In conclusion, the authors
suggest that the concept of ‘teaching’ in higher education may need to be radically reconsidered to
match the needs of students whatever scenario may develop in higher education.

Introduction

This article explores the intersection between two important discourses found in the higher
education policy and research literature. The first is on possible futures for universities and the
sector as a whole, and the second relates to the quality assurance of teaching within universities.
This policy analysis has been carried out in order to open up a ‘third’ space to legitimise and
promote discussion by academics regarding key issues associated with the changing nature of their
work in higher education.

There is little research into the expectations and aspirations of university academics as they
enter the academy or even of those who are already working with universities. Some research has
been carried out to explore induction into the university sector – for example, for those moving
from the professions. However, this does not investigate academic work from the individual’s
perspective, particularly the academic’s goals and aspirations around what they will do and how
they will do it. Research is more likely to focus on the individual’s transition into a new context and
how they are initiated as a new academic into the culture of a particular university. This is very
much an apprenticeship model, where the academic is learning on the job.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.2304%2Fpfie.2013.11.6.660&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2013-01-01

Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century

661

It would appear that there is an acceptance that this should continue, with academics today
normally expecting to do some work within research, whether pure, applied or practice/action
based, or teaching and learning, management and administration and, increasingly, community
engagement. This is ‘business as usual’ in the higher education sector. Neither the university nor
the academic appears to give priority to embedding professional learning for quality teaching as
part of career development. Rather, quality teaching is one of the three or four key criteria used by
the university to judge quality both at the institutional level and the individual academic level for
quality assurance, benchmarking, and individual recognition and reward through promotion.

However, in the scenarios for the future of higher education discussed later in this article (see
Blass et al, 2010a), the possible diversification of mission and vision across the higher education
sector is discussed as a way of exploring some potential differences in ways of working and
progressing in the university sector. In this article we do not assume that the academic workforce
will continue to be engaged in such a limited range of roles and responsibilities as it is now.

We focus on recent concerns about the quality of teaching rather than analysing the policy
and research discourse on academic work as a whole as in the original article. These concerns are
framed within the five possible future scenarios outlined by Blass et al (2010a). Our viewpoint in
this article is of these scenarios being the backdrop to academic work in the future, and we explore
the development of quality teaching as part of academic work and the implications of these
scenarios for individual academic work, progression and career development.

This focus has been chosen as it is significant within policy discourses (Bradley, 2009) and
research over the last decade (Barrie & Ginns, 2007; Brown et al, 2007; Jasman, 2009;; Schuck et al,
2008) and as evidenced by the establishment of national bodies such as the Higher Education
Academy in the England and the Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Although the original ‘Futures’ research was conducted within the UK, there is evidence from
recent policy publications that there has been significant investment into improving the quality of
teaching and learning in higher education in both England and Australia. In order to test the wider
application of the scenarios for higher education, we therefore discuss what might count as teacher
and teaching quality within higher education in both Australia and England in the future.
However, before such an analysis is conducted it is essential to understand how teaching quality is
currently constructed and understood in the two higher education systems considered within this
article – namely, those of Australia and England. First, we clarify the difference between teaching
and teacher quality as these terms are often used as one and the same in the literature. We then
tease out the degree of consistency in transnational articulations of teaching quality in higher
education with reference to the research literature before exploring the similarities and significant
differences between policy discourses and research into higher education teaching quality in these
two countries. We then consider how these might be disrupted by changes in the sector as
articulated by each of the five scenarios identified by Blass et al (2010a) and the implications for
academic work in the future.

Teaching Quality in Higher Education: the cases of Australia and

England

Teacher and Teaching Quality – is there a difference?

Jasman (2010) states that ‘using the terms [teacher quality and teaching quality] interchangeably
can cause confusion when discussing questions of how best to recognize quality’. In this article the
terms are used as follows:

Teacher quality is understood through the qualifications required, standards met and
characteristics of teachers that demonstrate the level of expertise which can be drawn on in
working to achieve particular outcomes within a particular context. Teaching quality describes the
quality of a teacher’s work within a particular context – in other words, how that teacher’s
expertise is used in practice (Jasman, 2010, p. 80).

In this article we are specifically addressing teaching quality, which relates to what the
academic actually does in context. Interest in the quality of teaching from a policy perspective
appears in the 1990s when universities were urged to codify teaching quality in order to:
1. articulate more explicit criteria and standards of good teaching for appointments, confirmation

and promotions purposes; and

Anne Jasman et al

662

2. establish a minimum standard of teaching performance, linked to these criteria, for all levels of
appointment and promotion (Ramsden et al, 1995).

These recommendations are still relevant today as ‘universities around the world are exploring the
use of teaching performance indicators for performance-based funding and benchmarking
purposes’ (Ginns et al, 2007). Ginns et al suggest that the measurement of teaching quality in the
higher education sector has two main foci,

on ratings of individual classes, particularly ratings of individual teachers and their practices,
[while] other researchers have focused on students’ perceptions of the learning environment
across their entire degree, and how these perceptions are related to approaches to study and
subsequent learning outcomes. (Ginns et al, 2007, pp. 603-604)

The Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) (Ramsden, 1991) is the most commonly used
measure in Australian and English universities to seek graduates’ views on the quality of teaching
with respect to individual teachers, university programmes and courses. It can be used to provide
an accountability measure of individual performance, as well as providing an institutional measure
of teaching quality. The questionnaire includes items on good teaching, clear goals and standards,
appropriate assessment, appropriate student workload, generic skills and overall satisfaction with
degree quality (Ginns et al, 2007). It is based on categories reflecting the elements of teaching linked
to a deep approach to learning (Marton & Saljo, 1976a,b) and surveys the experiences of students.

There is limited evidence of a relationship between such indicators of quality teaching and
student performance (Crawford et al, 1998), despite extensive validation of the CEQ. Crawford et
al (1998) found that students who took a deep approach to study also perceived that the teaching
they received was good, the goals and standards were clear, and there was some evidence of
independence. These students outperformed those using a surface approach, who found the
workload too high and the assessment inappropriate. Other research on teaching quality has drawn
on academics’ views of what counts as quality, whilst others have developed criteria associated
with individual academic teaching practices (Barrett et al, 1997). Here indicators are associated with
descriptions of quality teaching more commonly found in the school sector – for example:
1. provide a clear and empathetic learning environment;
2. promote active student involvement;
3. cater for students’ learning differences;
4. assist students to identify the outcomes of their learning; and
5. engage in self-development.
This framework was designed to help academics describe their teaching and to support them in
identifying and engaging in appropriate activities to improve teaching quality or to receive
recognition or rewards. This is in contrast to the use of such frameworks for accountability
purposes. More recently the Higher Education Academy (UK) has developed a Professional
Standards Framework for supporting and improving the quality of teaching and learning in higher
education. Again these standards more closely reflect frameworks developed for teachers in schools
and move away from views of quality derived from surveys of student satisfaction.

The authors have not been able to locate evidence to suggest that these teaching qualities
directly relate to student educational outcomes in universities. However, considerable evidence
exists to suggest that this is the case in the school sector (Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2004) where
school teacher characteristics are linked to the external assessment of educational outcomes. In this
way, judgements are made as to the quality of teaching linked to student achievement in schools.
This also enables comparisons to be made at the level of the teacher, the school, the region and
nationally (Jasman, 2010).

If this is also the intention in higher education, it is likely that the focus of quality teaching
will move away from the apprenticeship model where academics are supported when entering the
university to expecting a proxy of teaching quality, such as a qualification achieved prior to
working in the university sector. At the same time the main purpose of quality measures will
increasingly be focused on benchmarking and ranking institutional teaching quality rather than
focusing on an institutional and individual improvement agenda. These trends are already in
evidence within Australia.[1] A brief overview of recent policy trajectories relating to teaching

Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century

663

quality in higher education in Australia and England now follows to identify similarities and
differences in recent policy trajectories.

Australia

The CEQ (Ramsden, 1991) was designed to collect graduate views on teaching quality at the
institutional level. It also provides a significant source of data used in the assessment of institutional
teaching quality for the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF). The indicators used
included: success – through progress and retention rates; outcomes in terms of full-time
employment and part-time or full-time further study; and satisfaction relating to graduate generic
skills, good teaching and overall graduate satisfaction. These measures of satisfaction are
potentially those most closely linked to a proxy view of what students consider quality teaching
and are drawn from the responses to selected questions in the Course Experience Questionnaire.

In 2003, a series of higher education reforms was legislated for in Australia by the Department
of Education, Science and Training, where quality improvement was seen in terms of providing
‘incentive to improve performance and greater accountability’ (DEST, 2002). The first set of
incentives focus on institutional benchmarking through the Learning and Teaching Performance
Fund. This fund uses a subset of CEQ questions to provide data for analysis and comparison of
universities. In 2007-08 both excellence and improvement in learning and teaching were rewarded.
The second external incentive has an improvement focus for the quality of teaching. The
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) and the Australian Awards for University
Teaching, as well as local university schemes, recognised quality teaching, offering rewards to
individual academics. Up until it ceased operations in 2012, awards and recognition by ALTC were
based on a nominations process where awardees were supported by key institutional personnel.
The Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) has not taken over this remit.

More recently, following another review of higher education (Bradley, 2008), the government
established a new national body for regulation and quality assurance: the Tertiary Education
Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), which commenced its work in 2010. The ALTC led on a
Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project for TEQSA, to develop by the end of 2010 a set
of academic standards in six discipline groupings with discipline communities and their
representatives. With the demise of the ALTC, the progress and work of TEQSA may now be
redirected to focus more clearly on accountability.

The new quality assurance processes are currently framed on the basis of an assessment of
student learning outcomes and thus are moving away from surveys of student satisfaction to
measures of student performance. This approach appears even more closely aligned with the
school education model, as a website for ‘My University’ will be developed to complement the ‘My
School’ website (http://www.myschool.edu.au/). This latter site compares the performance of
schools largely in terms of educational outcomes relating to national tests of mathematics, English
and science. How this will translate to the university sector is unclear, but there are several bases
that could be formulated for data collection, such as performance against common criteria for all
universities such as the student achievement in relation to graduate attributes.

England

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) plays a major role in quality
assurance of teaching quality through the quality assurance framework (QAF). This framework has
included an institutional audit, a collaborative provision audit and publication of teaching quality
information (TQI) (accessed September 2008) which includes the National Student Survey (NSS)
(accessed September 2008) and the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey
(accessed September 2008). As argued elsewhere (Schuck et al, 2008; Jasman, 2010), there is very
little evidence to suggest that there is any link between the measurement of quality through the
use of student feedback questionnaires and any improvement of teaching quality and/or student
learning outcomes.

While the TQI was originally designed and used to assure the quality of teaching, from 2011 a
new quality assurance framework has been used. Wide consultations have been held with key

Anne Jasman et al

664

stakeholders, including employers, academics and students. The nature of this quality assurance
framework is unclear at this time, particularly following the change in government in 2011 and the
ongoing restructuring of the teacher education sector. As was the case in Australia through the
ALTC, the Higher Education Academy (HEA) alongside HEFCE provides individual recognition of
teaching quality through its Associate and Fellowship schemes. Its mission is stated as follows:

We support the sector in providing the best possible learning experience for all students. We do
this by working with individual academics to give them access to professional recognition, advice
and support, as well as networking and development opportunities to enhance their teaching.
(http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/aboutus; accessed 1 June 2010)

The UK Professional Standards Framework [2] and accredited programmes for training also
support teaching quality. Here the framework provides descriptors in six areas of activity: design
and planning; teaching and/or supporting student learning; assessment and feedback; learning
environment, student support and guidance; integration of scholarship, research and professional
development activities; and evaluation of practice. The core knowledge included within the
framework identifies subject material, methods for teaching and learning, how students learn, use
of appropriate technologies, methods of evaluating the effectiveness of teaching and the
implication of quality assurance and enhancement for professional practice. Professional values
focus on respect for individual learners.

The academic is also expected to have a commitment to incorporating research, scholarship
and professional practice processes and outcomes into their teaching; developing learning
communities; encouraging participation; acknowledging diversity and promoting equality of
opportunity; and continuing professional development and evaluation of practice. Again the
question of how these data might be used beyond helping individual development is unclear, but
this represents a much greater level of specification than is currently in use in either England or
Australia. This indicates a trend towards greater codification and criteria that supports the
development of individual academics (or perhaps their qualification prior to practising in higher
education).

Current Trends: what counts as teaching quality?

Four purposes for determining teaching quality emerge from these brief descriptions of research
and policy trajectories in Australia and England. First, there are the purposes of government
accountability to demonstrate that public funds are being used effectively and efficiently. Alongside
this are purposes associated with institutional positioning (as well as national positioning) in the
global higher education marketplace through benchmarking exercises. The third set of purposes is
in relation to academic promotion; and finally, teaching quality measures support an improvement
agenda relevant to the individual academic. These last two purposes are closely related since
improving teaching quality is relevant to both promotion and career progression, but also can
result in external recognition and reward for demonstrating the enhancement of the quality of
teaching and the impact on student experience and educational outcomes.

The criteria for codifying and reporting on quality teaching are still contested (Devlin &
Samarawickrema, 2010). Even though these purposes are presented as distinctive, what counts for
quality in each varies and provides only a partial component of overall judgements about a
university or academic. What might be the position of quality teaching in the future? Five future
scenarios for the higher education sector are now described to provide a context for discussions of
what might count as teaching quality in each case.

Future Scenarios: what are the implications for quality teaching in higher education?

Given the current uncertain situation in relation to government direction on individual and
institutional accountability measures, this would be an appropriate time to both interrupt and
disrupt ‘business as usual’. The following scenarios [3] are derived from a HEFCE-funded research
project, ‘The Future of Higher Education Provision in the UK: workforce implications’ (Blass et al,
2010b) [4], and they are used first to contextualise the relative importance of teaching within each

Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century

665

of the scenarios before concluding with a more general discussion of current trajectories
influencing what might count as quality teaching in the future.

Scenario 1: Leading Knowledge Creation

The key driver for this scenario is a shift in values associated with recent economic events resulting
in an increase in student debt aversion. This will impact on whether future students and potential
academics choose to engage in higher education or not. In this scenario the number of students
opting to go into higher education will reduce as they decide not to take out student loans or
manage continuing debt on graduation. They are more likely to study part time and seek to
accredit small ‘chunks’ of study to create a qualification. The higher education sector becomes
smaller, with undergraduate provision serviced by what is now the further education sector. This
provides small, transferable modules of study. In this context, ‘teaching’ will be more flexible, with
a wide variety of study options determined by the student. Each module will be self-contained.
Quality teaching will occur when academics can identify the best way of supporting learning in
relation to the student’s needs and context.

In this scenario higher education focuses on postgraduate qualifications, and the academic
who wishes to work in this area will enter through the traditional route of research degree and
postdoctoral fellowships. Although publicly funded, this sector must also interface with business
and industry to ‘sell’ its research. New roles in higher education will emerge such as public
relations, communications with business, brokering and selling ‘knowledge’ created by the
university.

Undergraduate teaching quality is not a priority as this is now the job of those working in
further education where teaching is focused on student employability with the curriculum closely
linked to vocational, technical and professional qualifications. What will count within the
university sector is supervision, mentoring and building research capacity, although there may be
some limited expectations to teach in an undergraduate programme. The focus is on the quality of
support in research training and development and management of the researcher’s performance,
and judgement about ‘teaching’ quality will be closely linked to metrics for excellence in research.
Progression will not be achieved through quality teaching.

Scenario 2: Responsive Knowledge Creation

In this scenario the driving force behind the change within the sector as a whole is in relation to
changing values associated with discipline-based knowledge – we move from ‘just in case’ to ‘just
in time’ and ‘just for here’ research. A dual sector will emerge where 80% of universities work
within the applied sector. In this scenario it is essential to have experience from outside higher
education within business, industry, the professions or other activities outside university settings.
In the other 20% of the sector it is almost ‘business as usual’, but here the rewards are much less
than now, and whilst academics may pursue their own agendas with relative freedom, they will
sacrifice the financial rewards they currently enjoy for doing such work. In this scenario, the
redbrick and post-92 universities are securely funded by corporate collaborations and government
funding for teaching. But the nature of teaching in these institutions will be very different.

They offer a variety of study options which means that more students can be accommodated
within smaller building space, as blended learning and block delivery become the norm and
many courses are delivered in off-site hubs, such as corporate premises, local schools in the
evenings and hotel conference facilities. Most students are part-time. (Blass et al, 2010a, p. 447)

Again teaching quality is less of a priority for the academic when compared with the business and
entrepreneurial activities of the university endeavour. In this context it would appear that the
technical and vocational approach to teaching becomes more common than now. The university
satisfies the workforce needs of the economy. In this context teaching quality is judged by how well
the students can make the transition from university to work, be this in corporate, public or third-
sector areas, in business, professional or vocational occupations. Given the focus of universities in
this scenario, opportunities to progress through teaching are extremely limited.

Anne Jasman et al

666

Scenario 3: Regional Conglomerates

The key driver for change in the sector for this scenario is the current combination of funding cuts
and the continuing shift in staff expertise within higher education. Currently only 45% of staff
employed in the sector are academics. In this scenario there is the danger of intense and damaging
competition between universities for students, staff and resources. This would not be sustainable in
the longer term and we suggest that this level of disruption in the sector would result in a
transformation of provision. In this scenario we suggest that the academic has a lower status in
society and, given the culture of knowledge sharing and networking, the team becomes more
important than the individual. This most closely mirrors current information and communication
technology (ICT) scenarios built around open access to knowledge. The purpose of the
conglomerate is educationally driven for a sustainable society, contributing more to democracy,
the region and community outreach than is currently the case. These organisations are also likely
to have flatter management structures. But how would this impact on what counts as quality
teaching?

In this scenario it is more likely that the role of academics is fundamentally different. In the
context of a regional conglomerate there is little competition in the provision of particular degrees.
Teaching can be a team activity where the outcomes for students are paramount. This is more of a
‘service’ role where collegial and collaborative approaches to teaching and learning build
sustainable, relevant and highly contextualised learning opportunities. Describing and judging the
quality of teaching by individuals is of little importance as the focus is on the quality of learning
outcomes for students, and the opportunities for career progression are limited.

Scenario 4: No Government Funding

This is the closest to a ‘business as usual’ scenario, where the higher education (HE) sector
increasingly has to fund its activities through fees, external sources and other entrepreneurial
activities. Here the university provides academic services to clients paying for this work. Most
students are part time and study online, at weekends or in the evenings. The traditional academic
role of research continues but is based on earning potential to the university and teaching has a
very low priority. In this scenario the quality and standing of the university is reflected largely
through its research performance and earning capacity. Academics spend very little time on
teaching unless they are attracting media attention and can charge more for enrolment in their
course or degree programme. Within this framework it is possible for a ‘star’ teacher, who is
charismatic, entertaining and well known, to attract students willing to pay for a celebrity
performance. In the main, however, teaching is done by those with recent ‘real-life’ experience,
and this is a very attractive option for recent retirees to top up their retirement income, so it is not
difficult to recruit into teaching. Quality teaching in this context is judged largely by an academic’s
earning potential through attracting students or their performance within a media context.

Scenario 5: Total Government Funding

This at first glance might appear to be the most attractive option. This scenario suggests that
undergraduate education will be available to all who wish to study up to Level 4 (an undergraduate
degree), through levying a 2.5% National Education Tax. The student body would be diverse, and
in terms of university work there would be the opportunity to pursue different pathways in
teaching, research and third-stream activity. In this scenario students would be able to move freely
across institutions to accumulate credit and quality would be seen in terms of student satisfaction.
There would, of course, be increased accountability at the institutional level given that the taxpayer
is footing the bill for potentially everyone to access higher education.

This would be similar to the current situation in the English National Health Service where
customer satisfaction takes precedence as a measure of quality over and above the quality of
patient treatment or outcomes. This measure of quality would align closely to current models such
as the Student Experience Questionnaire. Quality would be important for government
accountability but more at the institutional level of ensuring retention and value for money. It is
possible to envisage that quality teaching would be important in attracting students to a particular

Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century

667

institution and that academics might choose a career pathway leading to a leadership role in
relation to teaching. The quality of teaching here would be valued as this is recognised as a key
priority for universities as student enrolments will guarantee a funding stream. Teaching quality
will also be important for building workforce capacity through engagement in life-long and life-
wide learning.

The Future in 2020 and 2035: will we still be talking about quality teaching?

Earlier in this article it was argued that by considering the intersection of two dominant discourses
in relation to teaching quality in higher education, a third space could be created for academics to
discuss the possible and probable scenarios for teaching in the university sector and what counts as
quality within these. This is one way to challenge current ‘taken-for-granted’ practices for
accountability at individual, institutional, national and international levels. This analysis is not
encouraging. The position and value placed on teaching quality within four of these five scenarios
is much less than is current today – it is only really valued within higher education within the fifth
scenario of total government funding.

In the first two scenarios, the status of the teaching in higher education is diminished.
Research becomes critical as a means for universities to maintain control of knowledge creation,
support their entrepreneurial activities, and thus ensure continuing funding streams. In the third
scenario the role of academics in teaching is associated with changes in the role of universities, with
teams rather than individuals being recognised for quality. However, teaching is not highly valued
in this context either, as financial and resource pressures increase the numbers of students and
access to open knowledge sources means that the ‘knowledge’ of academics becomes less
important than their ability to support student learning processes. In the fourth scenario, it is a
user-pays model. In this context the users or students will have increasingly easy access to
knowledge and teaching again becomes less valued within the academy. The cult of celebrity is
possible in teaching, aligned more with teaching as entertainment than with teaching to support
learning.

In the final scenario quality in teaching in the short term may be found in the ability of the
academic to be flexible and work in a variety of environments with variable-sized groups using all
possible mechanisms for interaction assuming that face to face is no longer the norm and that
blended and wholly online delivery of courses increases. In this scenario students become
individual and independent learners where quality teaching is about identifying what support and
feedback the student needs right now, that is relevant to his or her particular workplace or learning
context. The role of the academic is still seen as valuable in relation to student learning, as they can
offer an authentic and relevant approach to engaging with the available knowledge. They are about
managing knowledge effectively.

The five scenarios are offered as one way to disrupt assumptions and values that underpin
current formulations of quality in teaching and to suggest alternative ways of thinking about and
demonstrating what teaching quality might and perhaps should be in the twenty-first century. We
may also want to think about the possible impact of new ways of knowledge acquisition and
meaning making and the fact that, in the future, these may no longer be within the remit of schools
and universities. Knowledge Works provides some suggested roles for learning agents, whether in
schools or universities, and challenges our assumptions as students or academics about teaching
(and learning) in the twenty-first century:

Learning Fitness Instructor – Learning fitness instructors will help learners build and strengthen
the basic cognitive, emotional, and social abilities essential to learning by using simulations,
biofeedback, and hands-on activities to reduce stress, hone mental capabilities, and learn brain-
friendly nutrition.

Personal Education Advisor – Assigned by certified local education agencies, such as schools,
resource centres, and libraries, or selected and contracted by families, personal education
advisors help families create, nurture, and maintain personal learning ecologies.

Community Intelligence Cartographer – Community intelligence cartographers will tap the
collective intelligence of their local communities. They will leverage social networking strategies

Anne Jasman et al

668

to develop swarms and smart mobs in order to identify emerging learning opportunities in the
community, organize community members, and locate community resources.

Education Sousveyor – Education sousveyors will keep the learning process transparent and will
stimulate public discussion around it. Through mechanisms such as blog posts, pictures,
podcasts, and videos, they will keep learning on the forefront of stakeholders’ minds.

Social Capital Platform Developer – Social capital platform developers will link the social capital
infrastructure to teaching and learning practices and outcomes. They will use tracking programs
to provide an accounting of people’s contributions to open education resources and collaborative
processes.

Learning Partner – Students who test for compatible personalities but who have different
cognitive strengths will be matched to support each other throughout the year, maintaining a
constant thread amid shifting peer relationships.

Learning Journey Mentor – Learning journey mentors will work with personal education
advisors, learning fitness instructors, community intelligence cartographers, and assessment
designers to co-create and navigate learning itineraries with small groups of students.

Assessment Designer – Using social networks and insights into cognitive functioning, assessment
designers will create appropriate methods for evaluating media literacy, learning discovery
journeys, and other innovative forms of instruction. (http://www.futureofed.org/forecast/)

If these roles do emerge in education generally, then higher education institutions have a long way
to go in reconceptualising not only quality measures but also whether teaching as we practise it
today is a sustainable construct. Quality teaching at the individual academic level can no longer be
about preparing an interesting, conceptually clear and well-constructed lecture which includes
appropriate media and ICT, given to a class of 200 students at 10.00 am on Monday. Quality cannot
be judged by the ratings of those students who chose to complete the evaluation forms. What is
quality for the ‘new’ student working full time, who has family responsibilities and is studying
online in the evenings and at weekends? This presents an ongoing challenge to academics and those
interested in knowledge creation, management and distribution which should be the subject of
further research relevant to the increasingly diverse contexts in which ‘learning’ at this level takes
place.

Notes

[1] Evidence of this trajectory can be found in the announcement in Australia on 30 January 2011 by
Prime Minister Gillard that the Australian Learning and Teaching Council would cease operation in
2012.

[2]
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/professional/ProfessionalStandar
dsFramework

[3] Since the presentation of this paper at the INCULT conference in June 2009, the political and
economic context in England has undergone a significant shift. The scenarios articulated here in 2009
continue to be relevant, but in the short term we will probably see a move towards the scenario of
no government funding. The authors, however, believe it is possible for other major political,
economic and policy shifts to favour other scenarios in five to ten years’ time. We, therefore, have
provided possible impacts for all scenarios rather than assuming Scenario 4 will be dominant long
term.

[4] http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2010/rd04_10/

References

Barrett, J., Daniels, R., Jasman, A., Martin, G. & Powell, B. (1997) A Competency Framework for Effective
Teaching. Perth, Western Australia: Murdoch University.

Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century

669

Barrie, S. & Ginns, P. (2007) The Linking of National Teaching Performance Indicators to Improvements in
Teaching and Learning in Classrooms, Quality in Higher Education, 13(3), 275-286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320701800175

Blass, E., Jasman, A. & Shelley, S. (2010a) Visioning 2035: the future of the higher education sector in the UK,
Futures, 42(5), 445-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.029

Blass, E., Jasman, A. & Shelley, S. (2010b) The Future of Higher Education Provision in the UK: workforce
implications. Report commissioned for the Higher Education Funding Council for England and Wales
(HEFCE).

Bradley, D. (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education. Canberra, ACT: Department of Employment,
Education and Workplace Relations.

Brown, R., Carpenter, C., Collins, R. & Winkvist-Noble, L. (2007) Recent Developments in Information
about Programme Quality in the UK, Quality in Higher Education, 13(2), 173-186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320701629194

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J. & Prosser, M. (1998) Qualitatively Different Experiences of Learning
Mathematics at University, Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 455-468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-
4752(98)00005-X

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2002) The role and impact of faculty development
in teaching and learning in higher education. Canberra, ACT: DEST.

Devlin, M. & Samarawickrema, G. (2010) The Criteria of Effective Teaching in a Changing Higher Education
Context, Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111-124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398

Ginns, P., Prosser, M. & Barrie, S. (2007) Students’ Perceptions of Teaching Quality in Higher Education: the
perspective of currently enrolled students, Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 603-615.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070701573773

Jasman, A. (2009) A Critical Analysis of Initial Teacher Education Policy in Australia and England: past,
present and possible futures, Teacher Development, 13(4), 321-333.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530903578264

Jasman, A. (2010) What Counts as Teacher and Teaching Quality in Schools and Higher Education? A Cross-
cultural Analysis of Qualifications, Standards and Development Opportunities in Australia, England and
Malaysia, Journal for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 67-79.

Kleinhenz, E. & Ingvarson, L. (2004) Teacher Accountability in Australia: current policies and practices and
their relation to the improvement of teaching and learning, Research Papers in Education (UK), 19(1),
31-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267152032000176963

Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976a) On Qualitative Differences in Learning II: outcome as a function of the
learner’s conception of the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(115-127).

Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976b) On Qualitative Differences in Learning Outcome and Process I, British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 46(4-11).

Ramsden, P. (1991) A Performance Indicator of Teaching Quality in Higher Education: the Course
Experience Questionnaire, Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129-150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079112331382944

Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. & Clarke, S. (1995) Recognising and Rewarding Good Teaching in
Australian Higher Education. A Project Commissioned by the Committee for the Advancement of University
Teaching. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Schuck, S., Gordon, S. & Buchanan, J. (2008) What are We Missing Here? Problematising Wisdoms on
Teaching Quality and Professionalism in Higher Education, Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 537-547.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510802334772

ANNE JASMAN is an Associate Professor at the University of Southern Queensland. She has varied
research interests focusing on professional learning. These include the accreditation and
recognition of professional expertise, academic and professional work-based learning, the
development of academics as researchers and quality issues in teaching and learning. She has
worked in policy, research and academic roles in both Australia and the United Kingdom.
Correspondence: jasman523@gmail.com

Anne Jasman et al

670

EDDIE BLASS is Executive Director of the Learning Innovations Hub at the University of New
England, Armidale, NSW, Australia. She is responsible for overseeing the academic development,
learning technology development and academic skills support areas across the University. Her
research field is the future of higher education. Correspondence: eblass@une.edu.au

STEVE SHELLEY is Principal Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Senior School
Research Tutor in the Hertfordshire Business School, University of Hertfordshire, United
Kingdom. He lectures and researches in vocational education and training and in the changing
context of public services. His 2005 book, Working in Universities: the realities from porter to professor
(Humming Earth), informed the early stages of the research project from which this article is
derived.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned
in an Operations Management course

Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza & Francisco G. Rodríguez-González

To cite this article: Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza & Francisco G. Rodríguez-González
(2015) Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned in an Operations Management
course, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26:9-10, 1002-1016, DOI:
10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

Published online: 31 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 699

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ctqm20&show=instructions

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-07-31

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594#tabModule

Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned in an Operations
Management course

Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza
a∗

and Francisco G. Rodrı́guez-González
b

a
Business Management Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla (UDLAP), Puebla,

Mexico;
b
EGADE Business School, Campus Ciudad de Mexico, Ciudad de México, Mexico

The managerial approach of Kaizen is used by different organisations around the world
in order to improve the performance of their work processes and operations. Both the
Total Quality Management literature and Kaizen have shown different efforts to
illustrate the application of this approach in the traditional classroom-style business
education. Also, business schools have a clear need for showing consistency
between what is being taught in the classroom and what is being done in the day-to-
day operations of the organisation. The purpose of this article is to describe the
systematic application of Kaizen and its learned lessons during the last three years in
the Operations Management (OM) course from the Master in Business
Administration graduate programme taught at the Mexican Business School. An
exploratory qualitative study was conducted. This research project provides
empirical evidence of how Kaizen’s continuous improvement cycle (PDCA) enables
better results in students who have taken the subject of OM in a business school.
The findings in each phase of the cycle show the Kaizen-oriented improvement
actions and the results obtained in final grades (exam) and written reports. Finally,
the study contributes to the limited existing literature on Kaizen in education and
subsequently disseminates this information in order to provide impetus, guidance
and support towards improvement in the quality of teaching in a business school.

Keywords: Kaizen; quality in education; process improvement; total quality
management

1. Introduction

The managerial approach of Kaizen is used by different organisations around the world to

improve the performance of their work processes and operations (Ortı́z, 2009; Suárez-

Barraza, Smith, & Dalhgaard-Park, 2012). The essence of Kaizen, as told by Imai

(1986), is simple and direct: Kaizen means improvement; nevertheless, it also means invol-

vement including workers and managers. A way of life is assumed at work, at home and

within the society. With this definition, an elemental question arises: Can Kaizen be

applied in an educational environment? The answer is that, at least, the need to

improve the graduate educational programmes of business/management schools rep-

resents a constant pressure to get accredited and certified by international institutions

that pursue the highest standards of quality in education, such as The Association to

Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) (AACSB, 2002, 2011).

Moreover, Total Quality Management (TQM) literature and Kaizen have demon-

strated different efforts to illustrate the application of these approaches in traditional class-

room-style business school education (Dahlgaard, Kristensen, & Kanji, 1995; Emiliani,

2005; Zimmerman, 1991). Also, there exists a strong need by business schools to show

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: manuel.suarez@udlap.mx

Total Quality Management, 2015

Vol. 26, No. 9, 1002 – 1016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594

mailto:manuel.suarez@udlap.mx

congruence between what is taught and what is applied in the operation itself. For

example, a student who is enrolled in an Operations Management (OM) course expects

that at least the elementary principles such as waste elimination (Muda in Japanese)

can be found in the operating processes of the business school, and, of course, in the

actual OM course. Thus, there must be clear, complete and detailed syllabi; specific,

simple and clear evaluation criteria, and of course, when students are enroling in their

courses, they expect such proceeding to be fast and error-free. The accreditation of

degree programmes in business or management by AACSB International observes excel-

lence as a requirement in their undergraduate and graduate education programmes

(AACSB, 2004), and ‘challenge educators to pursue continuous improvement . . . ’

(AACSB, 2004). One important remark here is that AACSB does not define what ‘continu-

ous improvement’ means, so the term ‘improvement’ stays unclear and in an open field;

this can cause confusion and unclear meanings (Drennan, 1999; Emiliani, 2005; Zimmer-

man, 1991). However, AACSB, like most organisations, subscribe to quality, excellence

and continuous improvement.

Lastly, in Mexico and Latin America, there is a lack in the academic literature that

show continuous improvement efforts such as Kaizen to improve the quality of graduate

programmes and courses at both universities and business schools. The most significant

examples that have been found in the literature on the subject are those from Emiliani

(2005), which describe the application of Kaizen in graduate programmes in the USA,

and the one from Bradley and Willett (2004), where the application of Kaizen projects

by Cornell students is shown. Thus, this investigation contributes to develop and boost

the theoretical construct of the application of Kaizen in the educational field.

In this research, the systematic application of Kaizen in an OM course of the Master in

Business Administration (MBA) graduate programme at EGADE (Escuela de Graduados

en Administración y Dirección de Empresas) Business School, the graduate business

school of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) at

its Mexico City site, is shown. The EGADE Business School has the ‘triple crown’ accred-

itation: The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), European

Foundation for Management Development Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) and

Association of MBAs (AMBA), and was recently recertified in 2013.

The OM course at EGADE is a part-time course from the introductory courses of the

MBA programme, where the traditional topics of OM such as elementary theories of OM,

inventory management, linear programming, manufacturing, process management and

improvement, localisation and supplier strategies and supply chain management are

taught, with special emphasis on the topics of Kaizen and Lean Manufacturing. Therefore,

the purpose of this paper is to describe the lessons learned from the application of Kaizen

in the OM course over three years. First, a literature review of the application of Kaizen

and TQM in a learning environment is made. Second, the specific context and character-

istics of the OM course of the MBA programme at EGADE Business School are described

and third, a detailed explanation of how Kaizen is applied in the OM course is presented.

Lastly, the paper is closed with the obtained results, and finally concludes with the lessons

learned in the form of the obtained benefits of its application over three years as well as the

barriers found during the improvement effort.

2. What is Kaizen?

Although Kaizen is defined by Imai in his two books on the subject (1986, 1997), this Japa-

nese word – which means ‘improvement’ – still lacks a detailed explanation that would

Total Quality Management 1003

shed greater light on its theoretical content. Various authors have explained Kaizen from

different perspectives. Imai (1989, p. 23) defined it as ‘a means of continuing improvement

in personal life, home life, social life, and working life. At the workplace, Kaizen means

continuing improvement involving everyone – managers and workers alike’. For Newitt

(1996), Imai’s definition (1986, 1989) of Kaizen stems from two Japanese Kanji: KAI ¼

Change, ZEN ¼ Good (improvement), and from Continuous Improvement or Principle of

Continuous Improvement (Lillrank & Kano, 1989, p. 28). The leaders of some business

understand continuous improvement more formally as: ‘Continuous, incremental

improvement of an activity to eliminate waste, unevenness, and unreasonableness

(called, muda, mura and muri in Japanese) and create more value’, where waste is

defined as: ‘any activity that adds cost but does not add value as perceived by customers

– typically end-use customers)’ (Ohno, 1988; Womack & Jones, 1996).

3. Kaizen and TQM in the education context

Kaizen originated from manufacturing processes (Fujimoto, 1999; Imai, 1986, 1997;

Suárez-Barraza, 2007), and its success in uncovering a problem, making it visible,

looking for its root causes and then eliminating them was of extreme importance in the

development of the manufacturing sector in countries such as Japan and Korea. After

its expansion in the USA by means of the Lean Manufacturing term (Womack, Jones,

& Ross, 1990), Kaizen was globally known. From the nineties, the application of TQM

and Kaizen started to turn towards the services sector (Bowen & Youngdahl, 1998;

Suárez-Barraza & Ramis-Pujol, 2010; Swan, 2003), due to the term Muda that can also

be present in the processes that generate a service as an output.

In this sector, but in the education field, a seminal investigation was developed by

Dahlgaard and co-authors in 1995, starting the debate of the importance of the application

of TQM in education (Kells, 1995; Tofte, 1995; Van Zadelhoff, De Wet, Pothas, & Pet-

rorius, 1995). In this sense, Spanbauer (1995) found that the key elements of the appli-

cation of TQM in higher education are academic leadership, personnel training, the use

of scientific methods and customer focus. Logothethis (1995) goes further by indicating

that in order to apply these methods in education, it is necessary to conform new curricula

and a new kind of professors who pursue quality and continuous improvement at all times.

A summary of this work was presented in the Total Quality Management Journal and it is

shown in Table 1.

More recently, Emiliani (2005) found that the application of Kaizen in an Executive

Management Programme can be very effective to improve the quality of service and

value added to the students. In the same line, Bradley and Willett (2004) report that stu-

dents of the manufacturing course at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at

Cornell University were able to learn the methodology of Kaizen projects to apply it in

benefit of the Lord Manufacturing Corporation. Finally, Lilja (2010) indicates that as a

result of his study, continuous improvement combined with appreciative design can

improve the evaluation and design of graduate courses.

4. Setting the context: the OM course

The Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey was founded in 1943 by

Eugenio Garza Sada. Today, it is a private university with 31 campi along Mexico, about

15 international sites and 4 graduate schools. The EGADE Business School as a graduate

business school started operations since the eighties in Mexico City and was known then as

1004 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

EGA Business School (Escuela de Graduados en Administración), and it expanded to the

rest of the Tecnológico de Monterrey campi where a Master in Management was taught.

However, since 2010, a homologation process was started and only one business school

remained the EGADE Business School. It operates in two cities: Monterrey and Mexico

City.

The OM course of the MBA programme at EGADE Business School is 1 of the 14

courses that comprise the programme. It is considered as an introductory course alongside

the Managerial Economics, Corporate Finance, Marketing Management and Leadership

and Organisational Behavior courses. It is designed in 12 units of three and a half hours

each and it is taught quarterly all year long. Generally, this course has an average of 25

enrolled students for each group, and two or three groups are opened per quarter depending

on the demand. The Kaizen approach for this course is applied in at least two groups of the

ones that are opened per quarter. The course is commonly taught on Tuesday or on Wed-

nesday from 18:30 to 22:00 hours with a 15-minute break at 20:00 hours.

The principal author first knew the Kaizen philosophy during his graduate studies in

Tokyo and Nagoya, Japan. He attended the Universidad de Sophia and worked at the

Table 1. Special issue of total quality management in education (1995).

Author Article Main findings

Dahlgaard,
Kristensen, and
Kanji

Total Quality Management and
Education

The authors presented the TQM
pyramid in education. Four main
cornerstones are presented: focus in
facts, everybody’s participation,
continuous improvement and focus
on the customer and the employee.

Logothetis Towards quality management of
education

Quality management may provide a
challenge to an educational
institution, but an even greater
challenge is the quality management
of education within the institution.
To meet this challenge, a new breed
of educators is required and a new
educational curriculum needs to be
developed.

Spanbauer Reactivating higher education with
TQM: using quality and
productivity concepts,
techniques and tools to improve
higher education

The key elements of TQM in education
are leadership, education and
training, organisational climate,
customer service, scientific
management tools, meaningful data
and team problem-solving.

Van Zadelhoff, De
Wet, Pothas and
Pretorius

Quality management principles
applied to teaching operations
research at a small university

Simple quality management tools and
techniques can be implemented in
the education process with success.
The main target is to increase the
motivation for the student of the
course to study hard.

Kells Creating a culture of evaluation
and self-regulation in higher
education organisations

Implementation of TQM in higher
education is presented based on an
analysis of the culture of such
organisations and the factors and
strategies found to be related to the
implementation of changes therein.

Source: own elaboration.

Total Quality Management 1005

consulting agency CHU-SAN-REN between 1994 and 1995. During this lapse of time, he

had the opportunity to be a disciple of professors who were involved in the philosophy,

such as Akira Takana, Shigeru Mizuno, Naokata Sawada, Masao Nemoto and Masaaki

Imai (who forged the term Kaizen). Since his return to Mexico, he has worked as a

research professor in the field, as well as being an advisor in several companies in

Kaizen application. Since 1996, he has worked supporting several different educational

organisations with the implementation of Kaizen in their work processes, administrative

as well as academic. Since 2010, at EGADE Business School he has redesigned several

educational processes using the Kaizen approach. He had at least two fundamental

objectives:

(1) To reduce the number of operations in academic services processes such as regis-

trations, admissions and grading, among others.

(2) To conform Kaizen project teams that allow solving operational problems related

to course execution.

One of the pilot tests was the application of Kaizen in the OM course, and it is described as

follows.

5. Methodology

A case study methodology was adopted (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). This approach is

particularly useful when the research needs to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Yin,

1994). The methodology is also considered suitable for research on operational manage-

ment (Voss, Sikriktsis, & Frohlic, 2002). In this study, given the nature of the methodology

and the research questions posed, the case of a business school in Mexico is presented. The

case chosen thus had great scope for contributing to theoretical understanding and devel-

opment. Pettigrew (1997) notes that the importance of this kind of sample selection lies not

in the number of cases but in an in-depth study in each case (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 342).

To ensure data consistency, two data-gathering methods were used: (1) direct obser-

vation and (2) document analysis (Yin, 1994). For direct observation, the author and

co-author were present teaching the OM class during three years from 2010 to 2012.

During this stage, snapshots were taken to record Kaizen implementation in the OM

course. This is of great importance in providing study evidence and drawing up the

report. During these visits, documentation was gathered on the application of the

Kaizen approach in the OM course. This documentation included individual written

reports per class, business simulation game’s reports, Kaizen application projects and

Final Exams. Lastly, a case study protocol and a database on the case study were drawn

up to make the study more reliable (Pettigrew, 1997). Our data analysis sought to

ensure the validity of the construct through the use of multiple sources of evidence and

carefully planned data-gathering. We also sought to increase the external validity of the

research by making multiple comparisons with other case studies from the literature

(Yin, 1994).

6. Applying the Kaizen approach in the OM course

Since 2010, the first author began to experiment with the application of Kaizen in the OM

course of the MBA programme. For that to be, the logic that Deming (1986) and Imai

(1986) established for the continuous improvement cycle or PDCA (Plan, Do, Check,

Act) was followed.

1006 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

Following the conceptual framework’s logic of PDCA, the process of Kaizen appli-

cation started with the Plan phase, in which a detailed course programme or syllabus

was designed 100% student-centred (costumer focused). The syllabus contains the

course purpose, the topics being taught detailing how much time each of them takes,

the class dynamics, the exercises, the simulations, the written reports and the lectures

and/or case studies. The syllabus is a vital planning instrument because students receive

it one month before school starts, via the Blackboard platform, with all the corresponding

material. This way students can plan their readings and work exercises; they can even read

in advance topics related to the course. Another important element of the syllabus is the

grading mechanism, which must be clear, detailed and specific at all times for it to be con-

formed as a standard or academic requirement. An example is shown in Table 2.

Over the last three years, the planning phase of the PDCA cycle has allowed students

of the OM course to create a previous scenario in a specific and detailed way, which gen-

erates certainty in each of them before starting the course sessions.

The Do phase of the continuous improvement cycle comes next. During this phase, stu-

dents take each session that comprise the course. During its execution, the application of

Kaizen has allowed to take the OM course to a level of practical experience (learning by

doing) not experienced before with the traditional courses offered by the MBA programme

at EGA Business School (previous to the year 2010, that was the business school name as

stated previously). At least three vital mechanisms were generated for the development of

this practical experience: (1) individual written reports per class, (2) the prism and cylin-

der business simulation and (3) Kaizen application projects.

Let us examine the first mechanism: the individual written reports per class. With these

reports, the OM course students learn at all times the importance of being constant in their

studies of a course from the MBA programme. The mechanism of Kaizen applied to the

individual report works by following the principle that only 30% of the knowledge is

retained when taking a face-to-face class (by presentation) (Garza-Salazar, 2013). As

such, students attend the class and at the end, they elaborate their written report. In

other words, after the professor has explained each subject of the OM class (a posteriori),

students synthetise again the provided information and then they generate a written report.

This way, they read and study what was previously presented in class, and they write down

Table 2. Grading criteria of a written report.

Grade Criterion to consider

50-69 No written report is turned in or it is overdue.
70-79 The written report covers practically nothing of the class content, so that its content is very

poor. The report has no structure and has little creativity; it is a “cut and paste” of the
teaching material of the course.

80-89 The written report presents a mild content of the class. It practically covers all the
theoretical aspects studied in its synthesis, as well as part of the exercises and
simulations conducted in class, but goes no further, adding little value to the written
report. It limits itself to comply with what it is requested.

90-96 The written report presents a very good content of the class. It covers completely the
theoretical and practical sections of the course (100%) and adds value with personal
experiences, points of view, criticizes the topic and even points to additional research
that fortifies what is being taught at class.

97-
100

Realizes the previous criterion in a constant and disciplined way during the course,
maintaining its level.

Source: Design by own.

Total Quality Management 1007

the concepts again, developing a double reflection. In the written reports, they express

those reflections about the topics seen in class, combining a synthesis of the theoretical

concepts acquired during each class. Moreover, the students add to this synthesis their

work experiences. The individual reports are prepared each week and are turned in the

next session. Regarding the form, they do not have a specific length, it is just asked that

they cover 100% of what is seen in class. During the three years of the application of

this Kaizen mechanism, students feel that the report has helped them to improve the reten-

tion of the topics seen in class and, of course, this has been reflected in their final grades

(see the following chart for the results).

The second mechanism is the prism and cylinder business simulation. This mechanism

follows too the ‘Learning by Doing’ principle. It consists of a game or business simulation

that has the objective of making the participants feel the need to organise their work based

on processes to obtain quality products. Students are grouped in teams of minimum four

participants and a maximum of eight and then are asked to build a prism and a cylinder

(Figure 1). Quality requirements such as measures, symmetry and cut quality are provided

by the professor, who represents the client that ‘buys’ the finished product at the end of the

production cycle from each team. This business simulation game allows students to

experience the different phases of a production process, where a process-focus approach

is needed in order to conclude with products that meet the quality requirements. Over

the last three academic years, students have shown appreciation for this Continuous

Improvement technique, that has been taken from the Kaizen philosophy, such as that

the knowledge derived from the virtual production line that is represented by the simu-

lation is acquired in a direct and experimental way.

The third mechanism that equally applies Kaizen principles is the Kaizen improvement

project at the end of the course. The application of this mechanism has allowed students to

Figure 1. The prism and cylinder business simulation snapshot.

1008 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

develop ‘case study type’ projects, where they have been able to apply Kaizen techniques

and tools in real-life cases and practices in their own organisations. From their point of

view, students have had the great opportunity to present problems or situations in order

to improve them within their work places. Over the last three years, students have

applied these Kaizen tools and techniques in different types of organisations: manufactur-

ing (car assembly plants, cleaning products and food, among others) as well as service

organisations (banks, restaurants, airlines, schools and, until recently, communication

enterprises). The organisations range from small to medium businesses to large

corporations.

The third phase of the PDCA cycle is the validation (check) phase. During this

phase, students get to know the evaluation process in a Kaizen-oriented OM course.

The professor specifies and generates a detailed standard of the way he will evaluate

them. The evaluation is always a detailed feedback and it follows what is indicated in

Table 2 for written reports. With the criteria shown in Table 2 (that is part of the syllabus),

students can validate the standard of their evaluation result. When students hand in their

written reports during class, the professor evaluates it and provides feedback during the

next consecutive class. Each and every one of the evaluations are reported in a specific

way, with a percentage of the grade assigned to each element. Students can see from

the very first day of class what the evaluating mechanisms will be, how that evaluation

will be conducted and the weight each element has. As such, the professor describes

that this evaluation is the execution of the syllabus in class form during the three-

month course.

Finally, the professor indicates that the elements with more weight for the final grade

are the written reports and the Kaizen improvement project due to their focus on the

Kaizen philosophy of ‘learning by doing’. Although the final exam takes a larger percen-

tage of the final grade, it is used only to ratify the acquired knowledge during the practical

part of the course (written reports and Kaizen improvement project).

Each quarter, the PDCA cycle allows to generate the Act phase: the opportunity to

improve the programme and course planning. Following students’ feedback, the course

professor standardises the good practices oriented towards the Kaizen philosophy, in

other words, towards continuous improvement. He also has the opportunity to make cor-

rections to the class topics, the exercises or simulations presented in class, and of course,

getting up to date the case studies. As such, the correction cycle is presented in a continu-

ous way each quarter, in that same order of ideas.

7. Findings and discussion

To extend in a more quantitative way the Kaizen implementation in this OM course, a

comparative diagram (EGA vs. EGADE business schools) of the average final grades

obtained by students with the traditional evaluation mechanism (EGA Business School,

from 2007 to 2009) vs. the new Kaizen approach mechanism (EGADE Business

School, from 2010 to 2013) that includes the individual written reports and final exam

(Table 3 and Figure 2) was made. For each year, the quarters analysed were January –

April, May – July and September – December. The total number of students who partici-

pated in the sample was 301 for the last three years (2010 ¼ 112; 2011 ¼ 95; 2012 ¼ 94).

For the case of the individual written reports, we take the number of students who were

enrolled in the OM course and multiply it by 10, which corresponds to the number of

theoretical and practical sessions that was taught per quarter. Let us remember that each

student has to hand in an individual written report per class. This way, 3010 written

Total Quality Management 1009

reports were analysed. Of course, the grade average per quarter and per year from each

course was obtained. Before the EGADE Business School was constituted, the researchers

took the data of the grading mechanism per class and per quarter. This grade mechanism

was a homework report similar to the individual report without the Kaizen characteristic

values (reflection process – Hansei, create a 100% synthesis of the content of the class and

working examples). The result of the data obtained can be seen in Table 4.

After implementing the previously indicated Kaizen techniques in the new EGADE

Business School OM course, a significant progress could be seen in the grade average

of the individual written report per class, per quarter and per year. The results are

shown in Table 5.

The overall progress of the grade average in the OM course could be observed only

after the study was conducted in the year 2012. In order to avoid a skewing of results,

two peers (experts in OM) were asked to evaluate the individual written reports so as to

have someone external to the professor to conduct the evaluation. A graphic showing

the comparison of traditional grading mechanisms vs. the new Kaizen approach grade

averages is shown here (Figures 2 and 3).

Table 3. Table of the evaluation criteria of the OM course.

Criterion % of Final Grade

† Class participation and presentations 10%
† Written reports 20%
† “Case study type” Innovation Project presentation 30%
† Final Exam 40%
Total 100%

Source: Design by own.

Figure 2. Tendencies between traditional and Kaizen grading mechanisms.

1010 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

For the final exams, the same analysis was made. The average grade per quarter and

per year before and after Kaizen was implemented was calculated. In total, 301 final

exams were examined. It can be seen in the following table and graphic that the influence

Table 4. Average grade of traditional grading mechanisms per class, per quarter and per year
before Kaizen implementation.

Quarter/Year 2007 2008 2009

January – April 88
a

87 90
May – July 87 86 84
September – December 90 89 88

a
The scale goes from 0 to 100 (100 being the maximum grade that can be obtained).

Source: own elaboration.

Figure 3. Tendencies among grades before and after Kaizen implementation.

Table 5. Average grade of individual written reports per class, per quarter and per year after Kaizen
implementation.

Quarter/Year 2010 2011 2012

January – April 92
a

94 95
May – July 91 95 98
September – December 92 97 98

a
The scale goes from 0 to 100 (100 being the maximum grade that can be obtained).
Source: own elaboration.

Total Quality Management 1011

of Kaizen techniques in the OM course was reflected in the grade average of the final

exams (Table 6 and Figure 3).

The results shown in this investigation coincide with those obtained in a similar field

by Emiliani (2005) and Bradley and Willett (2004) in the USA, by indicating that Kaizen

application can help educational institutions to obtain more effective and efficient

teaching and learning processes from the student’s point of view. This investigation,

unlike the literature on Kaizen and TQM in the education field that was reviewed in

Section 3, presents a case study where management is indicated at the micro level,

where Kaizen promotes and stimulates the student’s knowledge and achievement in

an OM course.

The authors are aware that measuring the increase in students’ knowledge of OM

topics cannot be done easily just because Kaizen was applied to the teaching – learning

process. Thus, the use of written reports and final exams was a measurable and objective

way to do it. Nevertheless, to measure each student’s individual degree of learning would

involve more profound and complex subjects such as experiential learning (Kolb, 1983) or

Knowledge for Action (Argyris, 1993).

A synthesis of Kaizen application is shown in the following table.

Improvement opportunity Improvement made

1. PLAN PHASE – The general course
goal and specific objectives

First, a general course goal was established, oriented to
learning by doing, an element that was not included
before the Kaizen implementation. Second, the general
objective is centred on one fundamental element: the
reflection the student makes regarding the knowledge
gained using Kaizen tools and techniques.

1.2 Course syllabus The ambiguity and unclearness were removed from the
syllabus in the grading elements (individual written
reports per class, final exam, participation in class and
applied Kaizen projects). Standardised tables for
evaluating students in an objective way were designed
(Tables 2 and 3).

2. DO PHASE – The individual written
report

It was implemented as a grading mechanism. It allows
the student to review the fundamental theoretical
elements seen in the course by way of writing the
content of the class at the end of it, thus generating a
practical reflection of each topic.

2.2 The prism and cylinder simulation Readings and case studies that did not add value to the
student’s learning process were removed. A face-to-
face simulation was implemented in which students

(Continued )

Table 6. Average grade of final exams per quarter and per year before and after Kaizen
implementation.

Quarter/Grades
2007

before
2010
after

2011
before

2011
after

2012
before

2012
after

January – April 82 92 85 90 88 94
May – July 83 88 82 89 85 95
September – December 82 89 87 93 86 96

Source: own elaboration.

1012 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

Continued.

Improvement opportunity Improvement made

experiment firsthand the process and continuous
improvement concepts.

2.3 Applied Kaizen projects This mechanism is one of the main characteristics of the
Kaizen application in the OM course. Its design,
application and exposition on behalf of the students
allow a deep learning process of the contents of the
OM course.

The implementation of these three mechanisms has
allowed the standardisation of the course contents in a
simple and direct way in order to generate ‘learning by
doing’, and at the same time unnecessary academic
material is eliminated before applying Kaizen.

3. CHECK PHASE – The course
grading mechanisms

With the evaluation mechanisms in place, the student had
certainty, standardisation and clarity on how he will be
evaluated. This mechanism allowed the sequence of
the topics for each class to be reordered, and now each
class is related to exercises and simulations, as well as
to certain reading assignments. For a student with no
previous experience in OM, it is a key topic in his
learning process.

3.2 Final exam With Kaizen, students obtained an exam centred on the
core concept that a manager in an organisation should
know about OM. It is not a complex exam; on the
contrary, it is simple, practical and direct. It is
multiple-choice and presents exercises similar to those
seen in class.

4. ACT PHASE – Cause analysis In the last session, a reflection exercise of the knowledge
acquired in class is conducted by the students. The tool
that is used is the cause-and-effect diagram with the
goal to establish a relationship among objectives and
learning.

4.2 Incorporated class experience Kaizen allows the professor to set a diversity of
mechanisms to establish different methods of learning
for adults, allowing at all times to expand the learning
experiences of the students in class. One example is
the prism and cylinder simulation.

Source: own elaboration.

7. Lessons learned: benefits and main barriers

It is possible to apply Kaizen successfully in a graduate course. Its implementation allows

to improve key elements of the teaching – learning process in an OM course. The benefits

that Kaizen have provided during its implementation in the OM course over the last three

years

are the following:

. The professor has the opportunity to plan his course focusing on his ‘client’, the

student, and thus in his learning. The planning instrument is the syllabus; its elabor-

ation is centred on the client and his learning objectives.
. The improvements and changes that were and are being made are centred on the

PDCA improvement cycle and it is aligned with the students’ needs.
. The course is standardised in sequence, execution and evaluation. This allows to

have a homogeneous improvement platform ready in each quarter.

Total Quality Management 1013

. Kaizen allows to generate multiple improvement and innovation ideas so that the

course is better each following quarter.
. For this particular case, higher grades were observed on individual written reports

and on final exams.
. For the professor and students, Kaizen represented a positive experience during the

OM course of the MBA programme; they have fond memories when they graduate.
. Students who build Kaizen teams during the OM course take the concept and adapt it

to their organisations. At all times, they are energised and motivated by working in a

team that seeks at all times continuous improvement, even if it was simulated during

class.
. The process of teaching – learning sustained in the main objective is the focus of con-

tinuous improvement. Before Kaizen, the focus was on results (that students scored

higher passing grades), a wrong and complicated situation because focusing on the

output of the process rendered useless all actions taken to change it. Besides, it gen-

erates a better understanding of the importance of ‘learning by doing’ in each and

every class.

During these three years, different obstacles and barriers were present that tried to block

the Kaizen application effort in the OM course. Universities and business schools are dif-

ficult to deal with when one tries to change their academic processes, especially when

such approaches come from the private sector, and are little understood by academics

centred in other areas of management (Zimmerman, 1991). The faculty ∗∗tries to do
few changes all over the years, derived from the ‘academic ego’, and the stability that

protocols and routine in universities generate. Four big barriers that were identified

are the following:

. Change that comes from professors and students at times challenges policies estab-

lished by university administrators.
. Faculty peers who fail to see the importance of continuous improvement in the

courses they teach.
. Simple and direct application methods such as Kaizen are seen by faculty as ‘lax’

from the scientific point of view. Several professors consider themselves as

‘experts’ in qualitative and quantitative methodologies that solve problems, and

as such, Kaizen is seen as a mere managerial tool.
. Implementing a change in a service process is not so simple due to its intangibility,

unlike a change in a manufacturing process. This provokes ‘doubts’ and ‘disbelief’

in professors and academic staff.

Finally, this paper has limitations. It is difficult to generalise the results because only one

MBA course was chosen (OM), and this course is centred in only one Mexican university

and business school. Besides, the course lends itself because it is part of the specialised

management being taught there: OM. There could be other factors that influenced the posi-

tive tendency that was observed: the Professor’s leadership, the teaching – learning process

based on the Professor’s pedagogical experience and, of course, the student’s profile sus-

tained by the MBA admission process. Also, the student’s learning style could be known at

the very beginning of the course and his/her progress could be measured using the Kaizen

approach (Kolb, 1983).

However, the results of this study coincide with studies conducted in other universities

in another country presented in the literature, so a first contribution to the literature of the

1014 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

application of continuous improvement and TQM in the education sector can be estab-

lished in a micro-view way.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

AACSB. (2002). Management education at risk. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International. Retrieved
May 28, 2014, from www.aacsb.edu/publications/metf/METFReportFinal-August02

AACSB. (2004). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation. St. Louis, MO.
Retrieved May 31, 2014, from www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp

AACSB. (2011). Accreditation standards. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International. Retrieved May 31,
2014, from www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bowen, D. E., & Youngdahl, W. E. (1998). “Lean” service: In defense of a production-line approach.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(3), 207 – 225.

Bradley, J., & Willett, J. (2004). Cornell students participate in Lord Corporation’s Kaizen projects.
Interfaces, 34(6), 451 – 459.

Dahlgaard, J. J., Kristensen, K., & Kanji, G. (Eds.). (1995). A special issue on ‘total quality in edu-
cation. Total Quality Management, 6(5&6), 443 – 619.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT/CAES.
Drennan, L. (1999). Total quality management in the Scottish universities. International Journal:

Continuous Improvement Monitor, 1(4), 1 – 15. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from www.llanes.
panam.edu/journal/library/vol1No4/drenna.html

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532 – 550.

Emiliani, M. L. (2005). Using Kaizen to improve graduate business school degree programs. Quality
Assurance in Education, 13(1), 37 – 52.

Fujimoto, T. (1999). The evolution of manufacturing system at Toyota. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, pp. 129 – 172.

Garza-Salazar. (2013). Presentación del Modelo TEC 21, Conferencia impartida en la ciudad de
Monterrey, Nuevo León, Junio de 203.

Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen-the key to Japan’s competitive success. New York, NY: Random House.
Imai, M. (1989). Kaizen, la clave de la ventaja competitiva japonesa. México, DF: CECSA. (In

Spanish).
Imai, M. (1997). Gemba Kaizen. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Kells, H. R. (1995). Creating a culture of evaluation and self-regulation in higher education organ-

izations. Total Quality Management, 6(5/6), 457 – 467.
Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development.
Lilja, J. (2010). Putting appreciate design into practice: A case study of a course evaluation and

design process. Journal Business Management, 31(3), 1089 – 1101.
Lillrank, P., & Kano, N. (1989). Continuous improvement-quality control circles in Japanese indus-

try. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Logothetis, N. (1995). Towards a quality management of education. Total Quality Management, 6(5/

6), 479 – 486.
Newitt, D. J. (1996). Beyond BPR & TQM – managing through processes: Is kaizen enough?

Industrial Engineering. London, UK, IEE Savoy Place. Institution of Electric Engineers,
pp. 1 – 38.

Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Ortı́z, C. (2009). Kaizen and Kaizen events implementation. New York, NY: Prentice Hall Editorial.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management,

13(4), 337 – 348.
Spanbauer, S. J. (1995). Reactivating higher education with total quality management: Using quality

and productivity concepts, techniques and tools to improve higher education. Total Quality
Management, 6(5/6), 519 – 537.

Total Quality Management 1015

http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/metf/METFReportFinal-August02

http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp

http://www.llanes.panam.edu/journal/library/vol1No4/drenna.html

Suárez-Barraza, M. F. (2007). Kaizen, la filosofı́a de mejora continua e innovación incremental,
detrás de la Administración por Calidad Total. México, DF: Panorama.

Suárez-Barraza, M. F., & Ramis-Pujol, J. (2010). Implementation of Lean-Kaizen in the human
resource service process. A case study in a Mexican public service organisation. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(3), 388 – 410.

Suárez-Barraza, M. F., Smith, T., & Dalhgaard-Park, S. M. (2012). Lean service. An analysis and
classification. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(3 – 4), 359 – 380.

Swank, C. K. (2003). The lean service machine. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 123 – 130.
Tofte, B. (1995). A theoretical model for implementation of total quality leadership in education.

Total Quality Management, 6(5/6), 469 – 478.
Van Zadelhoff, C. J., De Wet, A. G., Pothas, A., & Petrorius, P. (1995). Quality management prin-

ciples applied to the teaching of operations research at a small university. Total Quality
Management, 6(5/6), 539 – 546.

Voss, C., Sikriktsis, N., & Frohlic, M. (2002). Case research in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195 – 219.

Womack, J., & Jones, D. (1996). Lean thinking. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J., Jones, P., & Ross, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York, NY:

Rawson & Associates.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research, design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman, W. J. (1991). Kaizen in search of quality. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education,

39(3), 7 – 10.

1016 M.F. Suárez-Barraza and F.G. Rodrı́guez-González

Abstract

1. Introduction
2. What is Kaizen?
3. Kaizen and TQM in the education context
4. Setting the context: the OM course
5. Methodology
6. Applying the Kaizen approach in the OM course
7. Findings and discussion
7. Lessons learned: benefits and main barriers
Disclosure statement
References

Topic: Improving the value of “quality of teaching” in the context of “project management education” in Australia.

Specifications:

Your critical review report should not exceed 1200 words. The report must substantially include the following components:

1. A description of the topic using a supplied tool.

· In this u need to select 1 topic from the topic generating tool which is attached below.

2. A table of four relevant articles (presented in Harvard format) and keywords or combination of keywords used to identify each article.

· After selecting the topic from the tool, u need to provide 4 related article to the main topic.

· Make a tabular column for all the four article which includes title of the article, Name of the author, date of the article published, Key words of the article used

· And article should be less than 5 years old

· And hyperlink of the 4 articles should be mentioned

· Example of the tabular column has been attached below make it with reference to that tabular column

3. A summary of the most relevant article to the topic. (up to 300 words).

· Pick the most suitable article from the four article

4. A critical appraisal of the article. (up to 300 words)

· Compare the most suitable article with the topic we have picked from the tool generator.

5. Preliminary research questions.

· Research question with respect to the topic

6. Your personal reflection. (up to 300 words)

· Personal reflection of the article.

And references should be mentioned at the end

Note : Please follow the above mentioned specification and strictly adhere to it.

Running head: QUALITY OF TEACHING
1

QUALITY OF TEACHING
3

Quality of Teaching

Institution

Date

1. A description of the topic

Teaching is essential in the society because it helps in building the knowledge of the students and at the same time enhancing their careers. It is essential to make sure that the quality of teaching is taken to a higher level to make sure that the students who leave the education sector do so with the knowledge that is essential to their careers. The topic that will be expounded on, in this case, is “quality of teaching.” The topic is in the context of “project management education,” and therefore the focus will be more on project management (Jasman et al.

2013

). It is paramount to note that when the quality of teaching is taken to a higher level, management of projects is affected positively as well.

2. A table of four relevant articles

Article 1	Article 2	Article 3	Articles 4
Name of the authors	Dylan Sutherland, Philip Warwick, John Anderson, and Mark Learmonth	Suseela Malakolunthu, John McBeath, and Sue Swaffield	Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza & Francisco G. Rodríguez-González	Anne Jasman Eddie Blass Steve Shelley
Title	How Do Quality of Teaching, Assessment, and Feedback Drive Undergraduate Course Satisfaction in U.K. Business Schools? A Comparative Analysis With Nonbusiness School Courses Using the U.K. National Student Survey	Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning: Changing scenarios in basic schools of Ghana	Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: lessons learned in an Operations Management course	Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century: what will count as teaching quality in higher education
Date of the publication	2018	2014	2016	2013
Keywords used	Module Evaluation, MEQ, Regression analysis, student satisfaction, TEF, business school.	capacity building, education development, Ghana leadership for learning, teaching-learning	Kaizen, TQM, educational context	CEQ, intersection, University Academics
URL	http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1052562918787849	http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1741143213510510	https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14783363.2015.1068594	http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.6.660

3. A summary of the most relevant article

The article takes an interest in the quality of teaching mostly in the universities. One of the reasons why people enroll in universities is to make sure that they achieve the knowledge that is helpful to their future careers. Therefore, it is evident that the concentration of the universities should be more on the future aspect as opposed to dealing with the current issues. It is for this reason that the article has put more focus on the aspect of future perspectives. The higher education sector has a direct connection with the employment sector. The reason for stating so is associated with the fact that people who leave colleges and universities are absorbed by organizations (Malakolunthu et al. 2014). Therefore, the higher education programs should be in line with the demand that is in the labor market. To see the essentiality of the current higher education programs as well as how they affect the future workforce, the article will be looking at the workforce that will be needed in 2035 in the United Kingdom. The workforce will be compared against the education needs to see if the higher education institutions meet the needs.

The article will differentiate and define teachers and the quality of teaching. English and Australian high education trends will be focused on. The quality of teaching and the teacher go hand in hand. The reason for stating so is because the teacher is always seen as the vessel that helps in delivering quality education. The quality of education has a significant effect on the students in the higher education (Sutherland et al. 2018). It is for this reason that the article has concluded that there is a need for higher education to meet the needs of the students. Meeting the needs of the students in the higher education sector will be boosting the quality of education thus equipping the students to be useful in the employment sector.

4. A critical appraisal of the article

The most suitable in line with the selected topic is “Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century: what will count as teaching quality in higher education.” The reasons why the article is the most suitable are several, and one of them is associated with the aspect of discussing the issue that has been raised by the topic. The topic has raised the issue of the quality of education from the perspective of project management. In line with the topic, the article meets the criterion in two different stages. The first stage is associated with the level of education. Project management is a course that is taught in the higher learning education, and it prepares the students to become future professionals in managing projects (Rogers, 2013). The article has concentrated more on the higher learning education. Therefore, it is evident that the information that the article avails can be used to provide more supporting facts to the topic. The article has also concentrated on the aspect of the quality of teaching and teachers. In this respect, it is apparent that the article has directly focused on the topic.

The second reason the article is suitable to the topic is that the article does not only rest where the topic rests, but it goes further to provide information that is critical to the topic. The article has focused on the future of the education in the higher education sector. It is imperative to note that most of the students who leave the higher education sector are exposed to the employment sector (Jasman et al. 2013). Therefore, it would be unfair to talk about the quality of education without targeting or touching on the primary beneficiaries. The article has focused on the future perspective. By doing so, the article has been able to outline some of the possible impacts of an improved quality of education to the principal beneficiaries.

5. Preliminary research questions

a) Does the level of the quality of education affect the employment sector?

b) What are the trends in improving the quality of education in the higher education sector?

6. My personal reflection

In my opinion, the article is credible and meets the threshold of being used to provide more facts about the topic that has been selected. It is imperative to note that the credibility of any given article can be seen in the content that it provides to the targeted audience. In this case, I find the article helpful in different ways. The first way is associated with the breadth that the authors have taken in focusing on the matter. In most cases, the authors focus more on the research questions without offering additional information that would help to argue the topic (Suárez-Barraza & Rodríguez-González, 2015). The article has not only provided information about the topic, but it has also gone steps further to explain some of the essential aspects.

I find the article helpful because it has tried to relate the quality of education and the effects that it can have on the beneficiaries of the higher learning sector. The quality of education can only be known through the possible effects that it has on the beneficiaries. In this respect, the students are the beneficiaries. The article has looked into some of the needs that are predicted to be presented in the coming years in the employment sector. By knowing the needs, it has become easier to look at the quality of education and know if the needs are met or not. The article has also gone ahead to define the quality of education as well as the quality of teaching. By providing in-depth information, it has been easy to associate the information that has been provided by the article and the topic that was selected. In summary, the article is helpful to the topic in different ways that are beneficial to the targeted audience. Therefore, it is the most suitable for the topic.

Reference

Malakolunthu, S., McBeath, J., & Swaffield, S. (2014). Improving the quality of teaching and
learning through leadership for learning: Changing scenarios in basic schools of Ghana.
Educational management administration & leadership, 42(5), 701-717.

Suárez-Barraza, M. F., & Rodríguez-González, F. G. (2015). Bringing Kaizen to the classroom:
lessons learned in an Operations Management course. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 26(9-10), 1002-1016.

Sutherland, D., Warwick, P., Anderson, J., & Learmonth, M. (2018). How Do Quality of
Teaching, Assessment, and Feedback Drive Undergraduate Course Satisfaction in UK
Business Schools? A Comparative Analysis With Nonbusiness School Courses Using the
UK National Student Survey. Journal of Management Education, 1052562918787849.

Jasman, A., Eddie, B., & Steve, S. (2013). Becoming an Academic for the Twenty-first Century:
what will count as teaching quality in higher education. Policy Futures in Education, Vol.
11.

Rogers, B. (2013). The value of work-based projects in management education. Industrial and
Commercial Training.

Quality of teaching

Top-quality papers guaranteed

100% original papers

Confidential service

Money-back guarantee

Enjoy the free features we offer to everyone

Calculate how much your essay costs

How to place an order

What we are popular for

Ask experts to write you a cheap essay of excellent quality