Multi-models of quality in education.pdf

Quality Assurance in Education Multi-models of quality in education Yin Cheong Cheng Wai Ming Tam

Ar t ic l e in fo rm ati on : To cite this document: Yin Cheong Cheng Wai Ming Tam, (1997),"Multi-models of quality in education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 22 - 31 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156558 ) T P ( 5 1 0 2 r e b m e t p e S 0 3 8 1 : 0 0 t A E C N E I C S R E T U P M O C & T N E M E G A N A M F O E T U T I T S N I A I R H A B y b d e d a o l n w o D

Downloaded on: 30 September 2015, At: 00:18 (PT) References: this document contains references to 44 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsigh [email protected] t.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7834 times since 2006*

Users Users w ho dow nloaded nloaded th is articl e also also downloaded: Mohammad S. Owlia, Elaine M. Aspinwall, (1996),"A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. Vol. 4 Iss 2 pp. 12-20 12-20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0968 108/09684889610 48896101 116012 Mathew Joseph, Beatriz Joseph, (1997),"Service quality in education: a student perspective", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 15-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156549 Frances M. Hill, (1995),"Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as primary consumer", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 10-21 10-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0968 108/09684889510 4889510093497 093497

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543713 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

Ab ou t Emer ald ww w.emeral w.em eral di ns i gh t.c om Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

In the past decade, following rapid economic development, the education systems of most countries or areas in the Asia-Pacific region have been expanded quickly. C urrently, the people in this region are concerned with not only education quantity but also education quality. For example, in Hong K ong, a number of policy efforts have been put into improvement of different aspects of education such as curriculum, language teaching, student guidance, student streaming, management, teacher-student ratio, physical environment, and teacher education (Education and M anpower Branch and Education D epartment, 1991; Education Commission, 19841992). Although these efforts aim at improving education quality and discharging accountability, they are suffering from poor understanding of the complex nature of education quality and lack of a system of education standards and indicators for directing practices and monitoring performance. T he effects of these efforts are often problematic and doubted by the public. T his seems to be a serious problem when compared with the huge investment in the education system. Recently, China and some other rapidly developing societies in the Asia-Pacific region have been facing similar problems of education quality in development of education. Also, there are different types of educational reform in search of education quality in developed countries such as the U SA, U K , and Australia (Cheng, 1994a, 1996). Responding to the rapidly growing concern about education quality in the international and local contexts, this paper aims at developing a framework of multi-models of quality in education for facilitating practice, supporting policy making, and developing research agendas.

M ulti-models of quality in educat ion

Y in Cheong Cheng and Wai M ing Tam ) T P ( 5 1 0 2 r e b m e t p e S 0 3 8 1 : 0 0 t A E C N E I C S R E T U P M O C & T N E M E G A N A M F O E T U T I T S N I A I R H A B y b d e d a o l n w o D

The authors Yin Cheong Cheng is Director and Professor and Wa i M ing Tam is Lecturer at The Centre f or Research and Development, The Hong Kong Institut e of Education, Hong Kong. Abstract Suggests that there is a strong emph asis on th e pursuit of education quality in ongoing educational reforms in both local and int ernational context s. Policies issued to im plement educational changes for education quality often fail because of lack of com prehensive understanding of the complex nature of education quality in schools or higher education institut ions. Introduces seven models of qu ality in education: the goals and specifications model; the resources input m odel; the process model; t he satisfaction model; the legiti macy model; the absence of problem s model; and the organizational learning m odel. Concludes that t hese models can form a comprehensive framew ork for understanding and conceptualizing qualit y in education f rom diff erent perspectives and facilitating development o f managem ent strategies for achieving it. The framew ork can contribute to ongo ing policy discussion, school practice, and research development on issues of quality in education institutio ns.

General conception of education quality In the management literature, the term quality has different meanings and has been variously defined as excellence (Peters and

Quality A ssurance in Education Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · pp. 22–31 © M CB Un iv ersi ty Press · I SSN 09 68 -4 88 3

T his article is one of the reports of an ongoing research project on “Educational quality in Hong K ong secondary schools indicators and organizational determinants” that is supported by an Earmarked Research Grant awarded from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Government to the first author. T he authors appreciate the financial support of the Council.

22

) T P ( 5 1 0 2 r e b m e t p e S 0 3 8 1 : 0 0 t A E C N E I C S R E T U P M O C & T N E M E G A N A M F O E T U T I T S N I A I R H A B y b d e d a o l n w o D

Mult i-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education

Yin Cheong Cheng and W ai M ing Tam

Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

Waterman, 1982), value (F eigenbaum, 1951), very different, if not contradictory. I t is often difficult for an education institution to meet fitness for use(J uran and Gryna, 1988), all the expectations or needs at the same time. conformance to specifications (G ilmore, 1974), conformance to requirement (C rosby, T herefore, it is not rare that the education quality in an education institution is high to 1979), defect avoidance (Crosby, 1979), the perceptions of some constituencies but meeting and/or exceeding customers’ expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985), etc. There not to others, or that some aspects of an education institution may be of high quality seems to be no consensus definition even but other aspects may be of low quality though most of these definitions are highly (H ughes, 1988). correlated. Similarly, education quality is a For assessing school education quality, rather vague and controversial concept in different indicators may be developed to give research and policy discussion. To different people, the definition may be different and so information about the performance of an education institution in different aspects of the indicators used to describe education quality may bedifferent (F uller, 1986; Hugh- input, process, and outcome. T he difference es, 1988). Some may emphasize the quality of in the choice of and the emphasis on indicators may reflect the diverse interests and inputs to the education systems whereas others emphasize the quality of processes and expectations among the concerned constituencies and also the different manageoutcomes. No matter whether referring to ment strategies used to achieve education input, process, outcome, or all of these, the quality under certain environmental condefinition of education quality may often be associated with fitness for use, the satisfaction straints within a certain time frame. In other words, based on different conceptions of of the needs of strategic constituencies (e.g. education quality and different concerns policy makers, parents, school management about achievement of education quality, committee, teachers, students, etc.) or condifferent people may use different indicators formance to strategic constituencies’ requireto assess education quality and different ments and expectations. strategies to achieveeducation quality. T he focus of these indicators and strategies may not necessarily include all aspects of the ‘… education quality is a multiinput, process, and outcome of an education dime nsional concept and cannot b e institution. easily assessed by only one indicat or … ’

M odels of quality in education Borrowing the ideas from total quality management (Tenner and D etoro, 1992) and system approach, Cheng (1995a) defined education quality as follows: Education quality is the character of the set of elements in the input, process, and output of the education system that provides services that completely satisfy both internal and external strategic constituencies by meeting their explicit and implicit expectations.

To a large extent, this definition includes the important characteristics of quality espoused in the management literature. If we accept this definition, the conception of education quality will involve the characteristics of input, process, output and multiple constituencies of an education institution. T herefore, education quality is a multi-dimensional concept and cannot be easily assessed by only one indicator. Furthermore, the expectations of different constituencies on education may be 23

In order to understand the complex nature of education quality and to develop management strategies for achieving it, it should be necessary to review the different conceptions or models of education quality explicitly or implicitly held by concerned constituencies in practice or by scholars in research. I n the past decades, research on organizational effectiveness and school effectiveness has brought forth fruitful results and has guided many of the improvement endeavours (Scheerens, 1992), yet relatively little research has been done on the topic of education quality (C heng, 1995a). I f we believe that both effectiveness and quality are the concepts used to understand performance of an education institution in providing educational services, we can expect that the literature of effectiveness may be borrowed to understand and conceptualize quality in education institutions. Based on the models of organizational

Mu lti-models of quality in education



Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

Table I M odels of Education quality

Goal and specification model


Concept ion of educat ion qualit y

Conditions for m odel usefulness

Indicat ors/key areas for qualit y evaluat ion (w it h exam ples)

Achievem ent of stat ed institutional goals conformance to given specifi cations

W hen inst itutional goals and specifications are clear, consensual, time-bound, and m easurable W h en r eso u rces ar e su f fi ci en t to achieve the goals and conform to the specifications

Inst it ut ional object ives, standards, and specifications listed in the programme plans, e.g. academ ic achievem ent s, a t t en d an ce ra t e, d ro p ou t r at e, etc.

W hen there is a clear relationship betw een input s and out puts W hen quality resources for the inst it ut ion are scarce

Resources procured for inst itutional funct ioning, e.g. qualit y of student intake, facilities, fi nancial support , et c.

Resource-input Achievem ent of model needed qualit y resources and inputs for t he instit ut ion

Process mod el

Sm ooth internal process and fruit ful learning experiences

W hen there is a clear relat ionship bet w een process and educat ional out com es

Leadership, part icipation, social int eract ions, classroom clim ate, learning activit ies and experiences, etc.

Satisfaction model

Satisfaction of all pow erful constit uencies

W hen the dem ands of t he const ituencies are com patible and cannot be ignored

Sat isfact ion of education authorit ies, m anagem ent board, adm inist rat ors, teachers, par ents, student s, etc.

Legitimacy model

Achievement of the in st it ut io n’s legit im at e posit ion and reputation

When the survival and demise am ong edu cat ion in st it ut io ns m ust be assessed When the environment is very competitive and demanding

Public relations, marketing, p ub lic im ag e, rep ut at io n, st atus in the com m unit y, evidence of accountability, etc.

Absence of problems model

Absence of problem s an d t rou bles in t he institution

W hen there is no consensual crit eria o f qu alit y b ut strategies for im provem ent are needed

Absence of confl icts, d ysf un ct ion s, dif ficult ies, defect s, w eaknesses, troubles, et c.

Organizational learning model

Adaptat ion t o environm ental changes and internal barriers Continuous im provem ent

W hen inst it ut ions are new or changing W hen the environm ent al change cannot be ignored

Aw areness of external needs and changes, internal process m onit oring, program me evaluat ion, developm ent planning, staff developm ent, et c.

effectiveness and school effectiveness summa- The goal and specification model rized by Cameron and Whetten (1983) and T his model sees education quality as achieveCheng (1990,1996), seven models of educament of stated goals and conformance to tion quality can be proposed to illustrate the given specifications. T he goal and specificadifferent conceptions that can be used to tion model is often used in the assessment of deepen understanding and develop manageeducation quality of individual institutions or ment strategies, as shown in Table I. education systems in a country. I t assumes 24





Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

that there are clear, enduring, normative and well-accepted goals and specifications as indicators and standards for education institutions or education systems to pursue or conform to. An education institution is deemed to be of good education quality if it has achieved the stated goals or conformed to the specifications listed in the institutional plan or programme plans. Typical examples of quality indicators may include students’ academic achievements, attendance rate, dropout rate, and personal developments, number of graduates enrolled in universities or graduate schools, professional qualifications of staff, etc. T his model is useful if the goals and specifications used for judging education quality are clear and accepted by all involved constituencies, and that there are appropriate indicators which one can use to evaluate whether the institutions have attained the prescribed education standards. An advantage of this model of education quality is that it enables the institution management to focus attention on key components of education programmes.

high quality student input seems to be a “necessary” condition for some institutions to become successful or achieve high academic performance in examinations. It is often believed that students from low socio-economic status families may bring a lot of behavioural and criminal problems from the community, which seriously hinder the educational process. In order to help problem students, more resources are needed, if they are not reallocated from other institutional purposes. T he capacity of acquiring scarce and quality resources represents the potential of an education institution that can promise high education quality particularly in a context of great resource competition. To some extent, the model redresses the limitation of the goal and specification model, linking education quality to the environmental context and resources input.

The resource-input model Here education quality is regarded as the natural result of achievement of quality resources and inputs for the institution. Because of the pressure of diverse expectations of multiple constituencies, an education institution may be required to pursue different goals and conform to diverse specifications and standards. T he resource-input model assumes that scarce and quality resources are necessary for education institutions to achievediverse objectives and provide quality services in a short time. T herefore, education quality is assumed to be the natural result of achievement of scarce resources and inputs for the institution. T he education quality indicators may include high quality student intake, more qualified staff recruited, better facilities and equipment, better staffstudent ratio, and more financial support procured from the central education authority, alumni, parents, sponsoring body or any outside agents. T his model is useful if the connections between quality of inputs and outputs are clear (C ameron, 1984) and the resources are very limited for education institutions to achieve stated goals or conform to given specifications. In some Asian countries and cities (e.g. Hong K ong), quality student input is often seen as an important indicator of an education institution’s success. Attraction of

‘… the process model assumes that an educatio nal institut ion is of high educatio n quality if its interna l functioning is smooth a nd “healthy” … ’

Obviously, this model has its defects because its overemphasis only on acquisition of inputs may reducethe institutional effort put into educational processes and outputs. T he acquired resources may become wastage if they cannot be used efficiently to enhance quality of process and outcomes. The process model In this model education quality is seen as smooth and healthy internal process and fruitful learning experiences. T he process in an education institution is a transformational process which converts inputs into performance and output. A smooth internal institutional process enables staff to perform the teaching task effectively and students to gain fruitful learning experiences easily. T he nature and quality of the institution of process often determine the quality of output and the degree to which the planned goals can be achieved. Particularly in education, experience in process is often taken as a form of educational aims and outcomes. T herefore, the process model assumes that an educational institution is of high education quality if its internal functioning is smooth and “healthy”. 25





Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

Important internal activities or practices in the educational institution are often taken as the important indicators of education. L eadership, communication channels, participation, co-ordination, adaptability, planning, decision making, social interactions, social climate, teaching methods, classroom management, learning strategies, and learning experiences are often used as indicators of education quality. T he process in an educational institution generally includes management process, teaching process, and learning process. T hus the selection of indicators may be based on these processes, classified as management quality indicators (e.g. leadership, decision making), teaching quality indicators (e.g. teaching efficacy, teaching methods), and learning quality indicators (e.g. learning attitudes, attendance rate). If there is a clear relationship between the process in institutional and educational outcomes, this model should be useful. For example, democratic education is strongly emphasized in educational institutions. I f we believe that a democratic management process and a democratic teaching process in an educational institution are the necessary conditions for implementing democratic education (C heng, 1987a,b), then the indicators of a democratic process in an educational institution such as participation in decision making and partnership in teaching and learning, may be chosen as criteria for evaluating educational quality in implementing democratic education. To a certain extent, the current emphasis on the importance of leadership and culture to the performance of educational institutions may reflect the importance of the process model (C aldwell and Spinks, 1992; C heng, 1994b; Sergiovanni, 1984). T he process model has its limitations, such as the difficulty in monitoring processes and gathering related data, and the focus on quality of means instead of quality of ends.

expectations of its powerful constituencies. I n the school setting, the powerful constituencies may include teachers, management board members, parents, students, alumni, and officers at the education department. Education quality may be a relative concept, depending on the expectations of concerned constituencies or parties. If expected education quality is high and diverse, it will be difficult for institutions to achieve it and satisfy the needs of multiple constituencies. If expected education quality is low and simple, of course it will be easier for educational institutions to achieve it and satisfy the expectations of constituencies so that educational institutions may be perceived as high quality more easily. Furthermore, the objective measurement of quality achievement is often technically difficult and conceptually controversial. T herefore satisfaction of powerful constituencies is often used instead of some objective indicators as the critical element to assess quality in education institution. T his model emphasizing satisfaction of clients or conformance to clients’ expectations or specifications is the very popular model used in the business sector to assess quality.

The satisfaction model According to this model education quality is defined as the satisfaction of strategic constituencies. T he satisfaction model assumes that the satisfaction of strategic constituencies of an educational institution is critical to its survival (Cheng, 1990) and therefore education quality should be determined by the extent to which the performance of an educational institution can satisfy the needs and 26

‘… if the demands of pow erful constitue ncies conflict and cannot be satisfied a t the same time, the mo del may not be appropriate… ’

If the demands of all the powerful constituencies of an education institution are compatible and the education institution has to respond to these demands, this model may be useful in studying education quality. T he indicators of education quality are often the satisfaction of students, teachers, parents, administrators, the education authority, the management committee, alumni, etc. In some Eastern societies such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, the management board of an educational institution has a dominant influence. I n comparison, the influence of parents, students, staff and the public may not so strong. T herefore, satisfaction of the management board of an education institution is often the most important indicator of education quality. I f the management board demands high achievement in academic and athletic activities, the education institution can be seen of high




Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

education quality only if it can satisfy these demands. I f the demands of powerful constituencies conflict and cannot be satisfied at the same time, the model may not be appropriate.


tion institutions or schools have to be closed if not enough parents are willing to send their children to them. Among the educational institutions at risk, only those successfully striving for legitimacy or better public relations with the community can survive. From the standpoint of this model, educational institutions are of high education quality if they can survive in a competing environment. T hecurrent emphasis on parental choice and accountability in educational reforms in both Western and E astern societies seems to support the importance of the legitimacy model for assessing school education quality. Increase in parental choice of educational institutions may create a competitive market environment in which educational institutions have to compete and try their best to provide high quality educational services for the needs of parents. Also, the implementation of accountability systems or quality assurance systems provides a formal mechanism for educational institutions to gain the necessary legitimacy for survival. T his can explain why so many educational institutions nowadays are paying more attention to public relations, marketing activities, and building up schoolbased accountability systems or quality assurance systems.

The legitimacy model Education quality is regarded here as the achievement of an education institution’s legitimate position or reputation. In the past, when the educational environment changed slowly and educational institutions received relatively few external challenges, survival of educational institutions might be guaranteed by the central education authority. T here seemed little need for the education institutions to ensure any legitimacy for their survival. But now, under the impact of rapid changes and developments, the educational environment becomes more challenging and competitive. Educational institutions have to compete seriously for resources and overcome internal barriers, and on the other hand, they have to face the external challenges and demands for accountability and “value for money” (Education and M anpower Branch and Education Department, 1991; Working Group on Educational Standards, 1994). It is hardly possible for educational institutions to continue or survivewithout ensuring legitiThe absence of problems model macy in the community. I n order to gain According to this model education quality legitimacy for survival and to acquire critical means the absence of problems and troubles. resource, educational institutions have to win Borrowing the idea of the ineffectiveness the support of the community, build up good model (Cameron, 1984), it is often easier to public image and show evidence of accountrecognize problems in an institution than to ability. identify its quality because appropriate indica T helegitimacy model assumes that an tors and measurement techniques which can educational institution needs to be accepted provide concrete evidence of quality are often and supported by the community in order to difficult to obtain. H ence, instead of looking survive and achieve its mission. Along this line for quality in an education programme, one of thinking, the indicators of education qualiinspects the educational institution to check ty are often related to the activities and whether problems exist. achievements of public relations and marketing, accountability, public image, reputation, or status in the community, etc. Educational ‘… identifying strategies for the institutions should operate educational proimprovement of a n educational grammes which conform to the ethical and institut ion can be mo re precisely done moral norms of the community in order to by analysing problems and de fects as gain legitimacy. T hey also need to promote opposed to education quality… ’ their own image, in such ways as participating in district-wide contests, organizing exhibitions of students’ work, maintaining a good T heabsence of problems model assumes that relationship with district leaders, etc. if there is an absence of problems, troubles, T hemodel is useful when the survival and defects, weaknesses, difficulties, and dyfuncdemise of educational institutions must be tions in an educational institution, this instiassessed in a changing environment. F or tution is of high education quality. Problems example, in some old districts, the student population reduces quickly and some educaand deficiencies signal warnings to the admin27





Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

istration that some aspects of education quality may be lacking. H ence, during ainspection on an education institution, if no apparent problem arises from its operation, then this institution is assumed to be running smoothly and is fulfilling its educational objectives. T his is perhaps the oldest concept of quality in use in industry (Feigenbaum, 1951). Quality control experts tend to look at quality as meaning less scrap, rework, warranty costs, etc., for the final product. T he management team of an educational institution may set up stringent quality assurance and monitoring system in order to ensure a deficiency-free environment. Identifying strategies for the improvement of an educational institution can be more precisely done by analysing problems and defects as opposed to education quality. T herefore, this model is useful particularly when the criteria of education quality are really unclear but strategies for improvement are needed. I n general, many education institutions, particularly new ones, are more concerned with overcoming obstacles to basic school functioning than with pursuing excellent quality. T his model may be appropriate to them. F or those practitioners such as administrators and teaching staff, the absence of problems model may be more basic than the other models. But if people are more interested in high performance or excellent education quality, this model is not sufficient.

vate to provide quality services (F ullan, 1993; Schmuck and Runkel, 1985; Senge, 1990). To some extent, this model is similar to the process model. T he difference is that this model emphasizes the importance of learning behaviour for ensuring quality in education; whether the internal process is currently smooth is not so critical. T his line of thinking supports the current emphasis of strategic management and development planning in education (D empster et al. , 1993; H argreaves and Hopkins, 1991). T he model is particularly useful when educational institutions are developing or involved in educational reform, particularly in a changing external environment. T he indicators of education quality may include awareness of community needs and changes, internal process monitoring, programme evaluation, environmental analysis, development planning, etc.

‘… procuring scarce resources for eff ective functioning and ensuring smo oth and he althy inte rnal processes and fruitful learning expe riences are critical in order to a chieve stat ed goa ls and p roduce high q uality educational outcomes… ’

In developing countries, there are many new educational institutions because of the expansion of the education systems. T he new institutions have to face many problems in establishing organizational structures, educational processes, dealing with poor quality students, developing staff, and struggling against adverse influences from the community. Also, changes in the economic and political environment demand an effective adaptation of the education system in terms of curriculum change, management change, and technology change (C heng, 1995b). Against such a background, this organizational learning model may be appropriate for studying education quality. Obviously, the usefulness of this model will be limited if the connection between organizational learning process and educational outcomes is not clear. For example, some old educational institutions have their prestige traditions that can attract a high quality student input. Even though they may lack organizational learning, they can still win

The organizational learning model H ere education quality is considered to mean continuous development and improvement. T he changingeducational environment is producing great impacts on nearly every aspect of functioning in education institutions. T here seems to be no static factor or single practice that contributesto education quality for ever. Some practices may be good at a certain time but not at another. T herefore, how to deal with environmental impacts and internal process problems is an key issue in assessing whether an educational institution can provide quality service continuously. T he organizational learning model assumes that education quality is a dynamic concept involving continuous improvement and development of members, practices, process, and outcomes of an educational institution. A number of researchers have indicated that organizations, like human beings, can be empowered to learn and inno28




Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

relatively high student achievement and high status in the community.

tion continues to improve and develop itself in all important aspects through learning from its errors and its environment (i.e. the organizational learning model). I t seems that the seven models reflect the different emphases on different aspects of an education institution in pursuing quality. I n order to achieve total quality in education, the application of all these models as a whole may be necessary. Every educational institution may have its own criteria of education quality and may try to achieve all of them. Because of the limited timeframes and environmental constraints, it is often difficult to achieve all these quality criteria with limited resources. An educational institution may chooseto focus its strength on certain aspects of quality which seem to be crucial at the current stage. I n order to ensure the attainment of high level of education quality under many constraints, some educational institutions may focus their attention on the acquisition of scarce resource input; some may focus on the management of the internal process or learning strategies; some may prioritize the needs of their constituencies and try to satisfy thoseof the powerful constituencies. T his may be the reason why different models are used to understand and manage quality in education. H owever, when some criteria of education quality are strongly emphasized, and energy and resources are often concentrated on their attainment, other aspects of quality will tend to be neglected. Symptoms of ineffectiveness or poor performance may then emerge owing to ignorance of other criteria, which can hamper the overall education quality in the education institution in the long run. T herefore, practitioners should be aware of this dilemma and develop long-term strategies to handle the dilemma and achieve education quality on all multiple criteria, even if not at the same time (C heng, 1994a). In other words, all the seven models of quality in education should be important in long-term planning for achieving total education quality. T his may be the reason why total quality management in educational institutions has been strongly emphasized recently (Bradley, 1993; Greenwood and G aunt, 1994; Murgatroyd and M organ, 1993). T he critical elements of total quality management in an educational institution include focus on strategic constituencies ( e.g. parents, students, etc.), continuous process improvement, and total involvement and empowerment of members (Tenner and Detoro,

Conclusion


T heseven models have their own strengths and weaknesses, with emphasis on different aspects of the process for pursuing quality in education. T heir applicability is not universal in all situations and their usefulness is often limited by contextual conditions. One model may be applicable in some specific contexts but not in others. A s discussed above, some illustrations of the conditions for usefulness of these models have been summarized in Table I. Traditionally many people tend to use these models separately to ensure quality in education. But we should pay attention to their interrelationship and use a comprehensive approach to apply them in managing education quality. From the systems perspective, the seven models of education quality may be interrelated and their relationship can be analysed as follows: As a system, the input, process, and output of an educational institution, and the feedback loop from output to input form a chain, and the performance of one part influences the others. G oals of an education institution including input goals, process goals, or outcome goals can reflect the expectations, needs, and specifications of powerful constituencies. Procuring scarce resources for effective functioning (i.e. the system-resource model) and ensuring smooth and healthy internal processes and fruitful learning experiences (i.e. the process model) are critical in order to achieve stated goals and produce high quality educational outcomes. T he achievement of stated goals and conformance to given specifications (i.e. the goals and specifications model) can bring satisfaction to the concerned constituencies ( i.e. the satisfaction model). Also, by establishing a relationship with the community, building up a public image, and showing accountability, an educational institution can achieve its legitimate position (i.e. the legitimate model) for its survival and quality reputation. T hen, by carefully monitoring its programmes and checking signs of ineffectiveness through the feedback loop, the educational institution can ensure that no endemic problem is emerging in education quality (i.e. the absence of problems model). F inally, the educational institu29





Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

1992). According to the concepts of total quality management, quality in education can be totally ensured if an educational institution can involve and empower all its members in functioning, carry out continuous improvement in different aspects of internal process, and satisfy the requirements, needs, and expectations of its external and internal powerful constituencies even in a changing environment. To a great extent, the total quality management concept is an integration of the above seven models, particularly the organizational learning model, the satisfaction model, and the process model. T he above seven models can providea comprehensive framework for conceptualizing and understanding education quality from different perspectives. Obviously, the above analysis is based on the transfer of management theory to the field of education. T he limitations and implications of this international or cross-cultural transfer for education institutions at different levels may need further analysis and testing in a future study. H opefully, this preliminary framework can contribute to the development of research, practice, management, and policy for education quality in current educational reforms in both local and international contexts.

Cheng, Y.C. (1993b), “ M anagement and effectiveness of moral and civic education in school: a framew ork for research and practice” , paper presented at t he International Conference on Mo ral and Civic Education, Hong Kong. Cheng, Y.C. (1994 a), “ School eff ectiveness and schoo lbased management: a mechanism for education quality and school development” , keynote speech presented at the Int ernational Congress for School Effectiveness and Imp rovement, M elbourne. Cheng, Y.C. (1994 b), “ Principal’s leadership as a criti cal indicator of school p erformance: evidence from mult i-levels of primary schools” , Schoo l Effective- ness and School Im provement: an Int ernational Journ al of Research, Policy, and Practice , Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 299-317. Cheng, Y.C. (1995a), “ School education quality: conceptualization, monitoring , and enhancement” , in Siu, P.K. and Tam T.K. (Eds), Quality in Education: Insights from Different Perspectives , Hong Kong Education Research Association, Hong Kong, pp. 123-47 . Cheng, Y.C. (1995 b), “ School effect iveness and im provement in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainlan d China” , in Creemers, B.H.M. an d Osinga, N. (Eds), ICSEI Country Reports, Gemeenschappeli jk Centrum vo or Onderwijsbegeleiding in Friesland, Leeuwarden, pp. 11-30. Cheng, Y.C. (199 6), The Pursuit of School Effectiv eness: Theory, Policy, and Research , The Hong Kong Instit ute of Educat ional Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M . (1994), “ A theory of schoolbased staff development: development matrix” , Education Journal , Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 221-36. Crosby, P.B. (197 9), Quality Is Free: The Art of M aking Quality Certain , New Am erican Library, New York, NY.

References and furt her read ing Bradley, L.H. (1993), Total Quality M anagement for Schools , Technomic, Lancaster, PA.

Demp ster, N., Sachs, J., Distan t, G., Loga n, L. an d Tom, C. (1993), “ Planning in primary schools: a national study in Australian schools” , paper presented at th e International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement , Norrkoping , January.

Caldw ell, B. and Spinks, J. (1988), The Self-managing School , Falmer Press, London. Caldw ell, B.J. and Spink s, J.M . (1992 ), Leading th e Self- managin g School , Falm er Press, Lew es. Cameron , K.S. (1984), “ The effectiven ess of ineff ectiveness” , Research in Organizational Behavior , Vol. 6, pp. 235-85.

Education and M anpow er Branch and Education Department (1991), The School M anagement Init iative: Setting t he Framew ork for Quality in Hong Kong Schools , Hong Kong Government, Hong Kong.

Cameron , K.S. and Wh ett en, D.S. (Eds) (1983 ), Organiza- tional Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multip le Models, Academ ic Press, New York, N Y.

Education Comm ission. (1984, 1986, 1988, 199 0, 1992). Education Commission Report nos 1-5, The Govern ment Printer, Hong Kong.

Cheng, Y.C. (1987 a), “ Effectiveness of science teaching i n contributin g to civic education: what t eaching strategies?” , New Horizons , Vol. 28, pp. 129-41.

Elmore, R. (199 0), Restru cturin g Schoo ls: The Next Genera- tion of Educational Reform , Jossey-Bass, San Fran scisco, CA.

Cheng, Y.C. (1987 b), “ School p rocess and eff ectiveness of civic education” , Education Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 11-17.

Feigenbau m, A.V. (195 1), Quality Control: Principles, Practice, and Adm inistration, McGraw-Hill, New York, N Y.

Cheng, Y.C. (1990), “ Conception of school effectiveness and mo dels of school evaluation: a dynamic perspective” , Education Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-62.

Fullan, M . (1993), Change Forces, Falm er Press, Lond on. Fullan, M . and Hargreaves, A. (1992), “ Teacher development and educational change,“ in Fullan, M . and Hargreaves, A. (Eds), Teacher Development and Educational Change , Falm er Press, Londo n.

Cheng, Y.C. (1993 a), “ The theory an d characteristi cs of school-based management” , International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 6-17.

Fuller, B. (1986), “ Defining school qu ality” , in Hannaw ay, J. and Lockh eed, M .E. (Eds), The Contribut ion of Social

30




Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

Science to Education al Policy and Practice: 1965- 1985, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA.

OECD (19 89), Schools and Quality: An Int ernational Report , OECD, Paris. Parasurama n, A., Zeith aml , V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985 ), “A conceptual model of service quality and it s implications for future research“ , Journal of M arketing , Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 41-50.

Gilmore, H.L. (1974), “ Product conform ance cost” , Quality Progress , Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 16-19. Greenwood, M.S. and Gaunt, H.J. (1994), Total Quality M anagement for Schools, Cassell, London .

Peters, T.J. an d Wat erman , R.H. (19 82), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, N ew York, NY.

Hargreaves, A. (1994), Changing Teachers, Changing Times , Cassell, Londo n.


Hargreaves, D.H. and Hop kins, D. (1991), The Empow ered School , Cassell, Londo n.

Schmu ck, R.A. a nd Runkel, P.J. (198 5), The Handbook o f Organization Development in Schools, 3rd ed., Wavelan d Press, Prospect Heig hts, IL.

Hughes, P. (Ed.) (1988), The Challenge of Ident ifying and M arketing Quality in Education, The Australian Association of Senior Educational Adm inistrators, Sydney, NSW.

Senge, P. (19 90 ), The Fift h Discipline: The Art and Practice of th e Learning Organization , Doubleday, New York, NY. Sergiovan ni, T.J. (1984 ), “ Leadership and excell ence in schooling” , Educational Leadership , Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 4-13.

Juran, J.M . and Gryna, F.M . Jr (Eds), (1988 ), Juran’s Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw -Hill, New York, NY.

Sheerens, J. (199 2), Effective Schoolin g: Research, Theory and Practice, Cassell, London .

Lieberman, A ., Saxl, E.R. and M iles, M.B. (1988), “ Teacher leadership: ideology and practice” , in Lieberman, A ., (Ed.), Building a Professional Culture in Schools , Teacher s College Press, New York, NY.

Tenner, A.R. and Detoro, I.J. (199 2), Total Quality Manage- ment, Addison-Wesley, Reading, M A.

M urgatroyd, S. and M organ, C. (1993), Total Quality M anagement and The School, Open University Press, Bucking ham .

Wideen, M .F. (1992), “ School-based teacher development” , in Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (Eds), Teacher Development and Educational Change, Falm er Press, Lond on,

Nias, J., Sout hw orth , G. and Camp bell, P. (1992), Whole School Curriculum Development in the Primary School , Falm er Press, Lew es.

Working Group on Educational Standards (1994), Quality in School Education, Education Commission, Hong Kong Government, Hong Kong.

31

This article has been cited by:


1. Jon Olaskoaga-Larrauri, Miren Barrenetxea-Ayesta, Antonio Cardona-Rodríguez, Juan José Mijangos-Del-Campo, Marta Barandiaran-Galdós. 2015. Between Efficiency and Transformation: the opinion of deans on the meaning of quality in higher education. European Journal of Education n/a-n/a. [CrossRef ] 2. Aznur Hajar Abdullah, Shaista Wasiuzzaman, Rosidah Musa. 2015. University quality and emotional attachment of undergraduate students in a private higher education in Malaysia. International Journal of Social Economics 42:7, 644-665. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 3. Sheng-Hsun Hsu, Yu-Che Wang, Chao-Jih Cheng, Yu-Fan Chen. 2015. Developing a decomposed alumni satisfaction model for higher education institutions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-18. [CrossRef ] 4. Yehuda Baruch, Orna Lavi-Steiner. 2015. The career impact of management education from an average-ranked university. Career Development International 20:3, 218-237. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 5. Syed Zamberi Ahmad. 2015. Evaluating student satisfaction of quality at international branch campuses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40, 488-507. [CrossRef ] 6. Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, D. Enrique Ribeiro-Soriano. 2015. Behind league tables and ranking systems. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 25:3, 242-266. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 7. Jon Olaskoaga-Larrauri, X abier Gonzá lez-Laskibar, Miren Barrenetxea-Ayesta. 2015. Political nature and socio-professional determinants of the concept of quality. Higher Education 69, 673-691. [CrossRef ] 8. Jian Xiao, Stephen Wilkins. 2015. The effects of lecturer commitment on student perceptions of teaching quality and student satisfaction in Chinese higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37, 98-110. [CrossRef ] 9. Janice Desire Busingye, Rovincer Najjuma. 2015. DO LEARNING AND TEACHING MATERIALS INFLUENCE LEARNING OUTCOMES AMIDST HIGH ENROLMENTS? LESSONS FROM UGANDA'S UNIVERSAL PRIMARY EDUCATION. Africa Education Review 12, 109-126. [CrossRef ] 10. Miren Barrenetxea Ayesta, Jon Olaskoaga Larrauri, Xabier González Laskibar, Marta Barandiaran Galdós, Antonio Cardona Rodríguez, Juan José Mijangos Del Campo, Eneritz Onaindia Gerrikabeitia. 2015. Nociones de Calidad de Los Académicos Españoles y Determinantes Socio-profesionales de Las Mismas. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 196, 8. [CrossRef ] 11. Konstantina Kamvysi, Katerina Gotzamani, Andreas Andronikidis, Andreas C. Georgiou. 2014. Capturing and prioritizing students’ requirements for course design by embedding Fuzzy-AHP and linear programming in QFD. European Journal of Operational Research 237, 1083-1094. [CrossRef ] 12. Jessica Lichy, Tatiana Khvatova, Kevin Pon. 2014. Engaging in digital technology: one size fits all?. Journal of Management Development 33:7, 638-661. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 13. Pradeep Paul George, Nikos Papachristou, José Marcano Belisario, Wei Wang, Petra A Wark, Ziva Cotic, Kristine Rasmussen, René Sluiter, Eva Riboli–Sasco, Lorainne Tudor Car, Eve Marie Musulanov, Joseph Antonio Molina, Bee Hoon Heng, Yanfeng Zhang, Erica Lynette Wheeler, Najeeb Al Shorbaji, Azeem Majeed, Josip Car. 2014. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Journal of Global Health 4. . [CrossRef ] 14. Ritika Mahajan, Rajat Agrawal, Vinay Sharma, Vinay Nangia. 2014. Factors affecting quality of management education in India. International Journal of Educational Management 28:4, 379-399. [ Abstract] [Full Tex t] [PDF] 15. Aznur Hajar Abdullah, Shaista Wasiuzzaman, Rosidah Musa. 2014. The Effects of University Quality on Emotional Attachment: A Case from a Private Higher Education Institution. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 130, 282-292. [CrossRef ] 16. Ishfaq Ahmed, Wan Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail, Salmiah Mohamad Amin, Talat Islam. 2014. Role of perceived organizational support in teachers’ responsiveness and students’ outcomes. International Journal of Ed ucational Management 28:2, 246-256. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 17. Ahmad Saruddin Endut. 2014. Enhancing Internal Qualit y Assurance Mechanism at HEI through Responsive Program Evaluation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123, 5-11. [CrossRef ] 18. Suleyman M. Yildiz. 2014. Service quality evaluation in the school of physical education and sports: An empirical investigation of students' perceptions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25, 80-94. [CrossRef ] 19. Jasmina Dlačić, Maja Arslanagić, Selma Kadić-Maglajlić, Suzana Marković, Sanja Ra spor. 2014. Exploring perceived service quality, perceived value, and repurchase intention in higher education using structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25, 141-157. [CrossRef ] 20. Roma Mitra Debnath, Ravi Shankar. 2014. Emerging trend of customer satisfaction in academic process. The TQM Journal 26:1, 14-29. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 21. Georgios Stamelos, Marianna Bartzakli. 2013. ‘Good practice’ school advisors in Greek education: the difficulty in linking collaborative networks, communities of practice and quality culture. Teacher Development 17, 448-464. [CrossRef ]


22. David Jiménez-Castillo, Raquel Sánchez-Fernández, M. Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo. 2013. Segmenting university graduates on the basis of perceived value, image and identification. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 10, 235-252. [CrossRef ] 23. Prabha Ramseook-Munhurrun, Pushpa Nundlall. 2013. Service quality measurement for secondary school setting. Quality Assurance in Education 21:4, 387-401. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 24. HWANGGYUHO. 2013. National curriculum revision and the quality of education. The Journal of Curriculum Studies 31, 27-52. [CrossRef ] 25. Mukdashine Sandmaung, Do Ba Khang. 2013. Quality expectations in Thai higher education institutions: multiple stakeholder perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education 21:3, 260-281. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 26. Frank Heyworth. 2013. Applications of quality management in language education. Language Teaching 46, 281-315. [CrossRef ] 27. Ashita Aggarwal Sharma, Vithala R. Rao, Sapna Popli. 2013. Measuring consumer-based brand equity for Indian business schools. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 23, 175-203. [CrossRef ] 28. Muhammad Asif, Abdul Raouf. 2013. Setting the course for quality assurance in higher education. Quality & Quantity 47, 2009-2024. [CrossRef ] 29. Kristi Ploom, Toomas Haldma. 2013. Balanced performance management in the public education system. Baltic Journal of Management 8:2, 183-207. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 30. Esther-R. Mbise, Ronald S. J. Tuninga. 2013. The Application of SERVQUAL to Business Schools in an Emerging Market: The Case of Tanzania. Journal of Transnational Management 18, 101-124. [CrossRef ] 31. Zsuzsanna Eszter Tóth, Tamás Jónás, Roland Bérces, Bálint Bedzsula. 2013. Course evaluation by importance‐performance analysis and improving actions at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. International Journal of Quality and Service Scie nces 5:1, 66-85. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 32. Karmen Rodman, Roberto Biloslavo, Silva Bratož. 2013. Institutional Quality of a Higher Education Institution from the Perspective of Employers. Minerva 51, 71-92. [CrossRef ] 33. Steven M. Culver, Per Warfvinge. 2013. Assessment, accountability, and educational quality in the United States and Sweden. European Journal of Higher Education 3, 10-23. [CrossRef ] 34. Adam E. Nir, Bhojraj Sharma Kafle. 2013. The effect of political stability on public education quality. International Journal of Educational Management 27:2, 110-126. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 35. Chia-Tsung Lee. 2013. Leadership Research of Taiwanese College Students’ Learning Environment and Education Quality. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning . [CrossRef ] 36. Roma Mitra Debnath, Ravi Shankar. 2012. Improving service quality in technical education: use of interpretive structural modeling. Quality Assurance in Education 20:4, 387-407. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 37. Ritu Narang. 2012. How do management students perceive the quality of education in public institutions?. Quality Assurance in Education 20:4, 357-371. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 38. Johan De Jager, Werner Soontiens. 2012. Marketing and Reputation in the Services Sector. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector 2:10.4018/jisss.20100701, 28-41. [CrossRef ] 39. Sangeeta Sahney. 2012. Designing quality for the higher educational system. Asian Journal on Quality 13:2, 116-137. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 40. Penelope Mbabazi Bamwesiga, Lars-Owe Dahlgren, Andreas Fejes. 2012. Students as learners through the eyes of their teachers in Rwandan higher education. International Journal of Lifelong Education 31, 503-521. [CrossRef ] 41. Debra Grace, Scott Weaven, Kelli Bodey, Mitchell Ross, Keith Weaven. 2012. Putting student evaluations into perspective: The Course Experience Quality and Satisfaction Model (CEQS). Studies in Educational Evaluation 38, 35-43. [CrossRef ] 42. Anna Saiti. 2012. Leadership and quality management. Quality Assurance in Education 20:2, 110-138. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 43. Bill K. P. Chou. 2012. The Paradox of Educational Quality and Education Policy in Hong Kong and Macau. Chinese Education & Society 45, 96-110. [CrossRef ] 44. Sangeeta Sahney. 2011. Delighting customers of management education in India: a student perspective, part I. The TQM Journal 23:6, 644-658. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 45. Chenicheri Sid Nair, Arun Patil, Patricie Mertova. 2011. Enhancing the quality of engineering education by utilisi ng student feedback. European Journal of Engineering Education 36, 3-12. [CrossRef ] 46. Johan Jager, Gbolahan Gbadamosi. 2010. Specific remedy for specific problem: measuring service quality in South African higher education. Higher Education 60, 251-267. [CrossRef ] 47. Chenicheri Sid Nair, Lorraine Bennett, Patricie Mertova. 2010. Responding to the student voice: a case study of a systematic improvement strategy. The TQM Journal 22:5, 553-564. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


48. Brian Poole. 2010. Quality, semantics and the two cultures. Quality Assurance in Education 18:1, 6-18. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 49. Dennis Chung Sea Law. 2010. Quality assurance in post‐secondary education. Quality Assurance in Education 18:1, 64-77. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 50. Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet, S. Karunes. 2010. Quality framework in education through application of interpretive structural modeling. The TQM Journal 22:1, 56-71. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 51. M'hammed Abdous. 2009. E‐learning quality assurance: a process‐oriented lifecycle model. Quality Assurance in Education 17:3, 281-295. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 52. Yen-Ku Kuo, Kung-Don Ye. 2009. The causal relationship between service quality, corporate image and adults' learning satisfaction and loyalty: A study of professional training programmes in a Taiwanese vocational institute. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 20, 749-762. [CrossRef ] 53. Melpo Iacovidou, Paul Gibbs, Anastasios Zopiatis. 2009. An Exploratory Use of the Stakeholder Approach to Defining and Measuring Quality: The Case of a Cypriot Higher Education Institution. Quality in Higher Education 15, 147-165. [CrossRef ] 54. Audhesh K. Paswan, Gopala Ganesh. 2009. Higher Education Institutions: Satisfaction and Loyalty among International Students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 19, 65-84. [CrossRef ] 55. Ana Brochado. 2009. Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 17:2, 174-190. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 56. Gerald Wangenge-Ouma. 2008. Higher education marketisation and its discontents: the case of quality in Kenya. Higher Education 56, 457-471. [CrossRef ] 57. Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet, S. Karunes. 2008. An integrated framework of indices for quality management in education: a faculty perspective. The TQM Journal 20:5, 502-519. [ Abstra ct] [Full Text] [PDF] 58. Fion Choon Boey Lim. 2008. Understanding quality assurance: a cross country case study. Quality Assurance in Education 16:2, 126-140. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 59. Anne Marie Delaney. 2008. Designing Retention Research for Assessment and Enhanced Competitive Advantage. Tertiary Education and Management 14, 57-66. [CrossRef ] 60. Yadollah Mehralizadeh, Mohamad Jafar Pakseresht, Massoud Baradaran, Sakineh Shahi. 2007. The dilemma of internal evaluation in higher education: a longitudinal case study. Quality Assurance in Education 15:3, 352-368. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 61. Audhesh K. Paswan, Nancy Spears, Gopala Ganesh. 2007. The effects of obtaining one's preferred ser vice brand on consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing 21:2, 75-87. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 62. Ching‐Yaw Chen, Phyra Sok, Keomony Sok. 2007. Benchmarking potential factors leading to education quality. Quality Assurance in E ducati on 15:2, 128-148. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 63. Siriporn McDowall, Li-Chun Lin. 2007. A Comparison of Students' Attitudes toward Two Teaching Methods: Traditional versus Distance Learning. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 19, 20-26. [CrossRef ] 64. Masood Abdulla Badri, Hassan Selim, Khaled Alshare, Elizabeth E. Grandon, Hassan Younis, Mohammed Abdulla. 2006. The Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence Framework. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 23:9, 1118-1157. [ Abstract] [Full Tex t] [PDF] 65. Nina Becket, Maureen Brookes. 2006. Evaluating quality management in university departments. Quality Assurance in Education 14:2, 123-142. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 66. Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet, S. Karunes. 2006. An integrated framework for quality in education: Application of quality function deployment, interpretive structural modelling and path analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 17, 265-285. [CrossRef ] 67. Audhesh K. Paswan, Gopala Ganesh. 2005. Cross-Cultural Interaction Comfort and Service Evaluation. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 18, 93-115. [CrossRef ] 68. Felix T. Mavondo, Yelena Tsarenko, Mark Gabbott. 2004. International and Local Student Satisfaction: Resources and Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 14, 41-60. [CrossRef ] 69. Paul Gibbs, Melpo Iacovidou. 2004. Quality as pedagogy of confinement: is there an alternative?. Quality Assurance in Education 12:3, 113-119. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 70. Eugenia Petridou, Katerina Sarri. 2004. Evaluation research in business schools: students’ rating myth. International Journal of Educational Management 18:3, 152-159. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 71. Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet, S. Karunes. 2004. Conceptualizing total quality management in higher education. The TQM Magazine 16:2, 145-159. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 72. Mary T. Boylston, Mary Anne Peters, Margaret Lacey. 2004. Adult student satisfaction in traditional and accelerated RNto-BSN programs. Journal of Professional Nursing 20, 23-32. [CrossR ef ]


73. Yin Cheong Cheng. 2003. Quality assurance in education: internal, interface, and future. Quality Assurance in Education 11:4, 202-213. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 74. Sangeeta Sahney, Devinder Kumar Banwet, Sabita Karunes. 2003. Enhancing quality in education: application of quality function deployment – an industry perspective. Work Study 52:6, 297-309. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 75. Kevin M. Elliott, Margaret A. Healy. 2001. Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and Retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 10, 1-11. [CrossRef ] 76. J. Charlene Davis, Scott T. Swanson. 2001. Navigating Satisfactory and Dissatisfactory Classroom Incidents. Journal of Education for Business 76, 245-250. [CrossRef ] 77. Brenda M. Oldfield, Steve Baron. 2000. Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education 8:2, 85-95. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 78. Yin Cheong Cheng, Kwok Tung Tsui. 1999. Multimodels of Teacher Effectiveness: Implications for Research. The Journal of Educational Research 92, 141-150. [CrossRef ] 79. Jane Thompson, Mike Cook, Derek Cottrell, Roger Lewis, Bill Miller. 1998. Developing an institutional framework for rewarding excellence in teaching: a case study. Quality Assurance in Education 6:2, 97-105. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 80. Mohammad Ayub KhanBusiness Management Education in Reality 130-146. [CrossRef ] 81. Gilbert AhamerQuality Assurance in Transnational Education Management 259-302. [CrossRef ] 82. Gilbert AhamerQuality Assurance in Transnational Education Management: 1271-1313. [CrossRef ] 83. Johan De Jager, Werner SoontiensMarketing and Reputation in the Services Sector 193-207. [CrossRef ]

Multi-models of quality in education.pdf

Recommend Documents