Tag Archives: Higher Education

The acceptance of learning management systems and video conferencing technologies

The following texts are excerpts from one of my latest articles.

Suggested Citation: Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A.C. (2021). The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y

Introduction

An unexpected Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted the provision of educational services in various contexts around the globe (Rahiem, 2020; Johnson, Veletsianos & Seaman, 2020; Bolumole, 2020). During the first wave of COVID-19, several educational institutions were suddenly expected to interrupt their face-to-face educational services. They had to adapt to an unprecedented situation. This latest development has resulted in both challenges and opportunities to students and educators (Howley, 2020; Araújo, de Lima, Cidade, Nobre, & Neto, 2020). Education service providers, including higher education institutions (HEIs) were required to follow their respective governments’ preventative social distancing measures and to increase their hygienic practices, to mitigate the spread of the pandemic. Several HEIs articulated contingency plans, disseminated information about the virus, trained their employees to work remotely, and organized virtual sessions with students or course participants.

Course instructors were expected to develop a new modus operandi to deliver their higher education services, in real time (Johnson et al., 2020). During the pandemic, many HEIs migrated from traditional and blended teaching approaches to fully virtual and remote course delivery. However, their shift to online, synchronous classes did not come naturally. COVID-19 has resulted in different problems to course instructors and to their students. In many cases, during the pandemic, educators were compelled to utilize online learning technologies to continue delivering their courses (Fitter, Raghunath, Cha, Sánchez, Takayama & Matarić, 2020). In the main, educators have embraced the dynamics of remote learning technologies to continue delivering educational services to students, amid peaks and troughs of COVID-19 cases.

Subsequently, policy makers have eased their restrictions when they noticed that there were lower contagion rates in their communities. After a few months of lockdown (or partial lock down) conditions, there were a number of HEIs that were allowed to open their doors. They instructed their visitors to wear masks, and to keep socially distant from each other. Most HEIs screened individuals for symptoms as they checked their temperatures and introduced strict hygienic practices like sanitization facilities in different parts of their campuses.  

However, after a year and a half, since the outbreak of COVID-19, some academic members of staff were still relying on the use of remote learning technologies like learning management systems (like Moode) and video conferencing software to teach their courses (Cesco, Zara, De Toni, Lugli, Betta, Evans & Orzes, 2021). During the pandemic, they became acquainted with online technologies that facilitated asynchronous learning through text and/or recorded video (Sablić, Mirosavljević & Škugor, 2020). Moreover, many of them, organized interactive sessions with their students in real time. Very often, they utilized video conferencing platforms including Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Zoom, D2L, Webex, Adobe Connect, Skype for Business, Big Blue Button and EduMeet, among others. COVID-19 has triggered them to use these remote technologies to engage in two-way communications with their students.

Although in the past year, there were a number of researchers who have published discursive articles about the impacts of COVID-19 on higher education, for the time being, there are just a few empirical studies on the subject (Bergdahl & Nouri, 2020; Aguilera-Hermida, 2020; Gonzalez, de la Rubia, Hincz, Comas-Lopez, Subirats, Fort & Sacha, 2020). This contribution addresses this gap in academia. Specifically, it investigates the facilitating conditions that can foster the students’ acceptance and usage of remote learning technologies. It examines the participants’ utilitarian motivations to utilize asynchronous learning resources to access course material, and sheds light on their willingness to engage with instructors and/or peers through synchronous, video conferencing software, to continue pursuing their educational programs from home, during an unexpected pandemic situation.

This study builds on previous theoretical underpinnings on technology adoption (Cheng & Yuen, 2018; Al-Rahmi, Alias, Othman, Marin & Tur, 2018; Merhi, 2015; Schoonenboom, 2014; Lin, Zimmer & Lee, 2013; Chen, Chen & Kazman, 2007; Ngai, Poon & Chan, 2007; Davis, 1989). At the same time, it explores the students’ perceptions about the interactivity (McMillan & Jang-Sun Hwang, 2002) of LMS as well as video conferencing software, and sheds light on their HEI’s facilitating conditions (Hoi, 2020; Dečman, 2015; Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). The rationale of this study is to better understand the research participants’ intentions to use remote technologies, to improve their learning journey. To the best of our knowledge, there are no other contributions that have integrated the same measures that have been used in this research. Therefore, this study differentiates itself from the previous literature, and puts forward a research model that is empirically tested.

The development of remote learning

According to the social constructivist theory, individuals necessitate social interactions (Fridin, 2014; Lambropoulos, Faulkner & Culwin, 2012; Ainsworth, 2006; Tam, 2000). They develop their abilities by interacting with others. Therefore, online learning environments ought to be designed to support and challenge the students’ reflective and critical skills, by including interactive learning and collaborative approaches (Rienties & Toetenel, 2016; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Wang, 2009; Wang, Woo, & Zhao, 2009). Social constructivism and discovery-based learning techniques emphasize the importance of having students who are actively involved in their learning process. This is in stark contrast with previous educational viewpoints where the responsibility rested with the instructor to teach, and where the learner played a passive, receptive role (Lambropoulos et al., 2012).

Today’s students are increasingly using online technologies to learn, both in and out of their higher educational institutions (Al-Maroof, Al-Qaysi, & Salloum, 2021). They are using interactive media to acquire formal and informal skills (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012), particularly when they take part in constructivist activities with their peers and course instructors (Fridin, 2014). This argumentation is consistent with the collaborative learning theory (Lambropoulos et al., 2012; Khalifa & Kwok, 1999). Students can use digital technologies to access recorded podcasts (Merhi, 2015; Lin et al., 2013), watch videos (Hung, 2016) and interact together through live streaming technologies in real time (Payne, Keith, Schuetzler & Giboney, 2017). Hence, online education has fostered collaborative learning approaches (Wang, 2009). Computer mediated education enables students to search for solutions, to share online information with their peers, to evaluate each other’s ideas, and to monitor one another’s work (Lambić, 2016; Sung et al., 2015; Soflano, et al., 2015). 

Course participants can use remote technologies, including their personal computers, smart phones and tablets to access their instructors’ asynchronous, online resources including course notes, power point presentations, videos clips, case studies, et cetera (Butler, Camilleri, Creed & Zutshi, 2021; Hung, 2016; Ifenthaler & Schweinbenz, 2013). Moreover, in this day and age, they are utilizing video conferencing technologies to attend virtual meetings, and to engage in one-to-one conversations, or in group discussions and debates with their course instructor and with other students. These virtual programs enable students to engage in synchronous communications with course instructors, to ask questions, and receive feedback, in real time.

A critical review of the relevant literature reported that university students were already using asynchronous technologies, in different contexts, before the outbreak of COVID-19 (Butler et al., 2021; Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2017; Hung, 2016; Liu et al., 2010; Sánchez & Hueros, 2010). Many authors held that online technologies were improving the students’ experiences (Crompton & Burke, 2018; Kurucay & Inan, 2017; Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2016). Before the outbreak of COVID-19, many practitioners blended traditional learning methodologies with digital and mobile applications to improve learning outcomes (Al-Maroof et al., 2021; Boelens et al., 2018; Furió et al., 2015). Course instructors can design and develop online learning environments to support their students with asynchronous resources (Wang et al., 2009). They may allow them to engage in collaborative learning activities through virtual environments (Rienties & Toetenel, 2016; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). These contemporary approaches are synonymous with the social constructivist theory (Fridin, 2014; Lambropoulos et al., 2012) and with discovery-based learning (Ifenthaler, 2012; Lambropoulos et al., 2012).

Theoretical implications

This contribution investigated the students’ perceived usefulness, perceived interactivity, attitudes toward use, facilitating conditions and behavioral intentions to utilize remote technologies. It posited that higher education students perceived the usefulness of remote learning technologies including LMS and video conferencing programs during COVID-19. The findings clearly indicated that they valued their interactive attributes. These factors have led them to embrace these programs during their learning journey. This study also confirmed that the universities’ facilitating conditions had a significant effect on their perceptions about the interactivity of these online learning resources and on their attitudes towards these technologies, as reported in Figure 1. This finding is consistent with previous research that reported that facilitating conditions is positively related to the students’ intentions to continue using digital and mobile learning resources (Gangwar et al., 2015; Teo, 2009).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is the-use-of-learning-management-systems-and-conferencing-technologies.png
Figure 1

This study has differentiated itself from previous contributions as it integrated facilitating conditions (Hoi, 2020; Dečman, 2015; Venkatesh et al. 2003; 2012) and perceived interactivity (Chattaraman et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2007; McMillan & Jang-Sun Hwang, 2002) with perceived usefulness (of technology) and attitudes (toward the use of technology) to better understand the students’ intentions to utilize remote learning technologies to improve their learning journey (Cheng & Yuen, 2018; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Merhi, 2015; Schoonenboom, 2014; Lin et al., 2013; Ngai et al., 2007; Davis, 1989) during an unexpected pandemic situation.

A bibliographic analysis revealed that there are a number of theoretical papers that have been published in the last eighteen months on this hot topic (Cesco et al., 2021; Fitter et al., 2020; Howley, 2020; Rahiem, 2020). Yet, to date, there are just a few rigorous studies, that examined the utilization of synchronous video conferencing technologies, in addition to conventional, asynchronous content, like LMS, in the context of higher education (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020; Gonzalez et al., 2020).

The findings from this research shed light on the utilitarian factors that were influencing the students’ engagement with interactive learning resources. According to the descriptive statistics, the students felt that remote technologies were useful to achieve their learning outcomes. They indicated that they were provided with appropriate facilitating conditions that enabled them to migrate to a fully virtual learning environment from face-to-face or blended learning approaches. During the pandemic’s lockdown or partial lockdown conditions, and even when the preventative measures were eased, many students were still using remote learning technologies to access online educational resources. They also kept using video conferencing technologies to attend to virtual classes, and to engage with their course instructor(s) and with their peers, in real time.

The confirmatory composite analysis reported that there were positive and highly significant effects that predicted the students’ intentions to use remote learning technologies. Evidently, educators have provided them with the necessary resources, knowledge and technical support to avail themselves of remote learning technologies. The respondents indicated that they accessed their course instructors’ online resources and regularly interacted with them through live conferencing facilities. The findings from SEM-PLS confirmed that the perceived usefulness and perceived interactivity with online technologies had a positive effect on their attitudes toward remote learning. This research implies that the students were confident with the utilization of interactive technologies to continue their educational programs. In fact, this research model proved that they were likely to use synchronous and asynchronous learning technologies in the foreseeable future, in a post COVID-19 context.

Implications of study for educators and policy makers

The COVID-19 pandemic and its preventative measures urged HEIs and other educational institutions to embrace video conferencing technologies to continue delivering student-centered education. This research suggests that educators ought to monitor their students’ engagement during their virtual sessions. It revealed that the students’ perceived interactivity as well as their higher education institutions’ facilitating conditions were having an effect on their perceptions about the usefulness of remote learning, on their attitudes as well as on their intentions to use them. These digital technologies were supporting the research participants in their learning journeys, whether they were at home or on campus. The students themselves perceived the usefulness of asynchronous LMS as well as of synchronous communications, including video conferencing software like Zoom or Microsoft Teams, among others.

These virtual technologies were already utilized in various contexts, before the outbreak of COVID-19. However, they turned out to be important learning resources in the realms of education. Course instructors are expected to support their students, by developing attractive digital learning resources (e.g. interactive presentations, online articles and recorded video clips) in appropriate formats that can be accessed with ease, through different media, including mobile technologies (Sablić et al., 2020). In this day and age, they can also use video conferencing technologies to interact with course participants in real time. When engaging with online resources, instructors should consider their students’ facilitating conditions, particularly if they are including high-res images, interactive media, including podcasts, videos, etc., in their LMSs. Their asynchronous content should be as clear and focused as possible, with links to relevant sources, including notes, case studies, quizzes, rubrics and formative assessments, among others.

COVID-19 has taught us that the individuals’ engagement with LMS and video conferencing software necessitate high‐quality wireless networks. There may be situations where students as well as their instructors may require online technical support, whether they are working from home of from university premises. Educational institutions including HEIs ought to regularly evaluate their students’ experiences with remote teaching in order to identify any issues that are affecting their academic performance (Camilleri, 2021b). HEI leaders are not always in a position to evaluate the quality and standards of their instructors’ online learning methods and to determine with absolute certainty whether their students have achieved their learning outcomes. During remote course delivery, students may not always have access to appropriate interactive technologies, learning materials or to adequate productive environments (Bao, 2020). There can be instances where course instructors and students could require facilitating conditions like technical support or training and development to enhance their competences and capabilities with the use of remote technologies.

A prepublication copy of this contribution can be downloaded through: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353859136_The_Acceptance_of_Learning_Management_Systems_and_Video_Conferencing_Technologies_Lessons_Learned_from_COVID-19

Leave a comment

Filed under Conferencing Technologies, Education, education technology, Learning management systems, Remote Learning

The service quality and performance of higher education institutions

This is an excerpt from one of my latest articles that was published in the International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences.

Higher education service delivery and the students’ learning experiences

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are expected to adapt to ongoing developments in their macro and microenvironments as they are usually operating with budget constraints (Camilleri, 2019). They compete for funding and for student numbers in a global marketplace (OECD, 2019; Hägg and Schölin, 2018; Tian and Martin, 2014). Very often, they are using the corporate language as they formulate marketing plans, set objectives to control their resources, and are becoming customer-driven (Lynch, 2015; Sojkin, Bartkowiak and Skuza, 2012; Naidoo, Shankar and Veer, 2011; Ng and Forbes, 2009). The logic behind these managerial reforms is to improve the HEIs’ service quality and performance (Rutter, Roper and Lettice, 2016; Mourad, Ennew and Kortam, 2011; Abdullah. 2006a).

The challenge for HEI leaders is to identify their students’ and other stakeholders’ expectations on service quality. The consumers’ perceived service quality is defined as the degree and direction of discrepancy between their perceptions and expectations (Quinn et al., 2009; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Quality is distinguished from satisfaction, in that, the latter is assumed to involve specific transactions. As part of the conceptualization, expectations are viewed as desires or wants of consumers (Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman, 1993).

Parasuraman et al. (1988) measured the individuals’ perceptions and expectations about service quality. Their SERVQUAL scales assessed service quality in terms of tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy services (Brochado, 2009; Tan and Kek, 2004). In a similar vein, other authors noted that service quality comprises three significant dimensions; service processes, interpersonal factors, and physical evidence (Tsinidou, Gerogiannis and Fitsilis, 2010; Angell, Heffernan and Megicks, 2008; Oldfield and Baron, 2000). Notwithstanding, the HEIs’ physical evidence (that is associated with their tangible aspect) can also influence the students’ satisfaction levels (Wilkins and Balakrishnan, 2013; Ford, Joseph and Joseph, 1999).

The students are considered as the primary customers of tertiary education institutions (Quinn et al., 2009; Lomas, 2007; Snipes et al., 2005). Their expectations on the HEIs’ service performance plays a key role on their quality perceptions (Raaper, 2009; Brochado, 2009; Abdullah, 2006b; Hill, 1995). Students spend a considerable amount of time on campus, in lecture rooms, libraries, IT labs, canteens, sport grounds, et cetera (Hill, 1995). They will probably use the HEIs’ service facilities, technologies and equipment.

Ozkan and Kozeler (2009) maintained that the learners’ perceived satisfaction with higher education technologies is dependent on the quality of the instructors, the quality of the systems, information (content) quality and supportive issues. Hence, HEI leaders have to ensure that the tangible aspects of their higher educational services ought to be in good working order for the benefit of their users.

The provision of higher education services involves “person‐to‐person” interactions (Clemes et al., 2008; Solomon et al., 1985). The frontline employees (like faculty employees) can influence the degree of their consumers’ (or students’) satisfaction and experiences (Raaper, 2019; Ng and Forbes, 2009; Ford et al., 1999; Bitner et al., 1990). Both academic and administrative employees’ ability and willingness to deliver appropriate service quality will determine the students’ overall satisfaction with their higher education services (Tsinidou et al., 2010).

Oldfield and Baron (2000) contended that students rely on the non‐academic employees, including administrators and support staff, over whom the course management teams have no direct control. They pointed out that the students may not be interested in the HEIs’ organizational hierarchies, as they expect their employees to work in tandem. Therefore, the administrative employees should also communicate and liaise with the academic members of staff, to ensure that the students receive an appropriate quality of service. The course instructors should be evaluated in terms of their technical and interpersonal skills, consistency of performance and appearance (Camilleri, 2021; Angell et al., 2008).

Students want their lecturers to be knowledgeable, enthusiastic, approachable, and friendly (Voss, Gruber and Szmigin, 2007). The HEI leaders should be aware that their employees’ interactions with their students will have an effect on their satisfaction during their learning journey (Quinn et al., 2009). The members of staff represent their employer whenever they engage with students and other stakeholders (Voss et al., 2007). Therefore, HEI leaders ought to foster an organizational culture that represents the institutions’ shared values, beliefs, assumptions, attitudes and norms of behavior that bind employees to deliver appropriate service quality and the desired performance outcomes (Kollenscher, Popper and Ronen, 2018; Pedro, Mendes and Lourenço, 2018; Trivellas and Dargenidou, 2009; O’Neill and Palmer, 2004).

Measuring higher education service performance

The employees’ performance is usually evaluated against their HEIs’ priorities, commitments, and aims; by using relevant international benchmarks and targets (OECD, 2019; Brochado, 2009; Lo, 2009 O’Neill and Palmer, 2004). Generally, the academics are usually appraised on their research impact, teaching activities and outreach (Camilleri, 2021).

Their academic services, including their teaching, administrative support as well as the research and development (R&D) duties, all serve as performance indicators that can contribute to build the reputation and standing of their employer (Geuna and Martin, 2003). The university leaders should keep a track record about the age and distribution of their faculty members; diversity of students and staff, in terms of gender, ethnicity, race, et cetera.

In addition, their faculties could examine discipline-specific rankings; and determine the expenditures per academic member of staff, among other responsibilities (Camilleri, 2019). The quantitative metrics concerning the students’ performance may include their enrolment ratios, graduate rates, student drop-out rates, the students’ continuation of studies at the next academic level, and the employability index of graduates, among others (QS Rankin 2019; THE, 2019).

Moreover, qualitative indicators can also provide insightful data to HEIs on the students’ opinions and perceptions about their learning environment. HEIs could evaluate the students’ satisfaction with teaching; satisfaction with research opportunities and training; perceptions of international and public engagement opportunities; ease of taking courses across boundaries; and may also determine whether there are administrative and/or bureaucratic barriers for them (Kivisto, Pekkola and Lyytinen, 2017).

HEIs should regularly analyze their service quality and performance through financial and non-financial indicators (Camilleri, 2021; Lagrosen, Seyyed-Hashemi and Leitner, 2004). A relevant review of the literature suggests that the institutions ought to be evaluated on their organization; corporate governance, autonomy; accountability; system structures; resourcing and funding; consultation processes; digitalization; admission processes; student-centered education, internationalization; regional development; continuing education; lifelong learning qualifications; research, innovation and technology transfer; high impact publications, stakeholder engagement with business and industry; labour market relevance; collaborations with other HEIs and researcher centers; and quality assurance among other issues (OECD, 2019; EU, 2017; Lagrosen et al., 2004; O’Neill and Palmer, 2004; Cheng and Tam, 1997; Owlia and Aspinwall, 1996).

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) regularly reviews the current state of higher education systems in its member countries. Its benchmarking exercises are intended to scrutinize the performance of universities and colleges. OECD (2019) has used 24 domains to evaluate different aspects of the HEIs’ organizational performance. The following table features a list of 45 performance indicators that can be used to assess the HEIs’ resources and their key functions

qual HEI

There are different methodologies and key performance indicators that can be used to evaluate the service quality in higher education. The above metrics are used to compare the OECD countries’ HEI performance in terms of allocated resources, the provision of student-centered education, research and engagement. However, this scorecard and the quality of its outputs ought to be validated in different contexts.

There are other performance variables, including the pedagogical knowledge and experience of the course instructors, the HEIs’ working conditions, teaching methodologies and practices, the usage of education technologies, engagement with business and industry, et cetera, that were not featured in this scorecard. Perhaps, in reality it may prove difficult to measure qualitative issues. For instance, while HEIs may be willing to demonstrate their engagement with different stakeholders, currently, there are no mechanisms in place to monitor, report and assess their outreach activities.

The HEIs’ responsibility is to address the skill gaps and mismatches in their labor market (EU, 2017). The governments’ policy makers together with the HEI leaders need to address sector-specific skill shortages. Specifically, EU (2017) proposed that HEIs ought to: (i) better understand what skills are required by the prospective employers (ii) communicate to society, practitioners and policy-makers about what they are already doing to prepare graduates for the labor market; (iii) prepare students and influence their choice of study; and (iv) implement effective learning programs that rely on blended learning methodologies including traditional and digital learning approach.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2021). Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post COVID-19 outlook. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 13(2), 268-281. DOI: 10.1108/IJQSS-03-2020-0034

Leave a comment

Filed under Higher Education, Marketing, performance management

The Performance Management in Higher Education

This is an excerpt from my latest academic article, entitled; “Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education” that will be published in Sage’s “Management in Education” (Journal).


The higher education institutions (HEIs) are competing in a global marketplace, particularly those which are operating in the contexts of neoliberal policymaking (Fadeeva and Mochizuki, 2010; Deem et al., 2008; Olssen and Peters, 2005; Bleiklie, 2001). Several universities are characterized by their de-centralized leadership as they operate with budget constraints (Smeenk, Teelken, Eisinga and Doorewaard, 2008; Bleiklie, 2001). Notwithstanding, their stakeholders expect their increased accountability and quality assurance, in terms of their efficiency, economy and effectiveness (Witte and López-Torres, 2017; Smeek et al., 2008). Hence, HEIs set norms, standards, benchmarks, and quality controls to measure their performance; as they are increasingly market-led and customer-driven (Jauhiainen, Jauhiainen, Laiho and Lehto, 2015; Billing, 2004; Etzkowitz, et al., 2000). Specifically, the universities’ performance is having a positive effect on the economic development of societies; through the provision of inclusive, democratized access to quality education and high impact research (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006). Moreover, the educational institutions are also expected to forge strong relationships with marketplace stakeholders, including business and industry (Waring, 2013).

As a result, many universities have adapted, or are trying to adapt to the changing environment as they re-structure their organization and put more emphasis on improving their organizational performance. These developments have inevitably led to the emergence of bureaucratic procedures and processes (Jauhiainen et al., 2015).  HEIs have even started using the corporate language as they formulate plans, set objectives, and use performance management criteria to control their resources (Smeenk et al., 2008; Ball, 2003). For instance, the Finnish universities have introduced new steering mechanisms, including the performance systems in budgeting, organizational reforms, management methods and salary systems (Camilleri, 2018; Jauhiainen et al., 2015). Previously, Welch (2007) noted that HEIs were adopting new modes of governance, organizational forms, management styles, and values that were prevalent in the private business sector. The logic behind these new managerial reforms was to improve the HEIs’ value for money principles (Waring, 2013; Deem, 1998). Therefore, the financing of HEIs is a crucial element in an imperfectly competitive, quasi-market model (Marginson, 2013; Olssen and Peters, 2005; Enders, 2004; Dill, 1997).

Academic commentators frequently suggest that the managerial strategies, structures, and values that belong to the ‘private sector’ are leading to significant improvements in the HEIs’ performance (Waring, 2013; Teelken, 2012; Deem and Brehony, 2005; Deem, 1998). On the other hand, critics argue that the ‘managerial’ universities are focusing on human resource management (HRM) practices that affect the quality of their employees’ job performance (Smeenk et al., 2008). Very often, HEIs are employing bureaucratic procedures involving time-consuming activities that could otherwise have been invested in research activities and / or to enhance teaching programs. The HEIs’ management agenda is actually imposed on the academics’ norms of conduct and on their professional behaviors. Therefore, the universities’ leadership can affect the employees’ autonomies as they are expected to comply with their employers’ requirements (Deem and Brehony, 2005). Smeenk et al. (2008) posited that this contentious issue may lead to perennial conflicts between the employees’ values and their university leaders’ managerial values; resulting in lower organizational commitment and reduced productivities.

The HEIs’ managerial model has led to a shift in the balance of power from the academics to their leaders as the universities have developed quality assurance systems to monitor and control their academic employees’ performance (Camilleri, 2018; Cardoso, Tavares and Sin, 2015). This trend towards managerialism can be perceived as a lack of trust in the academic community. However, the rationale behind managerialism is to foster a performative culture among members of staff, as universities need to respond to increased competitive pressures for resources, competences and capabilities (Decramer et al., 2013; Marginson, 2006; 2001; Enders, 2004). These issues have changed the HEIs’ academic cultures and norms in an unprecedented way (Chou and Chan, 2016; Marginson, 2013).

HEIs have resorted to the utilization of measures and key performance indicators to improve their global visibility. Their intention is to raise their institutions’ profile by using metrics that measure productivity. Many universities have developed their own performance measures or followed frameworks that monitor the productivity of academic members of staff (Taylor and Baines, 2012). Very often, their objective is to audit their academic employees’ work. However, their work cannot always be quantified and measured in objective performance evaluations. For instance, Waring (2013) argued that academic employees are expected to comply with their employers’ performance appraisals (PAs) and their form-filling exercises. The rationale behind the use of PAs is to measure the employees’ productivity in the form of quantifiable performance criteria. Hence, the PA is deemed as a vital element for the evaluation of the employees’ performance (Kivistö et al., 2017; Dilts et al., 1994). The PA can be used as part of a holistic performance management approach that measures the academics’ teaching, research and outreach. This performance management tool can possibly determine the employees’ retention, promotion, tenure as well as salary increments (Subbaye, 2018; Ramsden, 1991).

Therefore, PAs ought to be clear and fair. Their administration should involve consistent, rational procedures that make use of appropriate standards. The management’s evaluation of the employees’ performance should be based on tangible evidence. In a similar vein, the employees need to be informed of what is expected from them (Dilts et al., 1994). They should also be knowledgeable about due processes for appeal arising from adverse evaluations, as well as on grievance procedures, if any (Author, 2018). In recent years; the value of the annual performance appraisals (PAs) has increasingly been challenged in favor of more regular ‘performance conversations’ (Aguinis, 2013; Herdlein, Kukemelk and Türk, 2008). Therefore, regular performance feedback or the frequent appraisal of employees still remain a crucial aspect of the performance management cycle. Pace (2015) reported that the PA was used to develop the employees’ skills, rather than for administrative decisions. In a similar vein, the University of Texas (2019) HR page suggests that the appraisers’ role is “to set expectations, gather data, and provide ongoing feedback to employees, to assist them in utilizing their skills, expertise and ideas in a way that produces results”. However, a thorough literature review suggests that there are diverging views among academia and practitioners on the role of the annual PA, the form it should take, and on its effectiveness in the realms of higher education (Herdlein et al., 2008; DeNisi and Pritchard, 2006).

The Performance Management Frameworks

The HEIs’ evaluative systems may include an analysis of the respective universities’ stated intentions, peer opinions, government norms and comparisons, primary procedures from ‘self-evaluation’ through external peer review. These metrics can be drawn from published indicators and ratings, among other frameworks (Billing, 2004).  Their performance evaluations can be either internally or externally driven (Cappiello and Pedrini, 2017). The internally driven appraisal systems put more emphasis on self-evaluation and self-regulatory activities (Baxter, 2017; Bednall, Sanders and Runhaar, 2014; Dilts et al., 1994). Alternatively, the externally driven evaluative frameworks may involve appraisal interviews that assess the quality of the employees’ performance in relation to pre-established criteria (DeNisi and Pritchard, 2006; Cederblom, 1982).

Many countries, including the European Union (EU) states have passed relevant legislation, regulatory standards and guidelines for the HEIs’ quality assurance (Baxter, 2017), and for the performance evaluations of their members of staff (Kohoutek et al., 2018; Cardoso et al., 2015; Bleiklie, 2001). Of course, the academic employees’ performance is usually evaluated against their employers’ priorities, commitments, and aims; by using relevant international benchmarks and targets (Lo, 2009). The academics are usually appraised on their research impact, teaching activities and outreach (QS Ranking, 2019; THE, 2019). Their academic services, including their teaching resources, administrative support, and research output all serve as performance indicators that can contribute to the reputation and standing of the HEI that employs them (Geuna and Martin, 2003).

Notwithstanding, several universities have restructured their faculties and departments to enhance their research capabilities. Their intention is to improve their institutional performance in global rankings (Lo, 2014). Therefore, HEIs recruit academics who are prolific authors that publish high-impact research with numerous citations in peer reviewed journals (Wood and Salt, 2018; Author, 2018). They may prefer researchers with scientific or quantitative backgrounds, regardless of their teaching experience (Chou and Chan, 2016). These universities are prioritizing research and promoting their academics’ publications to the detriment of university teaching. Thus, the academics’ contributions in key international journals is the predominant criterion that is used to judge the quality of academia (Billing, 2004). For this reason, the vast majority of scholars are using the English language as a vehicle to publish their research in reputable, high impact journals (Chou and Chan, 2016). Hence, the quantity and quality of their research ought to be evaluated through a number of criteria (Lo, 2014; 2011; Dill and Soo, 2005).

University ranking sites, including (THE) and the QS Rankings, among others, use performance indicators to classify and measure the quality and status of HEIs. This would involve the gathering and analysis of survey data from academic stakeholders. THE and QS, among others clearly define the measures, their relative weight, and the processes by which the quantitative data is collected (Dill and Soo, 2005). The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) relies on publication-focused indicators as 60 percent of its weighting is assigned to the respective university’s research output. Therefore, these university ranking exercises are surely affecting the policies, cultures and behaviors of HEIs and of their academics (Wood and Salt, 2018; De Cramer et al., 2013; Lo, 2013).  For instance, the performance indicators directly encourage the recruitment of international faculty and students. Other examples of quantitative metrics include the students’ enrolment ratios, graduate rates, student drop-out rates, the students’ continuation of studies at the next academic level, and the employability index of graduates, among others. Moreover, qualitative indicators can also provide insightful data on the students’ opinions and perceptions about their learning environment. The HEIs could evaluate the students’ satisfaction with teaching; satisfaction with research opportunities and training; perceptions of international and public engagement opportunities; ease of taking courses across boundaries, and may also determine whether there are administrative / bureaucratic barriers for them (Kivistö et al., 2017; Jauhiainen et al., 2015; Ramsden, 1991). Hence, HEIs ought to continuously re-examine their strategic priorities and initiatives. It is in their interest to regularly analyze their performance management frameworks through financial and non-financial indicators, in order to assess the productivity of their human resources. Therefore, they should regularly review educational programs and course curricula (Kohoutek et al., 2018; Brewer and Brewer, 2010). On a faculty level, the university leaders ought to keep a track record of changes in the size of departments; age and distribution of academic employees; diversity of students and staff, in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, et cetera. In addition, faculties could examine discipline-specific rankings; and determine the expenditures per academic member of staff, among other options (Author, 2018).

The balanced scorecard

The balanced scorecard (BSC) was first introduced by Kaplan and Norton (1992) in their highly cited article, entitled “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance”. BSC is an integrated results-oriented, performance management tool, consisting of financial and non-financial measures that link the organizations’ mission, core values, and vision for the future with strategies, targets, and initiatives that are designed to bring continuous improvements (Taylor and Baines, 2012; Wu, Lin and Chang, 2011; Beard, 2009; Umashankar and Dutta, 2007; Cullen, Joyce, Hassall and Broadbent, 2003; Kaplan and Norton, 1992). Its four performance indicators play an important role in translating strategy into action; and can be utilized to evaluate the performance of HEIs. BSC provides a balanced performance management system as it comprises a set of performance indices that can assess different organizational perspectives (Taylor and Baines, 2012). For BSC, the financial perspective is a core performance measure. However, the other three perspectives namely: customer (or stakeholder), organizational capacity and internal process ought to be considered in the performance evaluations of HEIs, as reported in the following table:

BSC Higher Education

The balanced scorecard approach in higher education

Cullen et al. (2003) suggested that the UK’s Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Scottish Funding Council (SHEFC), the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), as well as the Department for Employment and Learning (DELNI) have incorporated the BSC’s targets in their Research Excellence Framework. Furthermore, other HEI targets, including: the students’ completion rates, the research impact of universities, collaborative partnerships with business and industry, among others, are key metrics that are increasingly being used in international benchmarking exercises, like the European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), among others. Moreover, BSC can be used to measure the academic employees’ commitment towards their employer (Umashankar and Dutta, 2007; McKenzie, and Schweitzer, 2001). Notwithstanding, Wu, Lin and Chang (2011) contended that the BSC’s ‘‘organizational capacity’’ is related to the employee development, innovation and learning. Hence the measurement of the HEIs’ intangible assets, including their intellectual capital is affected by other perspectives, including the financial one (Taylor and Baines, 2012). This table summarizes some of the strengths and weaknesses of the balanced scorecard.

BSC

BSC is widely used to appraise the financial and non-financial performance of businesses and public service organizations including HEIs. Many HEI leaders are increasingly following business-like approaches as they are expected to operate in a quasi-market environment (Marginson, 2013). They need to scan their macro environment to be knowledgeable about the opportunities and threats from the political, economic, social and technological factors. Moreover, they have to regularly analyze their microenvironment by evaluating their strengths and weaknesses.  Hence, several HEIs are increasingly appraising their employees as they assess their performance on a regular basis. They may even decide to take remedial actions when necessary.  Therefore, BSC can also be employed by HEIs to improve their academic employees’ productivity levels (Marginson, 2013; 2000).


A pre-publication version of the full article is available through ResearchGate and Academia.edu.

Leave a comment

Filed under academia, Balanced Scorecard, Education, Education Leadership, Higher Education, Human Resources, human resources management, performance appraisals, performance management, University Ranking, webometrics

A SWOT Analysis of the Marketing Environment of Higher Education Institutions

This is an excerpt from a recent Working Paper.

How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Internationalization of Higher Education in a Competitive Marketing Environment. Working Paper 0506-2019, Department of Corporate Communication, University of Malta, Malta.


Strengths

  • Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) raise their financial capital requirements by charging tuition fees to full time, part time and distance learning students; Government-funded HEIs may provide free or reduced tuition fees;
  • Many international courses are taught in English; The English language has become an important lever for international student mobility (ICEF, 2017);
  • Several HEIs provide work-integrated education; they deliver pragmatic, application-oriented programs. The students are may be expected to undertake industry placements as part of their studies. Therefore work-integrated education (WIE) may be a component of the HEIs’ curriculum.
  • Work-integrated education supports students to become all-round professionals with an appropriate level of operational experience. It equips students with a thorough understanding of the business and industry’s operations. WIE would usually take place in an organizational context that is relevant to the students’ future employment prospects. At the same time, the students would obtain communicative and transferable skills that will be valuable for their development. The focus is to help them acquire a range of valuable generic abilities, including people-skills through interactions with peers, subordinates and supervisors. After their working period, the students will be in a position to apply the theories that they have learnt in real-life settings. Hence, students develop their knowledge and skills in a professional environment, whilst increasing the chances of their employability prospects (Kolb & Kolb, 2005);
  • HEIs are increasingly establishing international collaboration agreements with other educational institutions, across borders. They enable student exchange programs and field trips. The classroom teaching is enriched with student exchanges and field trips that provide students relevant on-the-job training;
  • HEIs are building their alumni networks over the years. Many of their students have become business and industry professionals.
  • HEIs are often engaging with business and industry as they provide their consultancy and research services;
  • HEIs offer Executive Development Programs to industry practitioners, allowing them to update their skills, and to broaden their knowledge.

Weaknesses

  • Many HEIs are not managed as profitable organizations;
  • HEIs’ academic employees may become members in trade unions. The unions can use their bargaining power on the university’s administration;
  • HEIs can be slow to respond to the ongoing changes in the business and industry. They may need to adapt their curricula and courses to better meet the prospective employers’ requirements;
  • The HEIs’ academic members of staff may have long contact hours with their students (when compared to other institutions);
  • The HEIs’ academia are not always publishing adequate and sufficient research (when compared to other institutions);
  • The HEIs’ prospective students may be attracted to competitive institutions who are offering cheaper tuition fees. The international prospects will consider the HEIs’ locations and their living expenses;
  • The HEIs’ international marketing efforts may be focusing on limited catchment areas. They may be overlooking promising markets (Constantinides & Zinck Stagno, 2011).

Opportunities

  • HEIs may use educational technology to improve their students’ experience. Educational technologies could enhance the quality of online courses, particularly those that are offered to part-time, or distance learning students;
  • HEIs can utilize blogs, RSS feeds, podcasts, wikis, electronic fora, webinars, et cetera to reach their target audiences. They may use social media and word of mouth marketing by communicating student testimonials, online reviews and ratings, in order to attract students from different markets;
  • HEIs could incentivize their educators and researchers to participate in academic conferences and to publish their work in highly-indexed journals;
  • The setting up of research (or special interest) groups could improve collaboration and teamwork among the HEIs’ members of staff;
  • HEIs’ academics should be encouraged to become members in editorial boards of leading journals;
  • HEIs can offer high-level consultancy and professional advisory services to private and public organizations;
  • HEIs may organize international conferences and fora that can be used as a platform for insightful exchange amongst academics, industry practitioners and tourism policy-makers;
  • HEIs can engage with alumni by involving them in social events, webinars and continuous professional development programs;
  • Industry professionals can be invited to speak to students on specific subject lectures. These experts may help students gain a deeper understanding of the industry;
  • HEIs’ academia should be encouraged to share their research expertise with business and industry to pioneer developments. They should promote their research outputs (Duque, 2014; Parameswaran & Glowacka, 1995). Relevant research can enhance industry performance and influence policy making;
  • HEIs can extend collaborative agreements in many areas, with reputable education institutions;
  • HEIs can obtain quality assurance and accreditations from international awarding bodies, for their educational programs. The recognition of their courses would necessitate a thorough assessment of their leadership, curriculum programs and skills, assessment methods, project work, student placements, student support, feedback and resources, et cetera;
  • The HEIs’ international admissions pages should evidence their ‘global perspective’ and could highlight their extensive range of services they offer to international students. For example, their course prospectus should be available in different languages;
  • There is an increased demand for higher education from mature students as the concept of life-long learning is being promoted in developing and advanced economies;
  • There are still untapped markets in Asia where students can’t access quality education at home. There is a business case to attract students from Africa as the continent’s youth population is rising (British Council, 2018);
  • The HEIs’ international students could be used as brand ambassadors and should be featured in their digital media;
  • HEIs may be supported by student scholarships (from governments, foundations or NGOs) and sponsorships that may be donated by industry partners.

Threats

  • Many HEIs’ national governments have already decreased (or cut) their public funding to HEIs (Estermann, 2017; Estermann, Nokkala & Steinel, 2011; Hoecht, 2006; Maton, 2005). Therefore, HEIs may have to raise their capital requirements through tuition fees and fund-raising activities;
  • There is a very competitive environment (in the global market). HEIs are increasingly targeting international students from many markets;
  • Many countries (including developing economies) have improved (or are improving) their educational systems. However, there may be students who decide to go abroad because they believe that there is neither capacity nor high-quality education at their home country (ICEF, 2017);
  • The ageing populations in many parts of the world, their greater life expectancies, coupled with lower fertility rates, means that populations in many countries are getting older. At the same time, the 15-to-24-year-old cohorts are shrinking. This key college-aged demographic will peak in Asia somewhere around 2020. Then it will start a gradual decline from that high point (British Council, 2018);
  • There may be political, socio-cultural and legal factors affecting the marketing of HEIs. International students may face travel restrictions. Rigorous travel formalities including the issuance of national visas and immigration policies, can affect the students choice of their prospective HEI;
  • Reduced scholarships and student exchange programs from foreign governments can have an impact on the number of students who may afford international mobility;
  • A growing number of Asian students are choosing to stay within their own region to study, and students from other countries – including African nations– are adding Asian destinations to their list of attractive options. Asian countries, including China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia, among others, are increasing their capacity to absorb international students. Students and families are placing more emphasis on value, and on the return on investment from overseas education. Therefore, students may opt to study close to their home;
  • There are growing indications that major employers are placing less emphasis on reputable HEIs and their brand identities (ICEF, 2017).

References (of the full paper)

Altbach,P.G. 2004.Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management,10(1): 3-25.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. 2009. Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. A Report for UNESCO World Conference of Higher Education. http://www.cep.edu.rs/public/Altbach,_Reisberg,_Rumbley_Tracking_an_Academic_Revolution,_UNESCO_2009.pdf accessed 20th February, 2018.

Beine, M., Noël, R., & Ragot, L. 2014. Determinants of the international mobility of students. Economics of Education review, 41: 40-54.

Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, P. R., & Fahy, J. 1993. Sustainable competitive advantage in service industries: a conceptual model and research propositions. The Journal of Marketing, 57(4): 83-99.

Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. 2003. International marketing of British education: research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(5): 318-327.

British Council. 2018. International student mobility to 2027: Local investment, global outcomes. https://ei.britishcouncil.org/educationintelligence/ei-feature-international-student-mobility-2027-local-investment-global-outcome (accessed 17th February, 2018).

Budde-Sung, A. E. 2011. The increasing internationalization of the international business classroom: Cultural and generational considerations. Business Horizons, 54(4): 365-373.

Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2017). Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(1), 65-82.

Constantinides, E., & Zinck Stagno, M. C. 2011. Potential of the social media as instruments of higher education marketing: a segmentation study. Journal of marketing for higher education, 21(1): 7-24.

Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of marketing, 56(3):55-68.

Doque, L. C. 2014. A framework for analysing higher education performance: students’ satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25(1-2): 1-21.

Estermann, T. 2017. Why university autonomy matters more than ever. University World News, (454), http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170404132356742 (Accessed 28th February, 2018).

Estermann, T., Nokkala, T., & Steinel, M. 2011. University autonomy in Europe II. The Scorecard. Brussels: European University Association. http://agir-ups.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/University_Autonomy_in_Europe_II_-_The_Scorecard.sflb_.pdf (Accessed 28th February, 2018).

EUA 2017. EUA calls on governments to refrain from interference in university autonomy. http://www.eua.be/activities-services/news/newsitem/2017/04/03/eua-calls-on-governments-to-refrain-from-interference-in-university-autonomy (Accessed 26th February, 2018).

Friga, P.N., Bettis, R.A. & Sullivan, R.S. 2003. Changes. In graduate management education and new business school strategies for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(3): 233—249

Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. 2010. Exploring SWOT analysis–where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of strategy and management, 3(3): 215-251.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. 2006. Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of public sector management, 19(4): 316-338.

Hoecht, A. 2006. Quality assurance in UK higher education: Issues of trust, control, professional autonomy and accountability. Higher Education, 51(4): 541—563.

ICEF 2017. Mapping the trends that will shape international student mobility. http://monitor.icef.com/2017/07/mapping-trends-will-shape-international-student-mobility/ (Accessed 28th February, 2018).

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. 2005. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(2): 193-212.

Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. 1995. Strategic marketing for educational institutions. New York, USA: Prentice Hall.

Lee, J. T. 2014. Education hubs and talent development: Policy- making and implementation challenges. Higher Education, 68(6): 807—823.

Marginson, S. 2006. Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1): 1-39.

Maton, K. 2005. A question of autonomy: Bourdieu’s field approach and higher education policy. Journal of education policy, 20(6): 687-704.

Mazzarol, T. 1998. Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 12(4): 163-175.

Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. 2002. “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2): 82-90.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. 2011. Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA, USA: Cengage Learning.

Parameswaran, R., & Glowacka, A. E. 1995. University image: An information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2): 41-56.

Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. 2016. Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons, 59(3): 311-320.

Russell, M. 2005. Marketing education: A review of service quality perceptions among international students. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(1): 65-77.

Schofield, C., Cotton, D., Gresty, K., Kneale, P., & Winter, J. 2013. Higher education provision in a crowded marketplace. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(2): 193-205.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Higher Education, Marketing

Measuring the Academic Impact of Higher Education Institutions and Research Centres

uni

Although research impact metrics can be used to evaluate individual academics, there are other measures that could be used to rank and compare academic institutions. Several international ranking schemes for universities use citations to estimate the institutions’ impact. Nevertheless, there have been ongoing debates about whether bibliometric methods should be used for the ranking of academic institutions.

The most productive universities are increasingly enclosing the link to their papers online. Yet, many commentators argue that hyperlinks could be unreliable indicators of journal impact (Kenekayoro, Buckley & Thelwall, 2014; Vaughan & Hysen, 2002). Notwithstanding, the web helps to promote research funding initiatives and to advertise academic related jobs. The webometrics could also monitor the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas (Thelwall, Klitkou, Verbeek, Stuart & Vincent, 2010).

Moreover, there are other uses of webometric indicators in policy-relevant contexts within the European Union (Thelwall et al., 2010; Hoekman, Frenken & Tijssen, 2010). The webometrics refer to the quantitative analysis of web activity, including profile views and downloads (Davidson, Newton, Ferguson, Daly, Elliott, Homer, Duffield & Jackson, 2014). Therefore, webometric ranking involves the measurement of volume, visibility and impact of web pages. These metrics seem to emphasise on scientific output including peer-reviewed papers, conference presentations, preprints, monographs, theses and reports. They also analyse other academic material including courseware, seminar documentation, digital libraries, databases, multimedia, personal pages and blogs among others (Thelwall, 2009; Kousha & Thelwall, 2015; Mas-Bleda, Thelwall, Kousha & Aguillo, 2014a; Mas-Bleda, Thelwall, Kousha & Aguillo, 2014b; Orduna-Malea & Ontalba-Ruipérez, 2013). Thelwall and Kousha (2013) have identified and explained the methodology of five well-known institutional ranking schemes:

  • “QS World University Rankings aims to rank universities based upon academic reputation (40%, from a global survey), employer reputation (10%, from a global survey), faculty-student ratio (20%), citations per faculty (20%, from Scopus), the proportion of international students (5%), and the proportion of international faculty (5%).
  • The World University Rankings: aims to judge world class universities across all of their core missions – teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook by using the Web of Science, an international survey of senior academics and self-reported data. The results are based on field-normalised citations for five years of publications (30%), research reputation from a survey (18%), teaching reputation (15%), various indicators of the quality of the learning environment (15%), field-normalised publications per faculty (8%), field-normalised income per faculty (8%), income from industry per faculty (2.5%); and indicators for the proportion of international staff (2.5%), students (2.5%), and internationally co-authored publications (2.5%, field-normalised).
  • The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) aims to rank the “world top 500 universities” based upon the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index – Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an institution.
  • The CWTS Leiden Ranking aims to measure “the scientific performance” of universities using bibliometric indicators based upon Web of Science data through a series of separate size- and field-normalised indicators for different aspects of performance rather than a combined overall ranking. For example, one is “the proportion of the publications of a university that, compared with other publications in the same field and in the same year, belong to the top 10% most frequently cited” and another is “the average number of citations of the publications of a university, normalised for field differences and publication year.”
  • The Webometrics Ranking of World Universities Webometrics Ranking aims to show “the commitment of the institutions to [open access publishing] through carefully selected web indicators”: hyperlinks from the rest of the web (1/2), web site size according to Google (1/6), and the number of files in the website in “rich file formats” according to Google Scholar (1/6), but also the field-normalised number of articles in the most highly cited 10% of Scopus publications (1/6)” (Thelwall & Kousha, 2013).

Evidently, the university ranking systems use a variety of factors in their calculations, including their web presence, the number of publications, the citations to publications and peer judgements (Thelwall and Kousha, 2013; Aguillo, Bar-Ilan, Levene, & Ortega, 2010). These metrics typically reflect a combination of different factors, as shown above. Although they may have different objectives, they tend to give similar rankings. It may appear that the universities that produce good research also tend to have an extensive web presence, perform well on teaching-related indicators, and attract many citations (Matson et al., 2003).

On the other hand, the webometrics may not necessarily provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact. In contrast to citation analysis, the quality of webometric indicators is not high unless irrelevant content is filtered out, manually. Moreover, it may prove hard to interpret certain webometric indicators as they could reflect a range of phenomena ranging from spam to post publication material. Webometric analyses can support science policy decisions on individual fields. However, for the time being, it is difficult to tackle the issue of web heterogeneity in lower field levels (Thelwall & Harries, 2004; Wilkinson, Harries, Thelwall & Price, 2003). Moreover, Thelwall et al., (2010) held that webometrics would not have the same relevance for every field of study. It is very likely that fast moving or new research fields could not be adequately covered by webometric indicators due to publication time lags. Thelwall et al. (2010) argued that it could take up to two years to start a research and to have it published. This would therefore increase the relative value of webometrics as research groups can publish general information online about their research.

This is an excerpt from: Camilleri, M.A. (2016) Utilising Content Marketing and Social Networks for Academic Visibility. In Cabrera, M. & Lloret, N. Digital Tools for Academic Branding and Self-Promotion. IGI Global (Forthcoming).

Leave a comment

Filed under Higher Education, Marketing, University Ranking, webometrics

The EU’s directive on the disclosure of non-financial information

eu

On the 29th September 2014, the European Council has introduced amendments to Accounting Directive (2013/34/EU) that mandates corporate business to disclose their non-financial performance. The EU Commission proposed non-binding guidelines on the details of what non-financial information ought to be disclosed by big businesses operating from by EU countries. This legislation respects environmental, human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters as expressed in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the “Ruggie Principles”) and OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (ECCJ, 2014).

This recent EU directive has marked a step forward towards the hardening of human rights obligations for large “public interest entities” with more than 500 employees. At the moment there are approximately 6,000 large undertakings and groups across the EU. Public interest entities include all the undertakings that are listed on an EU stock exchange, as well as some credit institutions, insurance undertakings and other businesses so designated by Member States.

In a nutshell, these non-financial disclosures should shed light on the corporate businesses’ social and environmentally responsible policies and practices. They will feature a brief description of the undertaking’s business model, including their due diligence processes resulting from their impact of their operations. This EU directive encourages corporates to use relevant non-financial key performance indicators on environmental matters including; greenhouse gas emissions, water and air pollution, the use of (non) renewable energy and on health and safety.

With regards to social and employee related matters, the corporate firms ought to implement ILO conventions that promote fair working conditions for employees. The corporate disclosure of non-financial information can include topics such as; social dialogue with stakeholders, information and consultation rights, trade union rights, health and safety and gender equality among other issues. Businesses should also explain how they are preventing human rights abuses and/or fighting corruption and bribery.

Through this directive the EU commission emphasises materiality and transparency in non financial reporting. It also brought up the subject of diversity at the corporate board levels. It has outlined specific reference criteria that may foster wider diversity in the composition of boards (e.g. age, gender, educational and professional background). The EU Commission has even suggested that this transparency requirement complements the draft directive about women on boards.

This new directive still allows a certain degree of flexibility in the disclosures’ requirements. As a matter of fact, it does not require undertakings to have policies covering all CSR matters. Yet, businesses need to provide a clear and reasoned explanation for not complying with this directive. Therefore, non-financial disclosures do not necessarily require comprehensive reporting on CSR matters (although this is encouraged by the Commission), but only the disclosure of information on policies, outcomes and risks (ECCJ, 2014). Moreover, this directive gives undertakings the option to rely on international, European or national frameworks (eg. the UN Global Compact, ISO 26000) in the light of the undertaking’s characteristics and business environment.

It is envisaged that the first CSR reports will be published in financial year 2017 (ECCJ, 2014).

Links:

http://ec.europa.eu/finance/accounting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm

Click to access eccj-assessment-eu-non-financial-reporting-may-2104.pdf

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-301_en.htm?locale=en
 

1 Comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

Re-conceiving Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility for Education

employees

(This contribution also appeared on CSRwire)

During their learning journey, individuals acquire knowledge and skills that ought to be relevant for their prospective employment. The provision of their education is the responsibility of national governments. Yet, business and industry seldom offer continuous professional development and training to their human resources that supplement formal education (although they are rarely involved in setting outcomes of curriculum programmes). Very often, companies have to respond to challenging issues such as skill mismatches where candidates lack certain competencies that may be too deep to bridge through corporate training courses. Perhaps, global businesses may compensate to a certain extent as they can shift their operations elsewhere to tap more qualified employees. However, the constraints on their growth can be halted by the broad impact of inadequate education and training in some industries or regions. Therefore, corporations may possibly become a key player in addressing unmet needs in education. Several companies have the resources and the political influence to help improve educational outcomes which will in turn help them to nurture local talent. Leading businesses are already devising Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility (CSR) programmes that are actively supporting education across many contexts:

For instance; Cisco (a provider of networking equipment), has created more than 10,000 networking academies in 165 countries. 4.75 million individuals have improved their employment prospects as they attended training to become network administrators. At the same time, these individuals have increased the demand for Cisco’s equipment. Similarly, SAP and Verizon have often partnered with local universities and education institutions in order to deliver courses, career coaching and customised degrees on site for employees. The companies have discovered that employees that pursue such programmes are more likely to remain loyal to their company. Naturally, it is in the interest of employees to attend educational programmes that may ultimately lead to their career progression and better prospects. Moreover, continuous professional development and training may considerably reduce high employee turnover. Interestingly, SAP employs people with autism in technology-focused roles. In doing so, SAP concentrates on these individuals’ unique strengths. This way, the company can gain access to a wider pool of untapped talent that will help to foster a climate of creativity and innovation. In a similar vein, Intel has also invested in training programmes and partnerships that strengthen education. The company has recognised that its business growth is constrained by a chronic shortage of talent in science, technology, engineering, and maths (STEM) disciplines. Through programmes like Intel Math and Intel Teach, the global multinational has delivered instructional materials, online resources, and professional development tools for hundreds of thousands of educators across the United States. The students’ have acquired STEM and other 21st century skills, including critical thinking with data as well as scientific inquiry. This is a relevant example of a corporate business that has successfully addressed its workforce needs. Intel has recognised specific skill gaps in its central areas like technology and engineering. Accordingly, the company has committed itself for further investment in education. The company has created higher education curricula in demand areas like microelectronics, nanotechnology, security systems and entrepreneurship. Undoubtedly, Intel’s efforts affected millions of US students. At the same time, the company has increased its productivity and competitiveness. In addition, there are many big businesses that contribute in stewardship, charitable and philanthropic causes. In the past, the GE Foundation has supported systemic improvements in urban school districts that were close to GE’s business. These investments have surely helped to close the interplay between corporate sustainability and responsibility (CSR) and corporate philanthropy, while strengthening GE’s long-term talent pipeline.

In a nutshell, this contribution redefines the private sector’s role in the realms of education. It posits that there are win-win opportunities for companies and national governments as they cultivate human capital. Indeed, companies can create synergistic value for both business and society. In the main, such a strategic approach can result in new business models and cross-sector collaborations that will inevitably lead to operational efficiencies, cost savings and significant improvements to the firms’ bottom lines. Notwithstanding, the businesses’ involvement in setting curricula may also help to improve the effectiveness of education systems in many contexts. Businesses can become key stakeholders in this regard. Their CSR programmes can reconnect their economic success with societal progress.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Education, Marketing

Embedding Formative Assessments in Curriculum Frameworks

assessment

Educators who regularly engage in student-oriented approaches will inevitably need to adapt to different pupils’ needs, abilities, interests and learning styles. Nowadays there is adequate and sufficient evidence which suggests that educators who supplement or replace lectures with active learning strategies are improving their students’ learning and knowledge retention. At the same time, the students will become motivated as they participate in the discovery and scientific processes. Recent, academic studies have shown that educators are increasingly resorting to student-centred assessment approaches, including: Active Learning, Collaborative Learning, Inquiry-based Learning, Cooperative Learning, Problem-based Learning, Peer Led Team Learning, Team-based Learning and Peer Instruction among other methodologies. Therefore, educators are expected to identify their students’ learning needs and respond to them. Yet, they should also measure the progress of their pupils in their learning journey. This article maintains that (summative) assessments are a classic way of measuring student progress. Assessments are integral to the schools’ quality assurance, syllabi and curriculum programmes. In a similar way, such forms of tracking individuals’ performance and their progress are also applied in workplace environments by many employers. However this is only part of the story. To be truly meaningful and effective, assessments should also be “formative”. Educators may use tools and activities which are embedded in the on-going curriculum to garner students’ feedback at key points in the learning process.

Interestingly, educators are moving away from the conventional teacher-centred methodologies as they are enhancing their interaction with students. Formative assessments respond to the pupils’ individual learning needs as the educators are making frequent, appraisals of their students’ understanding. This enables them to adapt their teaching to meet the students’ requirements, and to better help everyone reach high standards of excellence. Educators ought to involve their students in their learning journey. This helps them to develop key knowledge, skills and competences that enable their intellectual growth. Nevertheless, although the educators seem to be incorporating various aspects of formative assessment into their teaching, it is less common to find it practiced in a systematic manner. Formative assessments are often present within individual teachers’ frameworks. It may appear that some of the emerging educational approaches are setting up learning situations as students’ are guided toward their learning goals. These approaches seem to be re-defining student success. To my mind, formative assessments are highly effective in raising the level of student attainment, as they are likely to increase the equity of student outcomes.  Formative assessments entice the students’ curiosity in the subject, as well as improving the students’ ability and aptitude to learn. Such student-centred methodologies emphasise the process of teaching and learning, as they involve students in their own educational process. It also builds students’ skills during peer and self-assessments, and help them develop a range of effective learning strategies. Students who are actively involved in building their understanding of new concepts (rather than merely absorbing information) and who are learning to judge their own quality and of their peers – are developing invaluable skills for lifelong learning. As a proponent of active learning my formative assessment strategies often feature role-playing, debating, student engagement in case studies, active participation in cooperative learning and the like. Such teaching approaches can be utilised to create a context of material, where learners work collaboratively. Needless to say, the degree of my involvement while students are being “active” may vary according to the specific task and its context in a teaching unit. Of course, there are different approaches to gauge students’ comprehension of what has been taught. A non-exhaustive list of formative assessment strategies can include:

  • Questioning strategies: During classroom interactions, students may be asked challenging questions. Questions often reveal student misconceptions. Questions can be embedded in lesson plans. Asking questions often gives me an opportunity for deeper thinking and provides me with significant insights into the degree and depth of student understanding. Questions will inevitably engage students in classroom dialogue that both uncovers and expands learning.
  • Criteria and goal setting: Students need to understand and know the learning targets / goals and the criteria for reaching them. Establishing and defining quality work together, asking students to participate in establishing norms and behaviours for classroom culture, and determining what should be included in criteria for success are all examples of such a strategy. Using student work, classroom tests, or exemplars of what is expected will help students understand where they are, where they need to be, and an effective process for getting there.
  • Observations assist teachers in gathering evidence of student learning to inform instructional planning. This evidence can be recorded and used as constructive feedback for students about their learning curve.
  • Self and peer assessments help to create a learning community within a classroom. Students will learn as they are engaged in metacognitive thinking. When students are involved in criteria and goal setting, self-evaluation is a logical step forward in the learning process. With peer evaluation, students see each other as valuable resources for checking each other’s quality work against previously established criteria.
  • Student record keeping helps students better understand their own learning as evidenced by their classroom work. This process of students keeping on-going records of their work will help reflect on their learning journey, as they examine the progress they are making toward their learning goals.
  • Portfolios, logbooks and rubrics: These instruments are widely used to provide an opportunity for written dialogues with students. Such tools help educators to evaluate the quality of their students’ work. On the other hand, students will use rubrics to judge their own work, and improve upon it.

Without doubt, there may be still some perceived tensions among stakeholders about formative assessments and summative tests. Education institutions have to be accountable for student achievement. They guide students to satisfy the requirements of their curriculum programmes. There may be a lack of consistency and coherence in policies between assessments and evaluations at both the institutional and classroom levels.  And there are different attitudes among educators about formative assessments. Perhaps, on-going assessments may be considered too resource-intensive and time-consuming to be practical. Educators are often faced with extensive curriculum and reporting requirements as they are often teaching to larger classes.

The right assessment systems foster constructive cultures of evaluation. Formative assessments are likely to help in promoting reforms for student-centred education. Ideally, information gathered through assessments and evaluation processes can be used to shape strategies for continuous improvement at each level of our education system. In classrooms, educators can possibly gather information on student understanding. Consequentially, this enables them to adjust their instruction to meet students’ identified learning needs. In conclusion, this contribution suggests that the locus of emerging educational strategies is pushing toward a proactive engagement in student-centred learning theories, where the student is placed at the very centre of the educator’s realms.

Also featured on the Times of Malta on the 27th October 2013.

Dr Mark Anthony Camilleri lectures at the University of Malta.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Economic Growth Correlates with Investment in Education

index

TimesofMalta.com

Now more than ever, today’s employees need to possess adequate skills and knowledge to enable them to perform a wider range of tasks and functions within their organisational contexts. The labour market has to become flexible and adaptable to the continuously changing market environment. Moreover, the educational institutions’ investments in curriculum development will help to provide incentives for individuals to commit resources to their careers. Many academic studies have shown that economic growth is increasingly correlated to the effectiveness of the countries’ educational policies and their related curriculum development programmes (OECD, 2012). Educators should ensure that their policies, systems and reforms contribute to the supply of well-skilled people for the labour market. Prospective students of continuous professional development programmes and of higher education courses may be new entrants (school leavers), people continuing to expand their existing knowledge and skills in their workplace or job seekers registering for employment. On the other hand, lower social capital investments can impact on a country’s economic growth prospects as well as on its productivity levels and competitiveness. This may translate in serious negative effects for the individual’s well-being as well as for the cohesiveness of society.

For instance, entrepreneurship programmes in post-secondary or tertiary institutions are usually based on multiple-skills approaches. Students who follow such courses acquire key competences in creativity, innovation as they enhance their business acumen. In addition, they usually develop their social skills, particularly if they work in groups. Students can learn how to work collaboratively in a team environment. Educators should try to adopt student-centred approaches, including case studies, active participation in cooperative learning, exercises such as role-playing, debating, and the like. In fact, assessments of entrepreneurship studies may also involve the delivery of a sales pitch and the drawing-up of a business plan. Both of these tasks can be carried out in groups of three or four students. Ideally, students should also demonstrate their written communications skills. They may be required to produce media releases which feature their unique selling proposition(s) to their chosen markets. Such methodologies may possibly entice students’ curiosity and motivation in the subject. In the process, the students will also learn how to work in tandem as they develop their interpersonal skills.

0511-0902-1815-5717_Group_of_Business_People_at_a_Think_Tank_Meeting_clipart_image.jpg 

In a similar vein, successful entrepreneurs also have to work closely with people. Perhaps, it is critical for business owners (including micro-enterprises) to foster great relationships with employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, investors and more. It goes without saying that some individuals may exhibit higher interpersonal traits than others, but others can learn and improve upon their existing skills. As prospective entrepreneurs, the students are expected to come up with fresh, innovative ideas, and make good decisions in their projects. Arguably, creativity, problem solving and recognising opportunities in the marketplace are some of the specific skills that may be acquired. However, it is important that the students’ decisions are based on relevant market research. The entrepreneurship programme will have to provide practical skills and knowledge to enable the student to produce effective goods or services in a profitable manner. One of the learning outcomes of this subject is to help students to set their goals and to create good plans to achieve them. Afterwards, the students can proceed with the organisation, leadership and implementation of their project. The students’ multi-skills will help them leverage themselves and to achieve a competitive advantage over others.

 

The theoretical aspect of the entrepreneurship studies teaches students how to develop coherent, well thought-through business plans. The students acquire sufficient knowledge of the main functional areas of business (sales, marketing, finance, and operations). In addition, the students are taught how entrepreneurs raise their capital. They will also learn about financial projections and how to determine the break-even point of their projects.

 

Indeed, the entrepreneurship studies focus on developing the students’ potential skills. Throughout such pragmatic educational programmes, the students will have to use their abilities and talents to operate resources or to manage others with a reasonable degree of confidence and motivation.  The students who are successful in their entrepreneurship studies nurture their skills, knowledge and competences. This contribution suggests that multi-skilling approaches in education can bring increased competitiveness and productivity in the labour market.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Contemporary Pedagogical Philosophies

“Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself” (Dewey, 1897).

education

 

Introduction

Education equips individuals with the right skills, substantive knowledge and competences to pursue their own goals. It enables them to become an integral part of the community as fully-fledged, autonomous citizens. In its broadest sense, education is a means of “social continuity of life” (Dewey, 1916:3). Even Plato in ‘the republic’ inquires about morality and the good life. He posits that human beings should be active within their community. The Greek philosopher maintained that every aspect of our life creates ‘harmonious people’. He went on to say that morals and ethics are part of an even balance of wisdom, courage, and restraint.

The main philosophical thoughts and the theoretical underpinnings of education are important social domains which have attracted the interest of many philosophers for thousands of years. For instance, Socrates floated his idea that knowledge is a matter of recollection, not of learning, observation or study (Dillon, 2004). Pertinent literature review suggests that education is a transmission of knowledge. Education fosters enquiry and reasoning skills that are conducive to the development of autonomy (Phillips, 2009). The question of learning and how the educative systems work relate to individual capacities and potentialities. Of course, the processes (and stages) of human development are shaped by many factors. Individuals experience different environmental contexts and settings. Their home country also possesses its own features, which often transcend from norms, traditions and cultures. The institutions of education should adapt their curricula to align themselves to the particular social fabric. Consequentially, the background of students as well as their educational environments (in which they are placed) ought to be carefully considered. For instance, Dewey advocated that human beings should be categorised into classes. He compared individuals to organisms situated in a biological and social environment, where problems are constantly emerging, forcing the individual to reflect and act, and then learn (Reed, and Widger, 2008).

Individuals can improve upon their existing knowledge as they reflect upon their actions, whether they are at school or in their work phase. Students are individuals with their own trails of growth. Teachers and employers are there to guide and facilitate this growth. The educators’ duties and responsibilities are to help in the academic (and non-curriculum) development of students in their learning journey. Dewey’s educational theories suggest that education and learning are social and interactive processes, and thus the school itself is a social institution through which social reform can and should take place (Dewey, 1916). In addition, the author believed that students thrive in an environment where they are allowed to experience and interact with their curriculum.Essentially, Dewey suggested that all students should be given the opportunity to take part in their own learning experience. Apparently, this approach focuses on the needs of students, rather than of all those involved in the educational process. The discourse revolving around student-centred pedagogy was also replicated in subsequent years by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. This perspective has many implications for the design of courses. In the student-oriented approach, the educator adapts to the pupils’ needs, abilities, interests, and learning styles.

Educators use more than one theory of teaching as they may be capable of wearing different hats with their students. They act as students’ philosophers, advisers, counsellors, motivators, demonstrators, curriculum planners, evaluators and the list goes on. Bloom (1956) has classified three types of objectives: Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor. Similarly, Tolman (1951) put forth the notion that there are three parts to learning which work together as a gestalt. These are the “significant” goals of behaviour, the “sign” or the signal for action, and “means-end relations” which were internal processes and relationships. The author believed that  learning is an accumulation of these sign gestalts, and that they can be configured into cognitive maps. The input from the environment is on-going, and it influences behaviour, in that it causes certain gestalts to be selected or not. In this sense, learning is unique to each and every individual.

Beyond the notions of behaviourism, constructivism and the relevant theories and styles, the literature review in this field of study suggests that learning is a process of active engagement as an individual and in social contexts. Recently, the latest shift in educational discourse had been the distancing away from the conception of “learner as a sponge” (Maillet and Maisonneuve, 2011) toward an image of learner as an active construct. Although Dewey reminded us that learners were not empty vessels, education in many jurisdictions was usually based on teacher-centred approaches (Cuban, 1993). Evidently, there was an erroneous assumption that if teachers speak clearly and students are motivated, learning will be successful. When the students do not learn, the logic is that they are not paying attention, or they do not care. These conceptions may have been grounded in a theory of learning that focused on behaviour. Behavioural-learning theorists maintained that if teachers acted in a certain manner, students will react in particular ways. Central to this notion of behaviourism was the idea of conditioning, where the individuals are trained to respond to stimuli. Eventually, the “cognitive revolution” in psychology put the mind back into the learning process (Miller, 1956).

Behavioural psychology (based on factual and procedural rules) has given way to cognitive psychology (based on models for making sense of real life experiences (Lesh and Lamon 1992:18). Kandel and Hawkins (1992) maintained that the brain actively seeks new stimuli in the environment from which to learn and that the mind changes through use. Learning changes the structure of the brain (Bransford et al., 2000). Research suggests that young learners from a tender age – make sense of the world by actively creating meaning while they are reading texts. They construct their perceptions of social reality by interacting with their surrounding environment, or simply by talking to their peers. Even if students are quietly observing their teacher, they can be actively engaged in a process of active learning and understanding. This cognitive turn in psychology is often referred to as the constructivist approach to learning.

 

Teaching Philosophies

Overall, a statement of teaching philosophy should provide a personal portrait of the writer’s view of teaching. The narrative description of one’s conception of teaching as well’s as one’s rationale and justification for how one teaches and why, may be expressed in a variety of ways (Lyons, 1998). The overarching question in a statement of teaching philosophy is: Why am I teaching? Other relevant questions which follow are: What are my teaching goals and objectives? What is the student-teacher relationship which I strive to achieve? What behavioural methods will I use? What motivates me to enhance my knowledge about the subject I am teaching? What values do I impart to my students? How do I make sure that I have taught my students successfully? What code of ethics guide me?

One of the hallmarks of a teaching philosophy is its individuality. Ideally, this personal statement should be of a reflective nature in its content. A teaching philosophy is all about a vivid portrait of an educator who is motivated about teaching practices and committed to career advancement. The act of taking time to re-consider one’s goals, actions and vision provides an opportunity for self-development. The main components of teaching philosophies are descriptions of how educators think learning occurs, or how they think they can possibly intervene in their students’ learning process. Of course, educators set goals for their students. They may also decide to plan how to implement them. For some purposes, including a section on one’s personal growth as a teacher is also important for self-development. This reflective component explains how one educator has grown in the teaching profession over the years. It illustrates what challenges exist at present as it identifies what long term goals are projected for the future. Whilst writing this section, the educator revisits one’s concepts and methodologies. This exercise can turn out to be stimulating as the educator revises the old syllabi and the instructional resources. It goes without saying that the educator will need to remain abreast with the latest academic and research findings in his / her field of studies. It is in the educators’ self-interest to communicate and collaborate with their peers. There is scope for lecturers to work together with other colleagues. They are often encouraged to participate in workshops to share knowledge about best practices as well as resources. 

In a similar vein, the teaching philosophy should be communicated to the students as it is in their interest to know what is required from them and why (see Cerbin, 1996). Given this information, students are triggered to engage in a more productive manner in their learning journey. It is also likely that students learn much better and succeed in their course. Some empirical studies have shown that appropriate communication with students helps to increase their retention (Thomas, 2009; Braskamp and Ory, 1994). Nowadays, many educators are implicitly exhibiting their teaching philosophies as these are often evidenced to students through syllabi, assignments, approaches to teaching and learning, classroom environment and student –teacher relationships (Thiessen, 2012) The goal of sharing a statement of teaching philosophy is to value and respect students. One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil (Nietzsche, 1891).

 

Conclusion

Literature review has revealed that many teachers are following the theories and principles which were discussed here. The theories I have described here have provided me with a good insight to develop and articulate my teaching philosophy. This contribution offers a good opportunity to rethink about your teaching practice. I believe that the best educators are the ones who use and create, adopt (or reject) theories of learning and teaching. These theories and principles are derived from many years of experience and careful inquiry as they are tested in class-room settings, critiqued by colleagues and continuously emerge from empirical findings and theoretical underpinnings.

 

“Education, therefore, must begin with a psychological insight into the child’s capacities, interests, and habits. It must be controlled at every point by reference to these same considerations. These powers, interests, and habits must be continually interpreted – we must know what they mean. They must be translated into terms of their social equivalents – into terms of what they are capable of in the way of social” (Dewey, 1897). 

 

References

Bloom, B.S. (1956) “Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals” Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, Longmans, Green.

Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking, eds. (2000) “How people learn: Brain, mind,experience, and school”. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Braskamp, L.A., and Ory, J.C. (1994) “Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance”. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco.

Cerbin, W. (1996) “Inventing a new genre” The course portfolio at the University of Wisconsin La Crosse. In Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review, ed. P. Hutchings. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education.

Cuban, L. (1993) “How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890–1990”. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1897) “My Pedagogic Creed”. Url: http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm accessed on the 25th April 2013.

Dewey, J. (1916) “Democracy and Education: an introduction to the philosophy of education”. Url: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/852/852-h/852-h.htm accessed on the 25th April 2013.

Dewey, J. (1938) “Experience and Education”. Url: http://www.schoolofeducators.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/EXPERIENCE-EDUCATION-JOHN-DEWEY.pdf accessed on the 25th April 2013.

Dillon, A (2004) Education in Plato’s Republic Url: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/dillon/education_plato_republic.html accessed on the 5th May 2013.

Kandel, E.R. and Hawkins, R.D. (1992) “The biological basis of learning and individuality.” Scientific American 267.3, pp.78-86.

Lyons, N. (1998) “With Portfolio in Hand: Validating the New Teacher Professionalism”. Teachers College Press, New York.

Maillet, B. and Maisonneuve, H. (2011) “Long-life learning for medical specialists doctors in Europe”. CME, DPC and qualification. Presse médicale (Paris, France: 1983), 40(4 Pt 1), 357.

Nietzsche (1891) “Decadence, and Regeneration in France (1891-95)” In Forth, C.E. (1993). Journal of the History of Ideas, 54:1 pp97-117.

Phillips, D.C., (2009) “Philosophy of Education”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Url: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/education-philosophy/ accessed on the 2nd May 2013.

Plato. The Republic. 2nd ed. Trans. Desmond Lee (1987) Penguin Books, New York.

Reed, D.  and Widger, D. (2008) “Democracy and Education” by John Dewey. Url: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/852/852-h/852-h.htm accessed on the 4th May 2013.

Thiessen, D. (2012)”Classroom-based teacher.” Early Professional Development for Teachers 317.

Thomas, L. (2009) “Improving student retention in higher education”. AUR, 9.

Tolman, E. C. (1951) “Behaviour and psychological man: essays in motivation and learning”. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized