Editorial

Citation

Dalrymple, J. (2006), "Editorial", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae.2006.12014daa.001

Editorial

The development of tools, techniques, frameworks and systems to assure quality all contribute as means to an end. That end is the improvement of the educational experience of students and the valuing of education by stakeholders in the outcome of education endeavour. However, the challenge for all involved in quality activities in the education environment is to achieve successful implementation of the quality systems and the application of the tools and techniques. The articles in this issue touch on various aspects of implementation of quality systems – the critical time when the time for statements of intent is over and reality of implementation and change, where necessary, must begin. In every continent, Europe or Africa, it is essentially a test of leadership, as the articles in the issue bring out. The need for a shared vision, clarification of mental models, an unswerving commitment to the key stakeholders (especially students) and careful reflection on key elements are all powerfully illustrated by the various authors in this issue. We hope these insights will prove an inspiration to our readers. The anticlimax for all this is the critique contained in the book review in this issue which advises the authors (of books) to move away from simplistic notions of quality in higher education, and engage in “critical reflections”. Looking at such a comprehensive range articles, we are impressed by their significant contribution to the various facets of implementation of quality models.

The first article by Magnus Svensson and Bengt Klefsjö emphasises the importance of how an organization enters a self-assessment project, with a view to implementing quality management practices. Many people do not seem to have thought very much about what is considered to be quality in the environment in which they operate, and even less have a shared view within the organization. The work is performed without preparing all of those who are to participate in the project and without discussing the core values that underpin the work. If the organization has not reached the necessary maturity level it is probably a waste of resources to start such a comprehensive self-assessment project.

The following article by Gavriel Meirovich and Edward Romar, considers that the applicability of TQM to higher education instruction is controversial. The purpose of their paper is to help clarify the mental models around TQM in higher education by identifying and analysing the dual roles played by both students and instructors. The authors also offer an improvement to the instructor evaluation process designed to eliminate some of the negative effects of the duality of roles. It is claimed that this paper offers a more thorough analysis of the roles of students and faculty than previous discussions of TQM in higher education.

In the following article, Moses Ngware, David Wamukuru and Stephen Odebero investigate the extent to which secondary schools in Kenya practised aspects of TQM. A cross-sectional research design was used in this study. The significant conclusion seems to be that the Board of Governors and chairpersons in secondary schools are not providing the necessary leadership that would promote TQM practices to enable schools to attain continuous improvement. However, some head teachers are providing the required leadership with a considerable number of school managements empowering their employees.

M.L. Emiliani in his article presents the need for the leaders of management education to adopt a holistic view to significantly improve the course offerings. It focuses on correcting several obvious deficiencies in courses and degree programs to create highly differentiated educational experiences that are more relevant to student’s needs and those of the organizations that employ graduates. It proposes a suite of eleven interconnected improvements as well as a fundamental re-structuring of the MBA program designed to simplify it.

Michael Jackson, in the following article, emphasises the need for deep thinking on the characteristics of good teaching. He argues that good and bad teaching are asymmetrical. Eradicating what is readily thought of as bad teaching does not necessarily leave behind good teaching. Good teaching is that which promotes student learning. Despite the years of public debate about higher education, when the graduates themselves are invited to reflect on and speak about their experience as students, a whole lot of new perspectives emerge distinguishing “good teaching”.

Finally, Martin Bush, in his article, provides educationalists with an understanding of the key quality issues relating to multiple-choice tests, and a set of guidelines for the quality assurance of such tests. The discussion of quality issues is structured to reflect the order in which those issues naturally arise. It covers the design of individual multiple-choice questions, issues relating to the question bank as a whole, choice of test format, and what can be learned through post-test analysis.

Hamish Coates, in the last piece, reviews the book Quality and Performance Excellence in Higher Education. The book best considered as a series of descriptive pictures that show how a group of US institutions have marketed themselves in response to a particular conception of quality assurance. They tend to present an effusive justification for a particular approach to quality assurance. The lack of critical reflection on the criteria used or on how the selected institutions have addressed these does not, however, appear convincing to the reviewer.

Finally, the team hopes that the articles included for your consideration in this issue will provide inspiration for reflection, individually and collectively, to review some of the perspectives on and practices for quality in education.

John DalrympleFor the Editorial Team