The difficulty in implementing TQM in higher education instruction: The duality of instructor/student roles

Purpose – The applicability of total quality management (TQM) to higher education instruction is controversial. The purpose of this paper is to help clarify the application of TQM to higher education instruction by identifying and analyzing 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.Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper discussing some of the shortcomings in previous discussions of the applicability of TQM to higher education instruction. In addition, it introduces the concept of the dual roles of students (customers/grade‐seekers) and faculty (suppliers/retention‐seekers), and analyzes their relationship to, and effect on, the evaluation of the educational process through the interaction of these dual roles.Practical implications – This paper helps understand more fully the student/instructor roles and will contribute to a be...

[1]  Joseph Moses Juran,et al.  Quality-control handbook , 1951 .

[2]  Mary Loyland,et al.  The Effectiveness of Annual Faculty Evaluations: Accounting Faculty Perceptions , 1998 .

[3]  Lawrence R. Jauch,et al.  A violation of assumptions: Why TQM won't work in the ivory tower , 1997 .

[4]  Charles F. Eiszler.  College Students' Evaluations of Teaching and Grade Inflation , 2002 .

[5]  A. Chickering,et al.  Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education , 1987, CORE.

[6]  George D. Kuh.  What We're Learning About Student Engagement From NSSE: Benchmarks for Effective Educational Practices , 2003 .

[7]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm , 1996 .

[8]  K. Feldman.  Identifying Exemplary Teachers and Teaching: Evidence from Student Ratings 1 , 2007 .

[9]  D. Seymour.  On Q: Causing Quality In Higher Education , 1992 .

[10]  Gerald F. Goldberg,et al.  Objectivity of Student Evaluations of Instructors , 1991 .

[11]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[12]  M. Millea,et al.  Grade Expectations and Student Evaluation of Teaching , 2002 .

[13]  What Higher Education Can Learn from Business and Industry , 1997 .

[14]  Gary Natriello,et al.  Achieving Educational Excellence: A Critical Assessment of Priorities and Practices in Higher Education , 1985 .

[15]  Paul Trout,et al.  Flunking the Test: The Dismal Record of Student Evaluations. , 2000 .

[16]  A. Greenwald.  Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[17]  Douglas H. Smith,et al.  Total Quality in Higher Education , 1994 .

[18]  J. Barnard.  Using Total Quality Principles in Business Courses: the Effect on Student Evaluations , 1999 .

[19]  Yunus Kathawala,et al.  Are total quality management programmes in higher education worth the effort , 1996 .

[20]  Gary S. Vazzana,et al.  Viewpoint: Can TQM Fill a Gap in Higher Education? , 1997 .

[21]  Rajani Naidoo *,et al.  Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education , 2005 .

[22]  T. Hillman Willis,et al.  Total quality management and higher education: The employers' perspective , 1999 .

[23]  George Keller.  Increasing Quality on Campus: What Should Colleges Do about the TQM Mania? , 1992 .

[24]  D. Houston.  TQM and Higher Education: A Critical Systems Perspective on Fitness for Purpose , 2007 .

[25]  H. Kelley.  Attribution in social interaction. , 1987 .