,dccreditation for Institutional Learning and Grorvth

rilDltA
A SAAFC
R€COGilISIED BOOY

Dr Nazrul lslam
Professor of Management
& Dean of School of Business,
Uttara university, uttara,
Dhaka, Bangladesh

A Thiangle-Approach to lnstitutional Learning and Growtle

Background
Observation shows that the Management Schools or Management Development Institutions (MDI) in South Asian
regions are hardly well rnanaged. The ,."rori, can be attributed by the lack of effectiveness of management systems of the
university, as a whole, that starts from the functional level and continues till the policy making level. At the functional
level, teachers and officers are the key and at the top level it is the Trustee Board for private university and the Government
or University Grants Commission (UGC) for public university. Management School of a university is in the middle of
this spectrum. Sometimes, management schools have strong desire for achieving qualrty in teaching and learning process
but the other parts of the spectrum are not ready to support it. Therefore, management school alone is not enough to
improve the quality in teaching and learning process of a university. Quality of teaching and learning determine quality
of education and quality of education (QOE) determines the quality of human resources of a country (Prasad, 2007;
Sinha, V. & Subramanian, K. S. 2013). QOE refers to the fulfillment of needs of a society concerning the standards of
living, growth and development, physical survival in a comple>r and globalized world. QOE also implies the education
that empowers the recipients with relevant skills, knowledge, ideas, values and attitudes needed to make decisions in
their lives and work (Ndiomu, 1989; Romina Ifeoma Asiyai, 2013). As organizational growth depends on QOE,
institutional learning acts as insmrmental in the process. Research identified five pillars of institutional learning such as,
leaming effectiveness, cost effectiveness and institutional commitment, access (Online) to wide variety of programs and
courses, faculty satisfaction, and student satisfaction (Janet C. Moore, 2005; Skender B., Z}Lq. Poor Indoor
Environmental Quality (IEO like thermal comfort, acoustic comfort, lighting and indoor air quality in academic building
are also imporant for quality of education and institutional learning (Sulaiman, et. a1., Z0l3).

Institutional learning and growth depends on the support of different stakeholders of a univetsity. A number of
external actors or factors are responsible for the poor quality of education of a university. A11 of these factors may be
classified into three groups. Factors that are concemed with teaching and research like teachers, students, adminisffators
are categorized under teaching and research group. Actors concerned with different types of interests like philanthropic
interest offfustees as internal gtoup and guardians, employers, social groups as external groups categorized under stakeholder
group. The third group of actors is concerning with the macro environmental factors like government, UGC, globalization

103
|
 ffi Accreditation for Institutional Learning and Growth

ffi
AINDISA
A SAABC
REcoGilBED BOOY

of education, research and consultancy that are grouped under environmental factors (Qiang, 2., 2003)' The macro
environmental factors are related to political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental issues that are
popularly calle.d pESTLE. Now, we shall see how these factors are concerned with the quality of education and effectiveness
of institutional learning and growth of a university.

Teaching and Research

Higher education faces a new era as a result of changes in the way people view university and its education. Expectations
for better per{ormance in teaching and producing competent graduates are also increasing day by day. One model for
quality management
higher education is the success of many organizations has improved their overall performance is total
(TeM). It is concerned with the increase of stakeholders' sadsfaction through an integrated approach. TQM examines
the relationships berween various system-wide elements and makes data-driven decisions to reduce errors and waste in
the processes (Hogg & Hogg, 1995; Sudha,T.,Z0l3; Anita Quinn.,2009). Research shows that there are two main
approaches to quality teaching and education such as, the topdawn approdch where quality teaching initiatives are taken
collectively by its leadership. In the bottomttp approach, quality teaching initiatives are taken by the teachers inciuding
participants in learning and that may nevertheless have an influence on the institutional policy on quality teaching
(OECD, 2010).

As far is teaching is concerned, the university is dedicated to foster academic community in which the learning and
scholarship of every member flourishes. University is a place to exercise the right to freedom of speech like academic or
learning and freedom of research. These rights are meaningless unless they entail the right to raise provocative challenges
to the cherished beliefs of the society. QOE is a way to prepare individuals to render quality services to the nation since
individuals must have acquired skills, knowledge to live in a pluralistic society (Amanchuhvu, 2011). University usualh
strives to ensure that its graduates are educated, in the broadest sense, with the ability to think clearly,
judge objectively,

and contribute constructively to the society. The university desires to increase its ability to attract students with quality
education in the belief that these students will be able to contribute to the society. QOE is important in this regard.
Study shows that faculty credentials, the academic calendar, campus facilities, research facilities, and the cost of education
, are very important forQOE of a university (fuhraf, Ibrahim, & Joarder, 2009). As such, in all its teaching programs, the
t'' university is committed to achieving the highest academic standards, attracting students whose abilities and aspirations
match the programs, providing the best possible facilities like libraries and teaching aids, insisting on the importance of
teaching in the career expectarions of the professorial staff, recbgnizing excetlence in teaching, providing opportunities
to improve teaching, and assisting srudents in the realization of their educational goals. As these programs involve their
life.long learning and career development, their physical and emotional growth and recreational needs are also fulfilled
by the university.

Research is another prime objective along with teaching function of a university. For research, the university is

committed to provide an environment conducive to it. Publishing professional contributions of professorial staf( ensuring
the faculties that are engaged in undergraduate and graduate teaching, maintaining capacity to respond selectively to new
fields of research, reviewing the quality of the academic programs, collaborating with other universities, business houses'
industry, public sector institutions and governments where appropriate and providing information, library support,
and research services of the highest international standards are also very important for a university.

ro+
I
 Accreditation for Institutional Learning and Growth

tilDt$
ASMNC
REMGMSED EODY

Therefore, the teaching and research functions of a university are connected with a number of factors influencing
learning process and building research culture of a university. If the university is attached to the recognized national or
international certified bodies, it will be able more to provide a desired service to its diversified stakeholders.

Stakeholders' Expectations
The complexity of a university is tmly reflected by the interests of different professional groups (Leisyte, et. a1., 2013).
Research also reveals different perspectives from these groups (Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2009). This issue may be weli
illustrated by posing the question of what higher education is actually for. Is it for generating knowledge, or preparing
students for employment, or promoting new skills and capabilities suited to the global setting, or building intellectual
platform for new disciplines, or promoting greater educational opportunities, or providing a comprehensive range of
';r
learning areas, or conducting rigorous, costeffective and innovative research, or increasing interactions between industry
and the university, or promoting link between the community and the university?

Based on different stlldies, it is clear that a wide variety of stakeholders' e>rpectations touching university. I)nivercity
trustees expect that the departmentswill be accountable, fiscally balanced, research oriented, high profile, and focused on
universiqy sffategy, while researchers like an increase in research funds, improved facilities and more administrative support.
Facuhy members prefer improved facilities and administrative supports, reduced workloads, better recognition, job
development opportunities, while stud.ents want to learn with small class size, modern computer laboratory, library and
other facilities. Universi t1 administratiue groups like to influence educational decision making issues, while Community
expects more active and productive links with the university. Research pa.rtners want university to be entrepreneurial and
responsive to emerging opportunities, while Indtutry demands the university to produce students who are technologically
sawy and have good communication skills.

Influence o{ Macro lcvel Environment

The third important actors are concerned with macro level environmental factors. National Educational Plan (NEP) of
a counffy is one of the major factors. The inherent fundamental changes in thinking, practicing and delivery of teaching
services required by the national education plan led university administrators to recognize the importance and act
accordingly. In particular, assessing the impact of political, economic, socioaultural, and other external influences upon
university education policy and academic programs, the university formulates its strategic plan. This can be undertaken
by reviewing the external environmental factors using PESTLE analysis.

PESTLE . a useful tool for understanding the big picture of the greater environment in which the university operates
with opportunities and threats. 'V7ith the understanding of environment, one can take advantage of the opportunities
and minimize the threats. This tool also helps the govemors, management and staff involved in the analysis of the
university environment has impact on future finance, planning and management decisions. A PESTLE is usually used in
commercial organizations as a part of the development of a strategic business plan. However, it can also be used as a part
of identifying the opportunities and threats (OT) for operational planning within educational environments. PESTLE
stands for political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental factors.

Politicallaoors such as, government initiative creates the risk that the university may fail to deliver the policy or be
diverted away from the priorities, changes to the skills required to be a teacheq changes to curriculum with short lead

105
I
 Accreditation for Institutional Learning and Growth

tfilDnA
ASfffiC
EECOGMSEDBODY

times, and requires to be self sufficient. Economic factors have direct influence on the university and its administration,
These factors include central or local government funding decisions. It may affect fund raising plans, cost of providing
resources for staff, booksr/papers, technology solutions like laptop, and provision of university places in the area. So,al
facwrslike local population changes and demogaphic changes may affect'the nature of students needs, closure of local
firms providing employment, inability to attract staff, social networking - blogs, face book, twiner, integration with
local community, information accessibility of staff via the intemet, etc. have impact on the university affairs. Technological
factors such as, changes to standards, risk of selecting the wrong technology, new computer viruses may affect university
operations, illegal images on the internet may affect ICT security systems, move from paper based books to e.book
.readers, computer hardware and software being outdated, etc. are also very important for a university. I*$slatire factors
like new legislation creates risk of noncompliance with the law, changes to job or age related laws, changes to funding
of
charity'based organizations, health and safety legislation for the students, are also important. P6ysica1 eneironmental
factors
such as, a new highway layout near the university may create new dangers for the students, waste disposal,
and reduction
of green space available for activities of the university students, etc.

These are the factors influencing the activities of a university and therefore, to be given top most priority
towards
quality education and institutional learning. Figure 1 shows a triangle-approach for sustainable institutional
learning
and growth.

Frgure Lr Tiiangle,Approach for Quality Education

Teaching & Research

Stakeholders' Expectations Demands of Macro Environmenr

it might be a concluded that a university or a management development institution, or management school

Thus,
has to grow sustainably adjusting the diversified direct and indirect expecrations of
different stakeholders concerned
with quality education and institutional learning. Protection and sustainable action of this approach largely
depends
upon following the total quality in process found .fl.au. b"r"d o., .*pir;;i ;;;;. u."r*, accreditation of management
development filstitutions or management school or university with the recognized certified bodies,
the institutional
learning will be faster leading to achieving sustainable organizational growth.

roo
I
 Accreditation for Institutional l-earning and Growth

ffNDIgA
A SllFc
BEcoe,lBEo SoDY

References
1. Amanchukrvu, R. N. (2011). The Challenges of Quality Education and Good Governance in Developing Economy.

African Jou.mal of Education and Technolog. 1(3), 103'110.

Z. Anita Quinn, Gina Lemay, Peter Larsen and Dana M. Johnson. (2009). Service quality in higher education. Total
Qualiry Management. 20(2), 139'15?..
3. Ashraf, A. M., Yusnidah Ibrahim, & Mohd. H. R. Joarder. (2009). Quality Education Management at Private
Universities in Bangladesh, An Exploratory Srudy. Jwrnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, T4, L7-32.
'W. (2009). 'Who
4. Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, Ben matters to univercities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities,
arts and social sciences valorization. High Educ. 59, 567'588, DOI 10.1007/s10734'009'9265'2.
5. Hogg, R.V., & Hogg, Mry, C. (1995).Continuous Quality Improvement in Higher Education. IntemationaLSatuacal
Reqtiew. 63, 1-35, International Statistical Institute.
6. Janet C. Moore. (2005). The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework and the Five Pillars. Sloan - C, The Sloan
Consoytium - A Consortium of Institutions and Organizations Committed to Quality Online Education, 1-10.
'Westerheijden., 'Weert. (2013). Stakeholders and
7. Leisyte, L., Don F. Elisabeth Epping., Marike Faber., & Egbert de
Quality Assurance in Higher education, 26'h Annual CHER Conference 20t3. Center for Higher Education Policl
Studia, 1-13, The Netherlands.
8. Ndiomu CB. (1989). Standard and the National Policy on Education associated hydra headed problem. In: Omatseye
lN (ed.) Qualiq in education. Benin-City: Supreme Ideal publisher'
g. OECD Report. (2010). Learning Our Lesson: Review of Quality Teaching in Higher Education. OECD Higher
Education Program. IMHE. ISBN: 97 89?.64079274.

10. Prasad, V.S. (2007). Quality Assurance in Higher Educationr An Introduction (Revised Edition), NAAC, Banglore,

India.
11. Qiang, Z. (ZOO3). (2003). Inrernationalization of Higher Education: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Policl Futures
in Education. l(Z), 748-270.
12. Romina Ifeoma Asiyai (2013). Challenges of Quality in Higher Education in Nigeria in the 21st Century. Internaaonal.
Jownal of Educational Pl.anning E Administration. 3(7), 159-172, Research India Publications, ISSN 2249-3093.
13. Sinha, V & Subramanian, K. S. (2013). Accreditation in India: Path of Achieving Educational Excellence. Business

Education & Accreditation, 5(2), 107-L16.

14. Skender Brucaj. (2014). Quality in private higher education system; New challenges regarding student's satisfaction.
The Online loumal of Distance Education and e-lxa:rning. 2(Z), lL'16
15. Sudha, T. (2013). Total Quality Management in Higher Education Institutions. IntemattonaL lorunal' of Social Science

E Interdisapl,inary Research. 2(6), l7l-132.

'Wan
16. Sulaiman, M. A.,'S7. Z. Yusoff, S. Pawi, and'V7. N.'Wan Kamarudin. (2013). Indoor Environmental Quality
(IEpl o6 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): A User Perception Survey. Journal of Clean Energy Technologies,
t($,3t8,32t.

-x-