Quality Assurance in Education

Multi-models of quality in education

Yin Cheong Cheng, Wai Ming Tam,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Yin Cheong Cheng, Wai Ming Tam, (1997) "Multi‐models of quality in education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5
Issue: 1, pp.22-31, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156558
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156558
Downloaded on: 08 August 2017, At: 07:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 44 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10282 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)

(2003),"Quality in higher education: from monitoring to management", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp. 5-14
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462038">https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462038</a>
(2004),"Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp.
61-69 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410536431">https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410536431</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:122143 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


Multi-models of quality
in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and
Wai Ming Tam
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
The authors
Yin Cheong Cheng is Director and Professor and Wai
Ming Tam is Lecturer at The Centre for Research and
Development, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong
Kong.
Abstract
Suggests that there is a strong emphasis on the pursuit of
education quality in ongoing educational reforms in both
local and international contexts. Policies issued to imple-
ment educational changes for education quality often fail
because of lack of comprehensive understanding of the
complex nature of education quality in schools or higher
education institutions. Introduces seven models of quality
in education: the goals and specifications model; the
resources input model; the process model; the satisfaction
model; the legitimacy model; the absence of problems
model; and the organizational learning model. Concludes
that these models can form a comprehensive framework
for understanding and conceptualizing quality in educa-
tion from different perspectives and facilitating develop-
ment of management strategies for achieving it. The
framework can contribute to ongoing policy discussion,
school practice, and research development on issues of
quality in education institutions.
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · pp. 22–31
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
22
In the past decade, following rapid economic
development, the education systems of most
countries or areas in the Asia-Pacific region
have been expanded quickly. Currently, the
people in this region are concerned with not
only education quantity but also education
quality. For example, in Hong Kong, a
number of policy efforts have been put into
improvement of different aspects of education
such as curriculum, language teaching, stu-
dent guidance, student streaming, manage-
ment, teacher-student ratio, physical environ-
ment, and teacher education (Education and
Manpower Branch and Education Depart-
ment, 1991; Education Commission, 1984-
1992). Although these efforts aim at improv-
ing education quality and discharging
accountability, they are suffering from poor
understanding of the complex nature of edu-
cation quality and lack of a system of educa-
tion standards and indicators for directing
practices and monitoring performance. The
effects of these efforts are often problematic
and doubted by the public. This seems to be a
serious problem when compared with the
huge investment in the education system.
Recently, China and some other rapidly
developing societies in the Asia-Pacific region
have been facing similar problems of educa-
tion quality in development of education.
Also, there are different types of educational
reform in search of education quality in devel-
oped countries such as the USA, UK, and
Australia (Cheng, 1994a, 1996). Responding
to the rapidly growing concern about educa-
tion quality in the international and local
contexts, this paper aims at developing a
framework of multi-models of quality in
education for facilitating practice, supporting
policy making, and developing research agen-
das.
General conception of education quality
In the management literature, the term quali-
ty has different meanings and has been vari-
ously defined as excellence (Peters and
This article is one of the reports of an ongoing
research project on “Educational quality in Hong
Kong secondary schools indicators and organiza-
tional determinants” that is supported by an
Earmarked Research Grant awarded from the
Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Gov-
ernment to the first author. The authors appreciate
the financial support of the Council.
 Multi-models of quality in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam
Waterman, 1982), value (Feigenbaum, 1951),
fitness for use (Juran and Gryna, 1988),
conformance to specifications (Gilmore,
1974), conformance to requirement (Crosby,
1979), defect avoidance (Crosby, 1979),
meeting and/or exceeding customers’ expec-
tations (Parasuraman et al., 1985), etc. There
seems to be no consensus definition even
though most of these definitions are highly
correlated. Similarly, education quality is a
rather vague and controversial concept in
research and policy discussion. To different
people, the definition may be different and so
the indicators used to describe education
quality may be different (Fuller, 1986; Hugh-
es, 1988). Some may emphasize the quality of
inputs to the education systems whereas
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
others emphasize the quality of processes and
outcomes. No matter whether referring to
input, process, outcome, or all of these, the
definition of education quality may often be
associated with fitness for use, the satisfaction
of the needs of strategic constituencies (e.g.
policy makers, parents, school management
committee, teachers, students, etc.) or con-
formance to strategic constituencies’ require-
ments and expectations.
‘…education quality is a multi-
dimensional concept and cannot be
easily assessed by only one indica-
tor…’
Borrowing the ideas from total quality man-
agement (Tenner and Detoro, 1992) and
system approach, Cheng (1995a) defined
education quality as follows:
Education quality is the character of the set of
elements in the input, process, and output of
the education system that provides services that
completely satisfy both internal and external
strategic constituencies by meeting their explicit
and implicit expectations.
To a large extent, this definition includes the
important characteristics of quality espoused
in the management literature. If we accept this
definition, the conception of education quali-
ty will involve the characteristics of input,
process, output and multiple constituencies
of an education institution. Therefore, educa-
tion quality is a multi-dimensional concept
and cannot be easily assessed by only one
indicator. Furthermore, the expectations of
different constituencies on education may be
23
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31
very different, if not contradictory. It is often
difficult for an education institution to meet
all the expectations or needs at the same time.
Therefore, it is not rare that the education
quality in an education institution is high to
the perceptions of some constituencies but
not to others, or that some aspects of an
education institution may be of high quality
but other aspects may be of low quality
(Hughes, 1988).
For assessing school education quality,
different indicators may be developed to give
information about the performance of an
education institution in different aspects of
input, process, and outcome. The difference
in the choice of and the emphasis on indica-
tors may reflect the diverse interests and
expectations among the concerned
constituencies and also the different manage-
ment strategies used to achieve education
quality under certain environmental con-
straints within a certain time frame. In other
words, based on different conceptions of
education quality and different concerns
about achievement of education quality,
different people may use different indicators
to assess education quality and different
strategies to achieve education quality. The
focus of these indicators and strategies may
not necessarily include all aspects of the
input, process, and outcome of an education
institution.
Models of quality in education
In order to understand the complex nature of
education quality and to develop management
strategies for achieving it, it should be neces-
sary to review the different conceptions or
models of education quality explicitly or
implicitly held by concerned constituencies in
practice or by scholars in research. In the past
decades, research on organizational effective-
ness and school effectiveness has brought
forth fruitful results and has guided many of
the improvement endeavours (Scheerens,
1992), yet relatively little research has been
done on the topic of education quality
(Cheng, 1995a). If we believe that both effec-
tiveness and quality are the concepts used to
understand performance of an education
institution in providing educational services,
we can expect that the literature of effective-
ness may be borrowed to understand and
conceptualize quality in education institu-
tions. Based on the models of organizational
 Multi-models of quality in education Quality Assurance in Education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31

Table I Models of Education quality

Conception of Conditions for Indicators/key areas for

education quality model usefulness quality evaluation (with examples)

Goal and Achievement of stated When institutional goals Institutional objectives,

specification institutional goals and specifications are clear,
model conformance to consensual, time-bound, and
given specifications measurable
When resources are sufficient
to achieve the goals and
conform to the specifications
standards, and specifications
listed in the programme plans,
e.g. academic achievements,
attendance rate, dropout rate,
etc.

Resource-input Achievement of When there is a clear Resources procured for

model needed quality relationship between inputs institutional functioning,
resources and inputs for and outputs e.g. quality of student intake,
the institution When quality resources for the facilities, financial support,
institution are scarce etc.
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)

Process model Smooth internal When there is a clear Leadership, participation,

process and fruitful relationship between process social interactions, classroom
learning experiences and educational outcomes climate, learning activities
and experiences, etc.

Satisfaction Satisfaction of all When the demands of the Satisfaction of education

model powerful constituencies are compatible authorities, management
constituencies and cannot be ignored board, administrators,
teachers, parents, students,
etc.

Legitimacy Achievement of the When the survival and demise Public relations, marketing,
model institution’s legitimate among education institutions public image, reputation,
position and reputation must be assessed status in the community,
When the environment is very evidence of accountability, etc.
competitive and demanding

Absence of Absence of problems When there is no consensual Absence of conflicts,

problems and troubles in the criteria of quality but dysfunctions, difficulties,
model institution strategies for improvement defects, weaknesses,
are needed troubles, etc.

Organizational Adaptation to When institutions are new or Awareness of external needs

learning environmental changing and changes, internal
model changes and internal When the environmental process monitoring, programme
barriers change cannot be ignored evaluation, development
Continuous planning, staff development,
improvement etc.

effectiveness and school effectiveness summa-
rized by Cameron and Whetten (1983) and
Cheng (1990,1996), seven models of educa-
tion quality can be proposed to illustrate the
different conceptions that can be used to
deepen understanding and develop manage-
ment strategies, as shown in Table I.
24
The goal and specification model
This model sees education quality as achieve-
ment of stated goals and conformance to
given specifications. The goal and specifica-
tion model is often used in the assessment of
education quality of individual institutions or
education systems in a country. It assumes
 Multi-models of quality in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam
that there are clear, enduring, normative and
well-accepted goals and specifications as
indicators and standards for education insti-
tutions or education systems to pursue or
conform to. An education institution is
deemed to be of good education quality if it
has achieved the stated goals or conformed to
the specifications listed in the institutional
plan or programme plans. Typical examples of
quality indicators may include students’
academic achievements, attendance rate,
dropout rate, and personal developments,
number of graduates enrolled in universities
or graduate schools, professional qualifica-
tions of staff, etc. This model is useful if the
goals and specifications used for judging
education quality are clear and accepted by all
involved constituencies, and that there are
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
appropriate indicators which one can use to
evaluate whether the institutions have
attained the prescribed education standards.
An advantage of this model of education
quality is that it enables the institution man-
agement to focus attention on key compo-
nents of education programmes.
The resource-input model
Here education quality is regarded as the
natural result of achievement of quality
resources and inputs for the institution.
Because of the pressure of diverse expecta-
tions of multiple constituencies, an education
institution may be required to pursue differ-
ent goals and conform to diverse specifica-
tions and standards. The resource-input
model assumes that scarce and quality
resources are necessary for education institu-
tions to achieve diverse objectives and provide
quality services in a short time. Therefore,
education quality is assumed to be the natural
result of achievement of scarce resources and
inputs for the institution. The education
quality indicators may include high quality
student intake, more qualified staff recruited,
better facilities and equipment, better staff-
student ratio, and more financial support
procured from the central education authori-
ty, alumni, parents, sponsoring body or any
outside agents.
This model is useful if the connections
between quality of inputs and outputs are
clear (Cameron, 1984) and the resources are
very limited for education institutions to
achieve stated goals or conform to given
specifications. In some Asian countries and
cities (e.g. Hong Kong), quality student input
is often seen as an important indicator of an
education institution’s success. Attraction of
25
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31
high quality student input seems to be a “nec-
essary” condition for some institutions to
become successful or achieve high academic
performance in examinations. It is often
believed that students from low socio-eco-
nomic status families may bring a lot of
behavioural and criminal problems from the
community, which seriously hinder the edu-
cational process. In order to help problem
students, more resources are needed, if they
are not reallocated from other institutional
purposes. The capacity of acquiring scarce
and quality resources represents the potential
of an education institution that can promise
high education quality particularly in a con-
text of great resource competition. To some
extent, the model redresses the limitation of
the goal and specification model, linking
education quality to the environmental con-
text and resources input.
‘…the process model assumes that an
educational institution is of high
education quality if its internal
functioning is smooth and “healthy”…’
Obviously, this model has its defects because
its overemphasis only on acquisition of inputs
may reduce the institutional effort put into
educational processes and outputs. The
acquired resources may become wastage if
they cannot be used efficiently to enhance
quality of process and outcomes.
The process model
In this model education quality is seen as
smooth and healthy internal process and
fruitful learning experiences. The process in
an education institution is a transformational
process which converts inputs into perfor-
mance and output. A smooth internal institu-
tional process enables staff to perform the
teaching task effectively and students to gain
fruitful learning experiences easily. The
nature and quality of the institution of process
often determine the quality of output and the
degree to which the planned goals can be
achieved. Particularly in education, experi-
ence in process is often taken as a form of
educational aims and outcomes. Therefore,
the process model assumes that an education-
al institution is of high education quality if its
internal functioning is smooth and “healthy”.
 Multi-models of quality in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam
Important internal activities or practices in
the educational institution are often taken as
the important indicators of education. Lead-
ership, communication channels, participa-
tion, co-ordination, adaptability, planning,
decision making, social interactions, social
climate, teaching methods, classroom man-
agement, learning strategies, and learning
experiences are often used as indicators of
education quality. The process in an educa-
tional institution generally includes manage-
ment process, teaching process, and learning
process. Thus the selection of indicators may
be based on these processes, classified as
management quality indicators (e.g. leader-
ship, decision making), teaching quality
indicators (e.g. teaching efficacy, teaching
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
methods), and learning quality indicators
(e.g. learning attitudes, attendance rate).
If there is a clear relationship between the
process in institutional and educational out-
comes, this model should be useful. For
example, democratic education is strongly
emphasized in educational institutions. If we
believe that a democratic management
process and a democratic teaching process in
an educational institution are the necessary
conditions for implementing democratic
education (Cheng, 1987a,b), then the indica-
tors of a democratic process in an educational
institution such as participation in decision
making and partnership in teaching and
learning, may be chosen as criteria for evalu-
ating educational quality in implementing
democratic education. To a certain extent, the
current emphasis on the importance of lead-
ership and culture to the performance of
educational institutions may reflect the
importance of the process model (Caldwell
and Spinks, 1992; Cheng, 1994b;
Sergiovanni, 1984).
The process model has its limitations, such
as the difficulty in monitoring processes and
gathering related data, and the focus on quali-
ty of means instead of quality of ends.
The satisfaction model
According to this model education quality is
defined as the satisfaction of strategic con-
stituencies. The satisfaction model assumes
that the satisfaction of strategic constituencies
of an educational institution is critical to its
survival (Cheng, 1990) and therefore educa-
tion quality should be determined by the
extent to which the performance of an educa-
tional institution can satisfy the needs and
26
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31
expectations of its powerful constituencies. In
the school setting, the powerful constituencies
may include teachers, management board
members, parents, students, alumni, and
officers at the education department. Educa-
tion quality may be a relative concept,
depending on the expectations of concerned
constituencies or parties. If expected educa-
tion quality is high and diverse, it will be
difficult for institutions to achieve it and
satisfy the needs of multiple constituencies. If
expected education quality is low and simple,
of course it will be easier for educational
institutions to achieve it and satisfy the expec-
tations of constituencies so that educational
institutions may be perceived as high quality
more easily. Furthermore, the objective mea-
surement of quality achievement is often
technically difficult and conceptually contro-
versial. Therefore satisfaction of powerful
constituencies is often used instead of some
objective indicators as the critical element to
assess quality in education institution. This
model emphasizing satisfaction of clients or
conformance to clients’ expectations or speci-
fications is the very popular model used in the
business sector to assess quality.
‘…if the demands of powerful
constituencies conflict and cannot be
satisfied at the same time, the model
may not be appropriate…’
If the demands of all the powerful constituen-
cies of an education institution are compatible
and the education institution has to respond
to these demands, this model may be useful in
studying education quality. The indicators of
education quality are often the satisfaction of
students, teachers, parents, administrators,
the education authority, the management
committee, alumni, etc. In some Eastern
societies such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, the
management board of an educational institu-
tion has a dominant influence. In comparison,
the influence of parents, students, staff and
the public may not so strong. Therefore,
satisfaction of the management board of an
education institution is often the most impor-
tant indicator of education quality. If the
management board demands high achieve-
ment in academic and athletic activities, the
education institution can be seen of high
 Multi-models of quality in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam
education quality only if it can satisfy these
demands. If the demands of powerful con-
stituencies conflict and cannot be satisfied at
the same time, the model may not be appro-
priate.
The legitimacy model
Education quality is regarded here as the
achievement of an education institution’s
legitimate position or reputation. In the past,
when the educational environment changed
slowly and educational institutions received
relatively few external challenges, survival of
educational institutions might be guaranteed
by the central education authority. There
seemed little need for the education institu-
tions to ensure any legitimacy for their sur-
vival. But now, under the impact of rapid
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
changes and developments, the educational
environment becomes more challenging and
competitive. Educational institutions have to
compete seriously for resources and overcome
internal barriers, and on the other hand, they
have to face the external challenges and
demands for accountability and “value for
money” (Education and Manpower Branch
and Education Department, 1991; Working
Group on Educational Standards, 1994). It is
hardly possible for educational institutions to
continue or survive without ensuring legiti-
macy in the community. In order to gain
legitimacy for survival and to acquire critical
resource, educational institutions have to win
the support of the community, build up good
public image and show evidence of account-
ability.
The legitimacy model assumes that an
educational institution needs to be accepted
and supported by the community in order to
survive and achieve its mission. Along this line
of thinking, the indicators of education quali-
ty are often related to the activities and
achievements of public relations and market-
ing, accountability, public image, reputation,
or status in the community, etc. Educational
institutions should operate educational pro-
grammes which conform to the ethical and
moral norms of the community in order to
gain legitimacy. They also need to promote
their own image, in such ways as participating
in district-wide contests, organizing exhibi-
tions of students’ work, maintaining a good
relationship with district leaders, etc.
The model is useful when the survival and
demise of educational institutions must be
assessed in a changing environment. For
example, in some old districts, the student
population reduces quickly and some educa-
27
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31
tion institutions or schools have to be closed if
not enough parents are willing to send their
children to them. Among the educational
institutions at risk, only those successfully
striving for legitimacy or better public rela-
tions with the community can survive. From
the standpoint of this model, educational
institutions are of high education quality if
they can survive in a competing environment.
The current emphasis on parental choice
and accountability in educational reforms in
both Western and Eastern societies seems to
support the importance of the legitimacy
model for assessing school education quality.
Increase in parental choice of educational
institutions may create a competitive market
environment in which educational institutions
have to compete and try their best to provide
high quality educational services for the needs
of parents. Also, the implementation of
accountability systems or quality assurance
systems provides a formal mechanism for
educational institutions to gain the necessary
legitimacy for survival. This can explain why
so many educational institutions nowadays
are paying more attention to public relations,
marketing activities, and building up school-
based accountability systems or quality assur-
ance systems.
The absence of problems model
According to this model education quality
means the absence of problems and troubles.
Borrowing the idea of the ineffectiveness
model (Cameron, 1984), it is often easier to
recognize problems in an institution than to
identify its quality because appropriate indica-
tors and measurement techniques which can
provide concrete evidence of quality are often
difficult to obtain. Hence, instead of looking
for quality in an education programme, one
inspects the educational institution to check
whether problems exist.
‘…identifying strategies for the
improvement of an educational
institution can be more precisely done
by analysing problems and defects as
opposed to education quality…’
The absence of problems model assumes that
if there is an absence of problems, troubles,
defects, weaknesses, difficulties, and dyfunc-
tions in an educational institution, this insti-
tution is of high education quality. Problems
and deficiencies signal warnings to the admin-
 Multi-models of quality in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam
istration that some aspects of education quali-
ty may be lacking. Hence, during a inspection
on an education institution, if no apparent
problem arises from its operation, then this
institution is assumed to be running smoothly
and is fulfilling its educational objectives. This
is perhaps the oldest concept of quality in use
in industry (Feigenbaum, 1951). Quality
control experts tend to look at quality as
meaning less scrap, rework, warranty costs,
etc., for the final product. The management
team of an educational institution may set up
stringent quality assurance and monitoring
system in order to ensure a deficiency-free
environment.
Identifying strategies for the improvement
of an educational institution can be more
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
precisely done by analysing problems and
defects as opposed to education quality.
Therefore, this model is useful particularly
when the criteria of education quality are
really unclear but strategies for improvement
are needed. In general, many education insti-
tutions, particularly new ones, are more con-
cerned with overcoming obstacles to basic
school functioning than with pursuing excel-
lent quality. This model may be appropriate to
them. For those practitioners such as adminis-
trators and teaching staff, the absence of
problems model may be more basic than the
other models. But if people are more interest-
ed in high performance or excellent education
quality, this model is not sufficient.
The organizational learning model
Here education quality is considered to mean
continuous development and improvement.
The changing educational environment is
producing great impacts on nearly every
aspect of functioning in education
institutions. There seems to be no static factor
or single practice that contributes to education
quality for ever. Some practices may be good
at a certain time but not at another. Therefore,
how to deal with environmental impacts and
internal process problems is an key issue in
assessing whether an educational institution
can provide quality service continuously.
The organizational learning model
assumes that education quality is a dynamic
concept involving continuous improvement
and development of members, practices,
process, and outcomes of an educational
institution. A number of researchers have
indicated that organizations, like human
beings, can be empowered to learn and inno-
28
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31
vate to provide quality services (Fullan, 1993;
Schmuck and Runkel, 1985; Senge, 1990).
To some extent, this model is similar to the
process model. The difference is that this
model emphasizes the importance of learning
behaviour for ensuring quality in education;
whether the internal process is currently
smooth is not so critical. This line of thinking
supports the current emphasis of strategic
management and development planning in
education (Dempster et al., 1993; Hargreaves
and Hopkins, 1991). The model is particular-
ly useful when educational institutions are
developing or involved in educational reform,
particularly in a changing external environ-
ment. The indicators of education quality
may include awareness of community needs
and changes, internal process monitoring,
programme evaluation, environmental analy-
sis, development planning, etc.
‘…procuring scarce resources for effec-
tive functioning and ensuring smooth
and healthy internal processes and
fruitful learning experiences are
critical in order to achieve stated goals
and produce high quality educational
outcomes…’
In developing countries, there are many new
educational institutions because of the expan-
sion of the education systems. The new insti-
tutions have to face many problems in estab-
lishing organizational structures, educational
processes, dealing with poor quality students,
developing staff, and struggling against
adverse influences from the community. Also,
changes in the economic and political envi-
ronment demand an effective adaptation of
the education system in terms of curriculum
change, management change, and technology
change (Cheng, 1995b). Against such a back-
ground, this organizational learning model
may be appropriate for studying education
quality. Obviously, the usefulness of this
model will be limited if the connection
between organizational learning process and
educational outcomes is not clear. For exam-
ple, some old educational institutions have
their prestige traditions that can attract a high
quality student input. Even though they may
lack organizational learning, they can still win
 Multi-models of quality in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam
relatively high student achievement and high
status in the community.
Conclusion
The seven models have their own strengths
and weaknesses, with emphasis on different
aspects of the process for pursuing quality in
education. Their applicability is not universal
in all situations and their usefulness is often
limited by contextual conditions. One model
may be applicable in some specific contexts
but not in others. As discussed above, some
illustrations of the conditions for usefulness
of these models have been summarized in
Table I.
Traditionally many people tend to use
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
these models separately to ensure quality in
education. But we should pay attention to
their interrelationship and use a comprehen-
sive approach to apply them in managing
education quality. From the systems perspec-
tive, the seven models of education quality
may be interrelated and their relationship can
be analysed as follows:
As a system, the input, process, and output
of an educational institution, and the feed-
back loop from output to input form a chain,
and the performance of one part influences
the others. Goals of an education institution
including input goals, process goals, or out-
come goals can reflect the expectations,
needs, and specifications of powerful con-
stituencies. Procuring scarce resources for
effective functioning (i.e. the system-resource
model) and ensuring smooth and healthy
internal processes and fruitful learning experi-
ences (i.e. the process model) are critical in
order to achieve stated goals and produce high
quality educational outcomes. The achieve-
ment of stated goals and conformance to
given specifications (i.e. the goals and specifi-
cations model) can bring satisfaction to the
concerned constituencies ( i.e. the satisfaction
model). Also, by establishing a relationship
with the community, building up a public
image, and showing accountability, an educa-
tional institution can achieve its legitimate
position (i.e. the legitimate model) for its
survival and quality reputation. Then, by
carefully monitoring its programmes and
checking signs of ineffectiveness through the
feedback loop, the educational institution can
ensure that no endemic problem is emerging
in education quality (i.e. the absence of prob-
lems model). Finally, the educational institu-
29
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31
tion continues to improve and develop itself in
all important aspects through learning from
its errors and its environment (i.e. the organi-
zational learning model). It seems that the
seven models reflect the different emphases
on different aspects of an education institu-
tion in pursuing quality. In order to achieve
total quality in education, the application of
all these models as a whole may be necessary.
Every educational institution may have its
own criteria of education quality and may try
to achieve all of them. Because of the limited
timeframes and environmental constraints, it
is often difficult to achieve all these quality
criteria with limited resources. An educational
institution may choose to focus its strength on
certain aspects of quality which seem to be
crucial at the current stage. In order to ensure
the attainment of high level of education
quality under many constraints, some educa-
tional institutions may focus their attention on
the acquisition of scarce resource input; some
may focus on the management of the internal
process or learning strategies; some may
prioritize the needs of their constituencies and
try to satisfy those of the powerful constituen-
cies. This may be the reason why different
models are used to understand and manage
quality in education. However, when some
criteria of education quality are strongly
emphasized, and energy and resources are
often concentrated on their attainment, other
aspects of quality will tend to be neglected.
Symptoms of ineffectiveness or poor perfor-
mance may then emerge owing to ignorance
of other criteria, which can hamper the overall
education quality in the education institution
in the long run. Therefore, practitioners
should be aware of this dilemma and develop
long-term strategies to handle the dilemma
and achieve education quality on all multiple
criteria, even if not at the same time (Cheng,
1994a). In other words, all the seven models
of quality in education should be important in
long-term planning for achieving total educa-
tion quality. This may be the reason why total
quality management in educational institu-
tions has been strongly emphasized recently
(Bradley, 1993; Greenwood and Gaunt,
1994; Murgatroyd and Morgan, 1993). The
critical elements of total quality management
in an educational institution include focus on
strategic constituencies ( e.g. parents, stu-
dents, etc.), continuous process improve-
ment, and total involvement and empower-
ment of members (Tenner and Detoro,
 Multi-models of quality in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam
1992). According to the concepts of total
quality management, quality in education can
be totally ensured if an educational institution
can involve and empower all its members in
functioning, carry out continuous improve-
ment in different aspects of internal process,
and satisfy the requirements, needs, and
expectations of its external and internal pow-
erful constituencies even in a changing envi-
ronment. To a great extent, the total quality
management concept is an integration of the
above seven models, particularly the organiza-
tional learning model, the satisfaction model,
and the process model.
The above seven models can provide a
comprehensive framework for conceptualizing
and understanding education quality from
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
different perspectives. Obviously, the above
analysis is based on the transfer of manage-
ment theory to the field of education. The
limitations and implications of this interna-
tional or cross-cultural transfer for education
institutions at different levels may need fur-
ther analysis and testing in a future study.
Hopefully, this preliminary framework can
contribute to the development of research,
practice, management, and policy for educa-
tion quality in current educational reforms in
both local and international contexts.
References and further reading
Bradley, L.H. (1993), Total Quality Management for
Schools, Technomic, Lancaster, PA.
Caldwell, B. and Spinks, J. (1988), The Self-managing
School, Falmer Press, London.
Caldwell, B.J. and Spinks, J.M. (1992), Leading the Self-
managing School, Falmer Press, Lewes.
Cameron, K.S. (1984), “The effectiveness of ineffective-
ness”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6,
pp. 235-85.
Cameron, K.S. and Whetten, D.S. (Eds) (1983), Organiza-
tional Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple
Models, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Cheng, Y.C. (1987a), “Effectiveness of science teaching in
contributing to civic education: what teaching
strategies?”, New Horizons, Vol. 28, pp. 129-41.
Cheng, Y.C. (1987b), “School process and effectiveness of
civic education”, Education Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 11-17.
Cheng, Y.C. (1990), “Conception of school effectiveness
and models of school evaluation: a dynamic per-
spective”, Education Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 47-62.
Cheng, Y.C. (1993a), “The theory and characteristics of
school-based management”, International Journal
of Educational Management, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 6-17.
30
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31
Cheng, Y.C. (1993b), “Management and effectiveness of
moral and civic education in school: a framework for
research and practice”, paper presented at the
International Conference on Moral and Civic
Education, Hong Kong.
Cheng, Y.C. (1994a), “School effectiveness and school-
based management: a mechanism for education
quality and school development”, keynote speech
presented at the International Congress for School
Effectiveness and Improvement, Melbourne.
Cheng, Y.C. (1994b), “Principal’s leadership as a critical
indicator of school performance: evidence from
multi-levels of primary schools”, School Effective-
ness and School Improvement: an International
Journal of Research, Policy, and Practice, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 299-317.
Cheng, Y.C. (1995a), “School education quality: conceptu-
alization, monitoring, and enhancement”, in Siu,
P.K. and Tam T.K. (Eds), Quality in Education: Insights
from Different Perspectives, Hong Kong Education
Research Association, Hong Kong, pp. 123-47.
Cheng, Y.C. (1995b), “School effectiveness and improve-
ment in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China”,
in Creemers, B.H.M. and Osinga, N. (Eds), ICSEI
Country Reports, Gemeenschappeli jk Centrum voor
Onderwijsbegeleiding in Friesland, Leeuwarden,
pp. 11-30.
Cheng, Y.C. (1996), The Pursuit of School Effectiveness:
Theory, Policy, and Research, The Hong Kong
Institute of Educational Research, The Chinese
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1994), “A theory of school-
based staff development: development matrix”,
Education Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 221-36.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality Is Free: The Art of Making
Quality Certain, New American Library, New York,
NY.
Dempster, N., Sachs, J., Distant, G., Logan, L. and Tom, C.
(1993), “Planning in primary schools: a national
study in Australian schools”, paper presented at the
International Congress for School Effectiveness and
Improvement, Norrkoping, January.
Education and Manpower Branch and Education Depart-
ment (1991), The School Management Initiative:
Setting the Framework for Quality in Hong Kong
Schools, Hong Kong Government, Hong Kong.
Education Commission. (1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992).
Education Commission Report nos 1-5, The Govern-
ment Printer, Hong Kong.
Elmore, R. (1990), Restructuring Schools: The Next Genera-
tion of Educational Reform, Jossey-Bass, San
Franscisco, CA.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1951), Quality Control: Principles,
Practice, and Administration, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Fullan, M. (1993), Change Forces, Falmer Press, London.
Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1992), “Teacher develop-
ment and educational change,“ in Fullan, M. and
Hargreaves, A. (Eds), Teacher Development and
Educational Change, Falmer Press, London.
Fuller, B. (1986), “Defining school quality”, in Hannaway, J.
and Lockheed, M.E. (Eds), The Contribution of Social
 Multi-models of quality in education
Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam
Science to Educational Policy and Practice: 1965-
1985, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA.
Gilmore, H.L. (1974), “Product conformance cost”, Quality
Progress, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 16-19.
Greenwood, M.S. and Gaunt, H.J. (1994), Total Quality
Management for Schools, Cassell, London.
Hargreaves, A. (1994), Changing Teachers, Changing
Times, Cassell, London.
Hargreaves, D.H. and Hopkins, D. (1991), The Empowered
School, Cassell, London.
Hughes, P. (Ed.) (1988), The Challenge of Identifying and
Marketing Quality in Education, The Australian
Association of Senior Educational Administrators,
Sydney, NSW.
Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. Jr (Eds), (1988), Juran’s Quality
Control Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Lieberman, A., Saxl, E.R. and Miles, M.B. (1988), “Teacher
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)
leadership: ideology and practice”, in Lieberman, A.,
(Ed.), Building a Professional Culture in Schools,
Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Murgatroyd, S. and Morgan, C. (1993), Total Quality
Management and The School, Open University
Press, Buckingham.
Nias, J., Southworth, G. and Campbell, P. (1992), Whole
School Curriculum Development in the Primary
School, Falmer Press, Lewes.
31
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 1 · 1997 · 22–31
OECD (1989), Schools and Quality: An International
Report, OECD, Paris.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A
conceptual model of service quality and its implica-
tions for future research“, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of
Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Schmuck, R.A. and Runkel, P.J. (1985), The Handbook of
Organization Development in Schools, 3rd ed.,
Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice
of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York,
NY.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1984), “Leadership and excellence in
schooling”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 4-13.
Sheerens, J. (1992), Effective Schooling: Research, Theory
and Practice, Cassell, London.
Tenner, A.R. and Detoro, I.J. (1992), Total Quality Manage-
ment, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Wideen, M.F. (1992), “School-based teacher develop-
ment”, in Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (Eds),
Teacher Development and Educational Change,
Falmer Press, London,
Working Group on Educational Standards (1994), Quality
in School Education, Education Commission, Hong
Kong Government, Hong Kong.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jeongmin Lee, Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski. 2017. Conceptualising education quality in Zambia: a comparative analysis
across the local, national and global discourses. Comparative Education 18, 1-20. [Crossref]
2. Vivek B. Kamat, Jayant K. Kittur. 2017. Quantifying the quality of higher and technical education: salient perspectives.
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 8:2, 515-527. [Crossref]
3. IbrahimYaro, Yaro Ibrahim, ArshadRozita, Rozita Arshad, SallehDani, Dani Salleh. 2017. Stakeholder perceptions of
secondary education quality in Sokoto State, Nigeria. Quality Assurance in Education 25:2, 248-267. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
4. SubrahmanyamAnnamdevula, Annamdevula Subrahmanyam. 2017. Relationship between service quality, satisfaction,
motivation and loyalty. Quality Assurance in Education 25:2, 171-188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Vanessa Scherman, Roel J. Bosker. The Role of Monitoring in Enhancing the Quality of Education 1-7. [Crossref]
6. Gladys Kivati. The Role of Kenya’s Formal Higher Education in Sustainable Development Within the Context of Globalization
17-33. [Crossref]
7. Chiara Demartini, Claudia Dossena. 2016. Antecedents and consequences of the use of Facebook in learning contexts: a
proposed framework. Technology, Innovation and Education 2:1. . [Crossref]
8. Rebecca Maxwell-Stuart, Babak Taheri, Audrey S. Paterson, Kevin O’Gorman, William Jackson. 2016. Working together to
increase student satisfaction: exploring the effects of mode of study and fee status. Studies in Higher Education 1-13. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)

9. Sheng-Hsun Hsu, Yu-Che Wang, Chao-Jih Cheng, Yu-Fan Chen. 2016. Developing a decomposed alumni satisfaction model
for higher education institutions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 27:9-10, 979-996. [Crossref]
10. GaleevaRailya B., Railya B. Galeeva. 2016. SERVQUAL application and adaptation for educational service quality assessments
in Russian higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 24:3, 329-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Shahid N. Bhuian. 2016. Sustainability of Western branch campuses in the Gulf Region: Students’ perspectives of service
quality. International Journal of Educational Development 49, 314-323. [Crossref]
12. Sidnei Vieira Marinho, Gabriella Depiné Poffo. 2016. Diagnóstico da qualidade em uma IES: a percepção da comunidade
acadêmica. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas) 21:2, 455-478. [Crossref]
13. Sangeeta Sahney. 2016. Use of multiple methodologies for developing a customer-oriented model of total quality management
in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management 30:3, 326-353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Sangeeta Sahney, Jitesh Thakkar. 2016. A comparative assessment of the performance of select higher education institutes
in India. Quality Assurance in Education 24:2, 278-302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Faizan Ali, Yuan Zhou, Kashif Hussain, Pradeep Kumar Nair, Neethiahnanthan Ari Ragavan. 2016. Does higher education
service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty?. Quality Assurance in Education 24:1, 70-94. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
16. Subhashini Bhaskaran, Kevin Lu, Mansoor Aali. A data mining approach for investigating students’ completion rates 105-116.
[Crossref]
17. Jon Olaskoaga-Larrauri, Miren Barrenetxea-Ayesta, Antonio Cardona-Rodríguez, Juan José Mijangos-Del-Campo, Marta
Barandiaran-Galdós. 2015. Between Efficiency and Transformation: the opinion of deans on the meaning of quality in higher
education. European Journal of Education n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
18. Attiah Seniwoliba Joseph, Nalarb Yakubu Richard. 2015. An analysis of the quality assurance policies in a Ghanian University.
Educational Research and Reviews 10:16, 2331-2339. [Crossref]
19. Aznur Hajar Abdullah, Shaista Wasiuzzaman, Rosidah Musa. 2015. University quality and emotional attachment of
undergraduate students in a private higher education in Malaysia. International Journal of Social Economics 42:7, 644-665.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Miren Barrenetxea Ayesta, Jon Olaskoaga Larrauri, Xabier González Laskibar, Marta Barandiaran Galdós, Antonio Cardona
Rodríguez, Juan José Mijangos Del Campo, Eneritz Onaindia Gerrikabeitia. 2015. Nociones de Calidad de Los Académicos
Españoles y Determinantes Socio-profesionales de Las Mismas. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 196, 8-13. [Crossref]
21. Yehuda Baruch, Orna Lavi-Steiner. 2015. The career impact of management education from an average-ranked university.
Career Development International 20:3, 218-237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Syed Zamberi Ahmad. 2015. Evaluating student satisfaction of quality at international branch campuses. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 40:4, 488-507. [Crossref]
23. Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, D. Enrique Ribeiro-Soriano. 2015. Behind league tables and ranking systems. Journal of Service
Theory and Practice 25:3, 242-266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Jon Olaskoaga-Larrauri, Xabier González-Laskibar, Miren Barrenetxea-Ayesta. 2015. Political nature and socio-professional
determinants of the concept of quality. Higher Education 69:4, 673-691. [Crossref]
 25. Jian Xiao, Stephen Wilkins. 2015. The effects of lecturer commitment on student perceptions of teaching quality and student
satisfaction in Chinese higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37:1, 98-110. [Crossref]
26. Janice Desire Busingye, Rovincer Najjuma. 2015. DO LEARNING AND TEACHING MATERIALS INFLUENCE
LEARNING OUTCOMES AMIDST HIGH ENROLMENTS? LESSONS FROM UGANDA'S UNIVERSAL
PRIMARY EDUCATION. Africa Education Review 12:1, 109-126. [Crossref]
27. Ankit Kulkarni, Ajeet Khan, Nitesh Mishra, Sunny Raikwar, Shaligram Prajapat. DC-model for quality improvement in
technical education 308-312. [Crossref]
28. Konstantina Kamvysi, Katerina Gotzamani, Andreas Andronikidis, Andreas C. Georgiou. 2014. Capturing and prioritizing
students’ requirements for course design by embedding Fuzzy-AHP and linear programming in QFD. European Journal of
Operational Research 237:3, 1083-1094. [Crossref]
29. Seongwon Lee. 2014. Exploring the evaluating determinants of general English courses using structural equatioin model.
English Language Teaching 26:3, 187-201. [Crossref]
30. Jessica Lichy, Tatiana Khvatova, Kevin Pon. 2014. Engaging in digital technology: one size fits all?. Journal of Management
Development 33:7, 638-661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Pradeep Paul George, Nikos Papachristou, José Marcano Belisario, Wei Wang, Petra A Wark, Ziva Cotic, Kristine Rasmussen,
René Sluiter, Eva Riboli–Sasco, Lorainne Tudor Car, Eve Marie Musulanov, Joseph Antonio Molina, Bee Hoon Heng,
Yanfeng Zhang, Erica Lynette Wheeler, Najeeb Al Shorbaji, Azeem Majeed, Josip Car. 2014. Online eLearning for
undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction.
Journal of Global Health 4:1. . [Crossref]
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)

32. Ritika Mahajan, Rajat Agrawal, Vinay Sharma, Vinay Nangia. 2014. Factors affecting quality of management education in
India. International Journal of Educational Management 28:4, 379-399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Aznur Hajar Abdullah, Shaista Wasiuzzaman, Rosidah Musa. 2014. The Effects of University Quality on Emotional
Attachment: A Case from a Private Higher Education Institution. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 130, 282-292.
[Crossref]
34. Ishfaq Ahmed, Wan Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail, Salmiah Mohamad Amin, Talat Islam. 2014. Role of perceived organizational
support in teachers’ responsiveness and students’ outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management 28:2, 246-256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Ahmad Saruddin Endut. 2014. Enhancing Internal Quality Assurance Mechanism at HEI through Responsive Program
Evaluation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123, 5-11. [Crossref]
36. Jasmina Dlačić, Maja Arslanagić, Selma Kadić-Maglajlić, Suzana Marković, Sanja Raspor. 2014. Exploring perceived service
quality, perceived value, and repurchase intention in higher education using structural equation modelling. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 25:1-2, 141-157. [Crossref]
37. Suleyman M. Yildiz. 2014. Service quality evaluation in the school of physical education and sports: An empirical investigation
of students' perceptions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25:1-2, 80-94. [Crossref]
38. Roma Mitra Debnath, Ravi Shankar. 2014. Emerging trend of customer satisfaction in academic process. The TQM Journal
26:1, 14-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Muhammad Jaber Hossain, SM Zabed Ahmed. 2013. Developing a service performance assessment system to improve service
quality of academic libraries. Business Information Review 30:4, 210-221. [Crossref]
40. Georgios Stamelos, Marianna Bartzakli. 2013. ‘Good practice’ school advisors in Greek education: the difficulty in linking
collaborative networks, communities of practice and quality culture. Teacher Development 17:4, 448-464. [Crossref]
41. David Jiménez-Castillo, Raquel Sánchez-Fernández, M. Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo. 2013. Segmenting university graduates on
the basis of perceived value, image and identification. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 10:3, 235-252.
[Crossref]
42. Maria del Carmen Calatrava Moreno. Towards a flexible assessment of higher education with 360-degree feedback 1-7.
[Crossref]
43. Prabha Ramseook-Munhurrun, Pushpa Nundlall. 2013. Service quality measurement for secondary school setting. Quality
Assurance in Education 21:4, 387-401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. HWANGGYUHO. 2013. National curriculum revision and the quality of education. The Journal of Curriculum Studies 31:3,
27-52. [Crossref]
45. Mukdashine Sandmaung, Do Ba Khang. 2013. Quality expectations in Thai higher education institutions: multiple
stakeholder perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education 21:3, 260-281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Frank Heyworth. 2013. Applications of quality management in language education. Language Teaching 46:03, 281-315.
[Crossref]
47. Ashita Aggarwal Sharma, Vithala R. Rao, Sapna Popli. 2013. Measuring consumer-based brand equity for Indian business
schools. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 23:2, 175-203. [Crossref]
 48. Muhammad Asif, Abdul Raouf. 2013. Setting the course for quality assurance in higher education. Quality & Quantity 47:4,
2009-2024. [Crossref]
49. Kristi Ploom, Toomas Haldma. 2013. Balanced performance management in the public education system. Baltic Journal of
Management 8:2, 183-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Esther-R. Mbise, Ronald S. J. Tuninga. 2013. The Application of SERVQUAL to Business Schools in an Emerging Market:
The Case of Tanzania. Journal of Transnational Management 18:2, 101-124. [Crossref]
51. Zsuzsanna Eszter Tóth, Tamás Jónás, Roland Bérces, Bálint Bedzsula. 2013. Course evaluation by importance‐performance
analysis and improving actions at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences 5:1, 66-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Karmen Rodman, Roberto Biloslavo, Silva Bratož. 2013. Institutional Quality of a Higher Education Institution from the
Perspective of Employers. Minerva 51:1, 71-92. [Crossref]
53. Steven M. Culver, Per Warfvinge. 2013. Assessment, accountability, and educational quality in the United States and Sweden.
European Journal of Higher Education 3:1, 10-23. [Crossref]
54. Adam E. Nir, Bhojraj Sharma Kafle. 2013. The effect of political stability on public education quality. International Journal
of Educational Management 27:2, 110-126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Chia-Tsung Lee. 2013. Leadership Research of Taiwanese College Students’ Learning Environment and Education Quality.
International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning . [Crossref]
56. Roma Mitra Debnath, Ravi Shankar. 2012. Improving service quality in technical education: use of interpretive structural
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)

modeling. Quality Assurance in Education 20:4, 387-407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Ritu Narang. 2012. How do management students perceive the quality of education in public institutions?. Quality Assurance
in Education 20:4, 357-371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Sangeeta Sahney. 2012. Designing quality for the higher educational system. Asian Journal on Quality 13:2, 116-137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Penelope Mbabazi Bamwesiga, Lars-Owe Dahlgren, Andreas Fejes. 2012. Students as learners through the eyes of their
teachers in Rwandan higher education. International Journal of Lifelong Education 31:4, 503-521. [Crossref]
60. Debra Grace, Scott Weaven, Kelli Bodey, Mitchell Ross, Keith Weaven. 2012. Putting student evaluations into perspective:
The Course Experience Quality and Satisfaction Model (CEQS). Studies in Educational Evaluation 38:2, 35-43. [Crossref]
61. Anna Saiti. 2012. Leadership and quality management. Quality Assurance in Education 20:2, 110-138. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
62. Bill K. P. Chou. 2012. The Paradox of Educational Quality and Education Policy in Hong Kong and Macau. Chinese Education
& Society 45:2, 96-110. [Crossref]
63. Sangeeta Sahney. 2011. Delighting customers of management education in India: a student perspective, part I. The TQM
Journal 23:6, 644-658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Chenicheri Sid Nair, Arun Patil, Patricie Mertova. 2011. Enhancing the quality of engineering education by utilising student
feedback. European Journal of Engineering Education 36:1, 3-12. [Crossref]
65. Johan de Jager, Gbolahan Gbadamosi. 2010. Specific remedy for specific problem: measuring service quality in South African
higher education. Higher Education 60:3, 251-267. [Crossref]
66. Chenicheri Sid Nair, Lorraine Bennett, Patricie Mertova. 2010. Responding to the student voice: a case study of a systematic
improvement strategy. The TQM Journal 22:5, 553-564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Brian Poole. 2010. Quality, semantics and the two cultures. Quality Assurance in Education 18:1, 6-18. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
68. Dennis Chung Sea Law. 2010. Quality assurance in post‐secondary education. Quality Assurance in Education 18:1, 64-77.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet, S. Karunes. 2010. Quality framework in education through application of interpretive
structural modeling. The TQM Journal 22:1, 56-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. Johan De Jager, Werner Soontiens. 2010. Marketing and Reputation in the Services Sector. International Journal of Information
Systems in the Service Sector 2:3, 28-41. [Crossref]
71. M'hammed Abdous. 2009. E‐learning quality assurance: a process‐oriented lifecycle model. Quality Assurance in Education
17:3, 281-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Yen-Ku Kuo, Kung-Don Ye. 2009. The causal relationship between service quality, corporate image and adults' learning
satisfaction and loyalty: A study of professional training programmes in a Taiwanese vocational institute. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 20:7, 749-762. [Crossref]
 73. Melpo Iacovidou, Paul Gibbs, Anastasios Zopiatis. 2009. An Exploratory Use of the Stakeholder Approach to Defining
and Measuring Quality: The Case of a Cypriot Higher Education Institution. Quality in Higher Education 15:2, 147-165.
[Crossref]
74. Audhesh K. Paswan, Gopala Ganesh. 2009. Higher Education Institutions: Satisfaction and Loyalty among International
Students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 19:1, 65-84. [Crossref]
75. Ana Brochado. 2009. Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance
in Education 17:2, 174-190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Gerald Wangenge-Ouma. 2008. Higher education marketisation and its discontents: the case of quality in Kenya. Higher
Education 56:4, 457-471. [Crossref]
77. Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet, S. Karunes. 2008. An integrated framework of indices for quality management in education:
a faculty perspective. The TQM Journal 20:5, 502-519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Fion Choon Boey Lim. 2008. Understanding quality assurance: a cross country case study. Quality Assurance in Education
16:2, 126-140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Anne Marie Delaney. 2008. Designing Retention Research for Assessment and Enhanced Competitive Advantage. Tertiary
Education and Management 14:1, 57-66. [Crossref]
80. Yadollah Mehralizadeh, Mohamad Jafar Pakseresht, Massoud Baradaran, Sakineh Shahi. 2007. The dilemma of internal
evaluation in higher education: a longitudinal case study. Quality Assurance in Education 15:3, 352-368. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)

81. Audhesh K. Paswan, Nancy Spears, Gopala Ganesh. 2007. The effects of obtaining one's preferred service brand on consumer
satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing 21:2, 75-87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Ching‐Yaw Chen, Phyra Sok, Keomony Sok. 2007. Benchmarking potential factors leading to education quality. Quality
Assurance in Education 15:2, 128-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Siriporn McDowall, Li-Chun Lin. 2007. A Comparison of Students' Attitudes toward Two Teaching Methods: Traditional
versus Distance Learning. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 19:1, 20-26. [Crossref]
84. Masood Abdulla Badri, Hassan Selim, Khaled Alshare, Elizabeth E. Grandon, Hassan Younis, Mohammed Abdulla. 2006.
The Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence Framework. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 23:9, 1118-1157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Nina Becket, Maureen Brookes. 2006. Evaluating quality management in university departments. Quality Assurance in
Education 14:2, 123-142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet, S. Karunes. 2006. An integrated framework for quality in education: Application of quality
function deployment, interpretive structural modelling and path analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
17:2, 265-285. [Crossref]
87. Audhesh K. Paswan, Gopala Ganesh. 2005. Cross-Cultural Interaction Comfort and Service Evaluation. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing 18:1-2, 93-115. [Crossref]
88. Felix T. Mavondo, Yelena Tsarenko, Mark Gabbott. 2004. International and Local Student Satisfaction: Resources and
Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 14:1, 41-60. [Crossref]
89. Paul Gibbs, Melpo Iacovidou. 2004. Quality as pedagogy of confinement: is there an alternative?. Quality Assurance in Education
12:3, 113-119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Eugenia Petridou, Katerina Sarri. 2004. Evaluation research in business schools: students’ rating myth. International Journal
of Educational Management 18:3, 152-159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet, S. Karunes. 2004. Conceptualizing total quality management in higher education. The TQM
Magazine 16:2, 145-159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. Mary T. Boylston, Mary Anne Peters, Margaret Lacey. 2004. Adult student satisfaction in traditional and accelerated RN-
to-BSN programs. Journal of Professional Nursing 20:1, 23-32. [Crossref]
93. Yin Cheong Cheng. 2003. Quality assurance in education: internal, interface, and future. Quality Assurance in Education 11:4,
202-213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Sangeeta Sahney, Devinder Kumar Banwet, Sabita Karunes. 2003. Enhancing quality in education: application of quality
function deployment – an industry perspective. Work Study 52:6, 297-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Kevin M. Elliott. 2002. Key Determinants of Student Satisfaction. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice 4:3, 271-279. [Crossref]
96. Sérgio C. Benício de Mello, Hérrisson Fábio de Oliveira Dutra, Patrícia Andréa da Silva Oliveira. 2001. Avaliando a qualidade
de serviço educacional numa ies: o impacto da qualidade percebida na apreciação do aluno de graduação. Organizações &
Sociedade 8:21, 125-137. [Crossref]
 97. Kevin M. Elliott, Margaret A. Healy. 2001. Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and
Retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 10:4, 1-11. [Crossref]
98. J. Charlene Davis, Scott T. Swanson. 2001. Navigating Satisfactory and Dissatisfactory Classroom Incidents. Journal of
Education for Business 76:5, 245-250. [Crossref]
99. Brenda M. Oldfield, Steve Baron. 2000. Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business and management
faculty. Quality Assurance in Education 8:2, 85-95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Yin Cheong Cheng, Kwok Tung Tsui. 1999. Multimodels of Teacher Effectiveness: Implications for Research. The Journal
of Educational Research 92:3, 141-150. [Crossref]
101. Jane Thompson, Mike Cook, Derek Cottrell, Roger Lewis, Bill Miller. 1998. Developing an institutional framework for
rewarding excellence in teaching: a case study. Quality Assurance in Education 6:2, 97-105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Yin Cheong Cheng, Wing Ming Cheung. 1997. Multi-Models of Education Quality and Multi-Levels of Self-Management
in Schools. Educational Management & Administration 25:4, 451-462. [Crossref]
103. Venesser Fernandes. Reframing Continuous School Improvement in Australian Schools 98-124. [Crossref]
104. Mohammad Ayub Khan. Business Management Education in Reality 130-146. [Crossref]
105. Johan De Jager, Werner Soontiens. Marketing and Reputation in the Services Sector 193-207. [Crossref]
106. Mohammad Ayub Khan. Business Management Education in Reality 1670-1686. [Crossref]
107. B. Shanmuga Priya, M. Jeyakumaran. Service Quality Dimensionality in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): 2122-2138.
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 07:07 08 August 2017 (PT)

[Crossref]
108. Gilbert Ahamer. Quality Assurance in Transnational Education Management 259-302. [Crossref]
109. Gilbert Ahamer. Quality Assurance in Transnational Education Management: 1271-1313. [Crossref]
110. Gilbert Ahamer. Quality Assurance for a Developmental “Global Studies” (GS) Curriculum 160-197. [Crossref]
111. Gilbert Ahamer. Quality Assurance for a Developmental “Global Studies” (GS) Curriculum 438-477. [Crossref]
112. Mukund Deshpande. Best Practices in Management Institutions for Global Leadership: 1-27. [Crossref]