|
Article |
Alfredo Ibarra-Sánchez[*]
Luis Alan Acuña-Gamboa*
Abstract
Evaluating educational quality contributes to the
detection, as well as the improvement or resolution of flaws in the educational
system of schools. Likewise, teacher training is one of the main pillars of
educational quality. Objective: To evaluate educational quality based on the
satisfaction levels of students and teachers. Methodology: A Likert-scale-based
instrument was administered to 304 students and 198 teachers from the 18
largest private universities located in the city of Culiacán, Sinaloa. The research
was conducted using an analytical-observational method, including a
cross-sectional, quantitative study of a descriptive nature. Results: The
results demonstrate that classrooms are populated by a diverse group of
students with very specific interests and needs, while on the part of
educational institutions, their interests do not always align with these needs
and interests, much less with the professional development of teachers.
Conclusions: The crucial role of teacher e , and educational institutions in
meeting the goals set for undergraduate students is recognized; at the same
time, there is a need for ongoing evaluation of educational quality and teacher
training.
Keywords: Higher education, educational quality assessment,
teacher training, educational indicators.
Resumen
Evaluar la calidad educativa contribuye en
la detección, así como en la mejora o solución de fallas en el sistema
educativo de los centros escolares. Así mismo, la formación del profesorado es
uno de los ejes principales de la calidad educativa. Objetivo: Evaluar la
calidad educativa mediante el grado de satisfacción de los estudiantes y
docentes. Metodología: Se aplicó un instrumento con base en escala Likert a 304
alumnos y 198 docentes de las 18 universidades privadas más grandes que se
sitúan en la ciudad de Culiacán, Sinaloa. La investigación se realizó desde el
método analítico observacional, incluyendo un estudio transversal y
cuantitativo de alcance descriptivo. Resultados: Los resultados demuestran que
en las aulas de clases participa una heterogeneidad de estudiantes con
intereses y necesidades muy particulares, mientras que del lado de las
instituciones educativas los intereses no siempre concuerdan con estas
necesidades e intereses, menos con la educación formativa de los docentes.
Conclusiones: se reconoce el papel crucial que tiene el docente y los centros
educativos para dar respuestas a las metas planteadas en los estudiantes de
licenciatura, a su vez, se precisa de una evaluación permanente de la calidad
educativa y la formación del profesorado.
Palabras clave: Educación
superior, evaluación de la calidad educativa, formación del profesorado,
indicadores educativos.
Introduction
Achieving higher levels of quality is one of the
greatest aspirations of any educational institution, and although the quality
of education is a concept that is not self-defining, it requires its components
or dimensions to be made explicit. Educational quality is one of the most
important attributes of educational institutions and establishments where
teaching-learning processes take place, and even more so of the entire system
that encompasses these processes. In Mexico, as in most Latin American countries,
education policies are underpinned by assessments and guiding principles that
define the direction of their implementation and have, in recent years, been
increasingly oriented toward giving greater consideration to local
opportunities.
Just as in other parts of the country, in the city
of Culiacán, Sinaloa, enrollment and coverage in private higher education are
growing, and a broad range of educational offerings has been established; the
academic life of institutions is becoming increasingly professionalized, while
the quality of education is affirmed as an aspiration and a widely shared
value. The factors influencing teachers’ professional performance and the
teaching-learning process are beginning to be systematically analyzed, and actions
are being planned to bring decision-making closer to school practice. In this
study, we address this issue, and given the magnitude of the phenomenon and the
number of variables that may influence it, we were particularly interested in
exploring educational quality by considering four dimensions: 1) from the
perspective of administrative leadership, 2) from the evaluation of practice,
3) from the perspective of academic mobility, and 4) from the perspective of
social relevance.
Educational quality as a subject of
study
The concept of quality is a term that is very
difficult to define; nevertheless, Sylvia Schmelkes (1996) clarifies that when
we refer to quality, we must consider four main elements that should be
observed in an educational process and, above all, in the results it yields.
These four elements of quality are relevance, effectiveness, equity, and
efficiency. Applying this definition, a high-quality school must offer learning
experiences relevant to students’ present and future lives and to the needs of
the society in which they live, ensuring student enrollment and retention
within the institution. Educational quality is established as the primary
objective in various regions of the world (Acuña Gamboa & Pons Bonals, 2018), and schools bear the responsibility of
fulfilling this task by providing the conditions necessary to achieve the goal
of quality education. In the Latin American context, quality as excellence
equates to having outstanding students, distinguished academics, and first-rate
safeguards as a response to the requirements of the environment, where social
relevance must take precedence and depend on the stated purposes under
international standards and requirements conducive to achieving professional,
academic, and student-faculty exchange within the realm of global competition.
(Aguila Cabrera, 2005; Lago de Vergara, Gamoba Suárez
& Montes Miranda, 2014).
In the university setting, higher education
constitutes a system with a high degree of complexity due to the diversity of
intentions, missions, visions, educational models, forms of organization,
conditions, and the participation of the actors involved (González González, Galindo Miranda, Galindo Miranda & Gold
Morgan, 2004; González Martín, 2018; Rodríguez, 2009). A perfectly coordinated
system is therefore required, one in which there are fewer and fewer errors;
for this reason, schools adopt management systems. To achieve maximum
efficiency, the system must be established with a series of controls where this
concept underlies the so-called efficiency-oriented approaches in education, in
which quality management systems are employed within Latin American Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) as an alternative for academic work, whose
objectives are to systematize administrative methods and procedures, foster a
culture of service, and train staff, in pursuit of student satisfaction, all
under rigid frameworks of technical rationality (Castillo-Cedeño, Flores-Davis,
Miranda-Cervantes, & León, 2016; Yzaguirre Peralta, 2005; Villarruel
Fuentes, 2010).
According to Surdez Pérez, Sandoval Caraveo & Lamoyi (2018), a country’s progress depends largely on the
quality of education provided by universities; consequently, having systems
that incorporate metrics to assess user satisfaction and perception becomes a
factor of great importance for improving the educational system in Mexico. In
this regard, Vazquez (2013) makes it very clear that educational quality is
inherently complex, which is why it is important to define its dimensions and
indicators, narrowing down the elements to be evaluated that will allow us to
assess the quality of education. To this end, there are initiatives and
guidelines from various stakeholders, such as the National Association of
Universities and Institutions of Higher Education (ANUIES), the
Interinstitutional Committees for the Evaluation of Higher Education (CIEES),
and the Council for the Accreditation of Higher Education (COPAES), the
National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT), the Council of the
National System of Technological Education (COSNET), the National Center for
the Evaluation of Higher Education, and the Federation of Mexican Private
Institutions of Higher Education (FIMPES) (Rodriguez Andujo, López Díaz &
Arras Vota, 2009).
If something is subjected to evaluation, it is done
according to certain criteria, notes Egido Gálvez
(2005). By focusing on identifying factors associated with educational quality,
quality management in higher education promotes positive changes within the
university, and these changes converge on the following basic criteria:
direction and leadership, development of academic processes, performance of
work teams, behavior of individual actors, and outcomes. (Alfaro, 2010; Álvarez Botello, Chaparro Salinas & Reyes Pérez, 2015;
Álvarez García & Topete Barrera, 1997; Muñoz Labraña, Vásquez Lara &
Reyes Jedlicki, 2010).
Educational Leadership
When we think of leadership, we immediately
associate this concept with people who demonstrate extraordinary qualities as
human beings. In Mexico, private higher education institutions (IESP) are under
the scrutiny of various evaluation bodies that join forces to raise educational
quality standards, involving a significant amount of human, economic, and
financial resources that could be in vain without leadership-oriented
administrators who comply with policies to achieve the required levels of
educational quality. When referring to private higher education institutions
(IESP), the leader is found in the roles of academic head, department head,
director, and rector. According to Bass (1997), leaders, through their actions,
motivate their followers to transcend their own interests for the good of the
group, the organization, or the country. In this regard, López Yáñez &
Sánchez Moreno (2009) point out that among the functions of educational
leadership are curriculum administration and the creation of a healthy
environment.
Thus, the appropriate leadership for the
administration of HEIs is that which includes supportive practices in academic,
executive, and social interactions that foster the opportunity to grow as
leaders by connecting with others (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey & Ryland, 2012).
The traits of a person with educational leadership include being adept at the
efficient management of people and resources, having a positive vision for
change with a focus on personal development by bringing together diverse groups
to foster student and faculty development, being consistent, firm, and
competent with solid knowledge of administrative performance (Bedrow, 2010; González Martín, 2018; Ramsden, 1998), being
inclusive (Fernández Batanero & Fernández, 2013),
innovative (Aparicio Molina, Sepúlveda López, Valverde Huincatripay, Cárdenas
Merino, Contreras Sanzana & Valenzuela Ravanal, 2020; Berdrow 2010),
and, furthermore, sustainable (Sierra Villamil, 2017), for the purposes of
education in our times.
Pedagogical practice
While it is true that the principal bears the
responsibility for the administration of the school, according to Sylvia
Schmelkes (1996), it is the teacher who is responsible for guiding the teaching
process within the classroom and, therefore, plays a decisive role in the
quality of educational outcomes. Teachers face a monumental task in creating
environments conducive to learning, which relies heavily on their talent and
self-efficacy. The atmosphere of a classroom is determined by teachers’ beliefs
regarding their instructional effectiveness (Bandura, 1999), with planning
processes setting the tone for this environment (Zabalza, 1990). In this regard, considering the factors that
influence educational quality, teacher quality is the most important factor in
a high-quality school (Sylvia Schmelkes, 1996). Today, teachers are expected to
design strategies that enable students to learn how to pose and solve problems,
think critically, and be creative (Crispín, 1998).
Pedagogical practice is an intentional practice
involving the actions taken by the teacher to facilitate student learning.
Self-reflection on the teacher’s daily work allows them to identify situations
they may face during their practice, such as groups with particular
characteristics, students with specific concerns that require changes to what
was previously prepared for class, as well as the administrative implications
of working in a given institution (Bazdresch, 2000;
Schön, 1994). A good teacher must possess three coexisting factors: first,
mastery of the subject matter; second, teaching motivation—they must enjoy
teaching in order to motivate others; and third, communication skills,
understood as the ability to take the necessary actions to ensure that the
content to be taught reaches the student in the best possible way (Carlos
Guzmán, 2005). Thus, through pedagogical practice, teachers will encourage
students to engage in self-criticism and to question their environment with
intellectual independence (Fresán, 2000). This allows
us to view the teaching narrative as a process that reveals people’s thoughts,
feelings, and intentions, combined with the intellectual and practical
nourishment of the profession (Acuña Gamboa, López Ordoñez & Mérida
Martínez, 2015).
Academic Mobility
General education helps us reestablish the
individual-species-society relationship, without this leading to the reduction
or subordination of one term to another (Morin, 1993), actively promoting
connections between diverse areas of knowledge and, in this context, an
environment for the development of tolerance, empathy, solidarity, and
emotional connection (Vélez Cardona, 2012). In this same context, opportunities
are fostered to create research and teaching networks, which involves engaging
in the functions inherent to academic administration, with the primary purpose
of influencing the teaching process and thereby improving academic quality
(Knight, 2010). Quality assurance in higher education is the guarantee of trust
among educational institutions (Salabur, 2011), a
trust that is largely determined by those who make up the faculty at
universities. This culture of quality could not be understood in HEIs without
accountability and funding contingent on good results (Michavila
& Zamorano, 2008; Olvera, 2010), conceiving quality systems as drivers of
innovation and improvement in teaching processes. In human resources
development and teacher training, mobility is linked to professional
development and, where applicable, recognized within a professional career
path. Teacher mobility, referring to the rotation of teachers among schools
within a school year, is seen as a good indicator of better working conditions
and provides both teachers and participating institutions with a broader
perspective for knowledge generation (Bernal del Castillo, 2014; Castejón Silvo, 2013; Madarro,
2011). Consequently, teaching activities have been expanded to include the
creation of academic community partnerships outside relevant institutions,
networking, and participation in conferences and communities abroad
(Stromquist, 2009) to ensure that they possess and contribute the academic
quality required by the relevant institutions.
Social Relevance
Higher education must respond to the needs demanded
by society, and by making this commitment, it is directly linked to
knowledge—both in clarifying our understanding and in acquiring it through
teaching. Today’s society is undergoing constant change that affects and
interacts with the customs, patterns, and ways of life of social groups
(ANUIES, 2000), as well as the strategic value of knowledge and information and
the increased role of the intellectual dimension of work (UNESCO, 1995).
Mastery of knowledge is a key factor in development, such that society’s
transition toward a knowledge-based stage offers new horizons for higher
education institutions, both in their role as trainers of professionals and in
their contribution to the generation, application, and transfer of
knowledge—processes considered fundamental to a country’s economic development
(World Bank, 1995). Thus, it can be asserted that higher education must produce
and reproduce knowledge, whether in its degree programs, in its curricula, in
its research, or in any other space available (Gómez, 2014), and it is in this
sense that it is necessary to open the university to an objective society. For
a higher education institution, relevance entails aligning its objectives with
a societal project, emphasizing that relevance is tied to the context of
knowledge production, that is, taking into account the environment of higher
education institutions and thereby bringing those who produce knowledge closer
to those who appropriate it, since the latter are not only students but also
other sectors of society and elements of the educational system to which they
belong (Castro-Gómez, 2007; García Garduño & Organista Sandoval, 2006). The
way to provide solutions and address the diverse needs of a changing society is
a way of conceiving the social relevance of HEIs, which also implies social
responsibility by participating in identifying and analyzing the needs,
demands, and priority issues of the social context of which they are a part
(Estévez, Coronado & Martínez, 2012).
This research is an important contribution to
educational quality that enables the development of future tools and
methodologies that contribute to individuals’ satisfaction with quality. For
the purposes of this study, it is considered that the quality of education at
private higher education institutions in the capital of the state of Sinaloa is
determined by various interrelated factors, including educational leadership,
pedagogical performance, academic mobility, and social relevance, all of which
contribute to strengthening educational quality.
Materials and methods
This research presents an assessment of the
educational quality with which private higher education institutions in the
city of Culiacán, Sinaloa, currently develop their curricula and study
programs. Based on four analytical variables (administrative leadership,
evaluation of teaching practices, academic mobility, and social relevance),
data were collected from 198 teachers and 304 students, which allowed for an
assessment of the subject matter.
From this perspective, this research was conducted
using a quantitative approach, as it allowed for differential statistical
comparisons of the information obtained from the sample, which provided very
specific descriptive insights into the reality of the quality of private
education in Culiacán, Sinaloa.
Likewise, this approach allowed us to conduct a
specific study aimed at correlating the variables and enabled us to understand
the metrics that contribute to improving the quality of education, particularly
in the higher education institutions of this city.
Two assessment questionnaires were administered to
measure the quality of private higher education in Culiacán, Sinaloa: the
“Teacher Questionnaire” and the “Student Questionnaire,” through which the
opinions of the respondents were systematically collected. The instrument
consists of 38 items answered using a Likert-type scale that classifies the
levels of “always,” “almost always,” “sometimes,” and “never,” which the
teacher or student considers representative of the topic. The “always” level is
associated with good educational quality, the “sometimes” level with fair
quality, and the “sometimes” and “never” levels with poor quality. This
instrument groups the items according to categories that collectively define
the concept of educational quality: 1) from the perspective of administrative
leadership, 2) from the perspective of practice evaluation, 3) from the
perspective of academic mobility, and 4) from the perspective of social
relevance.
The respondents were either teaching (in the case of
teachers) or enrolled (in the case of students) in bachelor’s degree programs
in: International Trade and Customs, Advertising, Design and Communication,
Psychology, Dance, Gastronomy, Marketing, Accounting, Educational Psychology,
Chemical Engineering, Family Sciences, Clinical Psychology, Biotechnology
Engineering, Interior Design, Foreign Trade and Customs, Tourism Business
Administration, Marketing, and Advertising. The calculation of the representative
and statistically significant sample size was determined using Decision Analyst
STATSTM 2.0 software in the Sample Size Determination section. The sample
calculation, based on a normal distribution with a 5% margin of error and a 95%
confidence level, established that the sample should consist of 198 teachers
and 304 students.
The teachers and students who completed the
questionnaire in this study are affiliated with the private higher education
sector at the bachelor’s degree level in the city of Culiacán.
To validate these data collection instruments, they
were administered as a pilot test to 30 teachers and 40 students selected at
random from 4 different universities. Reliability analysis was performed using
the SPSS statistical software (Statistical Product and Service Solutions),
yielding a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.96 for the teacher questionnaire
and 0.93 for the student questionnaire.
Table 1. Content of the criteria: Educational leadership,
practice evaluation, academic mobility, and social relevance for evaluating
educational quality in schools.
|
Teachers |
Students |
|
Administrative leadership |
|
|
The administration promotes the institution’s
mission, vision, and values. |
The principal fosters respect among students. |
|
Management
supports the professional development of staff. |
The principal’s
work serves as a model of excellence. |
|
When there is a conflict of interest between the
principal and the teachers, the principal ensures that both parties reach a
satisfactory agreement. |
In situations where the principal and teachers have conflicting
interests, is there any noticeable tension among the teaching staff? |
|
The
administration fosters a climate of participation, cordiality, and respect. |
Communication
between administrators, teachers, and students is efficient and effective. |
|
The principal puts forward educational and
institutional proposals with a forward-looking vision. |
The principal intervenes in resolving problems that arise among
students. |
|
The
administration supports and promotes the quality policy. |
The principal
is impartial when resolving problems that arise among students. |
|
The principal delegates responsibilities. |
The principal offers praise or encouragement when things are done
well. |
|
The principal
guides the work of his or her staff by example. |
The
administration promotes the institution’s mission, vision, and values. |
|
The administration recognizes the achievements of
the teaching staff. |
Motivational initiatives and incentives encourage students to
contribute to the institution’s development. |
|
The principal
distributes work fairly among the teaching staff. |
The principal
ensures that students’ educational achievements are recognized. |
|
The administration establishes partnerships with the
educational community and external organizations. |
The administration organizes and participates in conferences,
seminars, and competitions. |
|
Evaluation of Teaching Practices |
|
|
Teachers are evaluated on their proficiency in
information and communication technologies. |
Teachers’ teamwork within the institution is valued. |
|
The principal
periodically monitors teaching practices to propose strategies for
improvement. |
Students
receive information and guidance from teachers regarding their academic
performance. |
|
Teachers meet periodically to discuss students’
progress and challenges in the learning process. |
They believe there is good communication among teachers. |
|
Teaching
practices promote communication among students and equal learning
opportunities. |
My teachers
attend classes regularly and are punctual. |
|
The curriculum diversification process is carried
out taking into account the issues identified in the institutional
educational program. |
My teachers explain to me at the beginning of the school year the
rules that must be followed and how the course will be conducted. |
|
The teacher
informs students of the criteria and methods used to assess their learning. |
Students are
given engaging activities by teachers during class. |
|
Teaching practices are carried out in accordance
with the lesson plan. |
They agree on the use of different educational materials for teaching. |
|
Areas with
opportunities for improvement in carrying out the processes are identified
based on the results of assessment and monitoring. |
Students feel
like they are part of the class by actively participating, a participation
encouraged by the teacher. |
|
The teacher stimulates learning through innovation
and creativity by fostering teamwork. |
What I learn at my school is useful for solving problems I encounter
in daily life. |
|
Teachers
motivate students to engage in activities that involve field trips and other
settings outside the classroom. |
Information and
communication technologies are incorporated into my classes to improve
learning processes. |
|
Teacher performance is evaluated. |
My teachers encourage us to research and read different sources of
information. |
|
Academic mobility |
|
|
The professional development and training needs of
the teaching staff are identified. |
Students are encouraged to participate in cultural programs. |
|
Staff
development is promoted through participation in projects or programs and the
exchange of experiences. |
Students are
supported by the administration to be absent for a certain number of class
hours to attend academic conferences. |
|
Staff performance is evaluated individually and
collectively. |
Student achievements are publicly recognized. |
|
Staff
achievements are reported through a recognition program. |
The institution
identifies staff professional development needs. |
|
Faculty are encouraged to attend professional
development courses and workshops supported by the institution. |
Students receive financial support to participate in sports
competitions. |
|
Teachers
receive financial support to give presentations at conferences and seminars. |
The principal
encourages students to participate in civic ceremonies organized by the
institution. |
|
Teachers are granted a certain number of days off
from their classes for professional development in subjects related to the
courses they teach. |
Students are encouraged by the administration and teachers to
participate in academic competitions. |
|
Staff
participation in decision-making is continuously encouraged. |
Communication
is effective in upward, downward, and lateral directions. |
|
Social Relevance |
|
|
The institution
engages with the community through social assistance initiatives, aid, and
volunteer work with charitable organizations. |
The institution
has carried out joint activities with other institutions such as churches,
municipal centers, and others. |
|
As a teacher, I have participated in the community
through activities such as workshops, projects, talks, etc. |
The institution’s relationships benefit its educational work. |
|
The educational
institution participates in awareness-raising activities to address local
issues such as crime, gang activity, drugs, etc. |
As a student, I
have participated in the community through activities such as sports, talks,
etc. |
|
The institution’s administrators have agreements
with local government authorities to improve the institution. |
The institution carries out outreach programs to protect the
community’s environment. |
|
The school
community participates in activities aimed at reducing traffic disruptions
and/or hazards. |
The institution
has received recognition for its outstanding community involvement. |
|
The institution carries out outreach programs to
protect the environment in its community. |
The institution has received complaints from neighbors regarding the
inappropriate behavior of its administrative and teaching staff. |
|
The school
community participates in the care of parks, gardens, streets, plazas, and
street furniture in its surroundings. |
Inappropriate
behavior by students has been observed on the streets surrounding the
institution, causing disturbances to the community. |
|
The institution has received recognition for its
outstanding participation in the community. |
The educational institution participates in awareness-raising
activities to address local issues such as traffic accidents, drug use, etc. |
Own elaboration.
Data from the closed-ended questions in the
questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as means and
their respective standard deviations , classified into intervals based on the
teacher’s or student’s level of agreement with each statement (4-Always/good
quality, 3-Almost always/fair quality, 2-sometimes, and 1-never/poor quality).
To distinguish between the groups where differences were found, a one-way ANOVA
was used, followed by Tukey’s test, using the Prism GraphPad statistical software,
Version 6.0. Comparisons were made between the categories good, fair, or poor
in two ways: first, within the columns that distinguished intragroup
differences regarding perceptions of educational quality, and second, between
the columns that distinguished intergroup differences regarding comparisons of
teachers’ and students’ perceptions. A significant difference between the means
(p<0.05) was considered statistically significant.
Results
Understanding educational quality as a process that
produces outcomes, a significant part of this study involves analyzing the
elements involved in that process. Furthermore, the quality of educational
elements depends largely on how they are allocated and how their functioning is
monitored. Therefore, they constitute components of quality that can be
modified through educational decision-making processes.
The objective of this study is to understand the
quality of the educational provision and how it influences the outcomes of the
following elements: educational leadership, pedagogical practice, academic
mobility, and social relevance.
Higher education institutions in the city of
Culiacán demonstrate strong educational leadership. Figure 1 shows the
percentages of private higher education institutions classified into the three
quality levels (good, fair, poor) based on statements from students and
faculty. In this variable, 88.88% of the HEIs evaluated by students are rated
as good (black bars), as the director promotes the work carried out by setting
an example and is impartial when intervening to resolve problems that arise
among students. According to faculty, 83.33% of HEIs (shown in white bars)
demonstrate leadership by promoting the institution’s mission, vision, and
values, as well as the ethical principles that support the institution’s
culture of continuous improvement. There is a presence of institutions of
average quality, as indicated solely by the faculty members ( ) at a rate of
4.22%, due to the fact that the administration does not delegate
responsibilities, while institutions of poor quality were identified by both
evaluated groups at rates ranging from 11.11% to 12.45%; This is because
students are unsure whether communication between administrative staff and
faculty is efficient, and faculty members indicate that the administration does
not distribute work equitably among the teaching staff.
Figure 1. Educational Leadership Offerings. Percentage of
private higher education institutions in the city of Culiacán that offer
leadership rated as good, average, or poor based on responses from students and
faculty. Statistically significant differences were found in both intra- and
inter-group comparisons (p<0.0001).
Following the analysis, it can be stated that most
universities have educational leaders. A small portion of universities have
administrators with limited leadership skills; these are located in the
lower-middle-class suburban area, where directors rarely visit the
universities, resulting in significant regional differences in student
enrollment and infrastructure conditions. Another important difference lies in
the extent to which directors can devote their time and energy exclusively to
managing their schools. This is the norm only in the middle-class urban area.
Universities are more vital and active in urban and developed areas.
Thus, this study reveals the existence of highly
diverse conditions regarding the quality of educational leadership. These
differences relate to the degree of development and urbanization of the regions
where universities operate, infrastructure conditions, and the principal’s
attendance, as well as the equitable distribution of work among faculty members
and the efficiency of communication between administrative staff and faculty.
Higher education institutions in the city of
Culiacán exhibit polarized performance in pedagogical practice. Figure 2 shows
the percentages of private higher education institutions in the city of
Culiacán, with pedagogical practice polarized across two of the three quality
levels (good, poor) based on statements from students and faculty. In this
evaluated variable, 60.52% of the HEIs evaluated by students are shown in black
bars, as students feel they are part of the class by actively participating, and
participation is always encouraged by the instructor. 66.24% of the HEIs, shown
in white bars according to faculty, agree that classes are conducted according
to the initial lesson plan and that professors promote communication among
students and equal learning opportunities. The remaining percentage of
HEIs—39.48% and 33.76% for students and faculty, respectively— classified them
as low quality based on the performance of teaching practices because,
according to students, information and communication technologies are not
incorporated to improve learning processes, and students are not encouraged to
research and read different sources of information; meanwhile, teachers state
that faculty do not meet regularly to discuss the progress and difficulties of
the students’ learning process.
Figure 2. Polarization of teaching practice performance.
Percentage of private higher education institutions in the city of Culiacán
that offer teaching practice development, classified as good or poor based on
responses from students and teachers. There are statistically significant
differences in intra- and intergroup comparisons (p<0.0001).
Upon examining indicators related to teaching
practice, we found that there is a widespread teaching culture that accounts
for a broad consensus regarding how teaching should be conducted. However,
teachers’ actual behavior in the classroom varies significantly across regions;
the urban middle-class area stands out in this regard. The results indicate
that the quality of higher education is distributed in a polarized manner, such
that we are faced with two entirely distinct educational realities: that of the
urban area and that of the underdeveloped area.
The differences leading to the polarization of
teaching practices in the universities analyzed in the metropolitan area
correspond to the low incorporation of information and communication
technologies to improve learning processes, low motivation for research,
minimal requirements for consulting different information sources, and the
near-absence of regular faculty meetings to discuss the progress and
difficulties of the students’ learning process.
Higher education institutions in the city of
Culiacán promote academic mobility. Figure 3 shows the classification (good,
fair) of private higher education institutions in the city of Culiacán, where
84.32% of students (in black bars) state that the institution identifies and
addresses staff professional development needs and encourages participation in
cultural programs, and 86.22% reported by faculty (in white bars) indicate that
staff development is promoted through participation in projects or programs and
the exchange of experiences, and staff achievements are recognized through an
awards system. In the “fair” category, based on response percentages of 15.68%
and 13.78% for students and faculty, respectively, this is because students
regularly receive financial support to participate in sports competitions, and
faculty members are granted a certain number of days off from classes for
academic development in subjects related to the courses they teach.
Figure 3. Academic mobility in the “good” category. Percentage
of private higher education institutions in the city of Culiacán that promote
academic mobility in the “good” and “fair” categories based on responses from
students and faculty. There are statistically significant differences in the
intra- and inter-group comparisons (p<0.0001).
While it is true that recent studies have
highlighted the significance of intra-school variables in determining
outcomes—such as the influence of the principal’s and teachers’ practices—this
does not mean that the characteristics necessary for academic mobility to
occur—such as a family’s socioeconomic, cultural, and educational
background—are not important in explaining institutional quality outcomes. The
information provided by students and teachers clearly highlights differences,
as students from different areas also differ in terms of their exposure to
academic mobility. Teachers have different expectations regarding mobility, as
the most common responses are: having the necessary leave in terms of the
number of working days to be absent from the classes they teach for the purpose
of academic updating on topics related to the subjects they teach or in
accordance with their professional profile. The characteristics of the
geographical area of the universities are not significant in this evaluation. Higher
education institutions in the city of Culiacán offer insufficient social
relevance. Figure 4 shows the classification (good, fair, poor) of private
higher education institutions in the city of Culiacán, where we can observe how
the percentages obtained from student and faculty statements place them at the
“good” level, reaching 44.44% and faculty members awarding them 38.88% in this
classification, because students state that the institution has received
recognition for its outstanding participation in the community, and faculty
members agree that the educational institution participates in
awareness-raising activities to address local issues such as crime, gang
activity, drugs, etc. 33.33% of students and 33.35% of teachers rate the
institutions as average because students note that the institution conducts
very few joint activities with other institutions such as churches, municipal
centers, or others, and teachers rarely participate in the community through
activities such as workshops, projects, talks, etc. Furthermore, the “poor”
rating is unfortunately present, with 22.23% of students and 27.77% of teachers
giving this rating, respectively, This is because, according to students, the
institution does not carry out outreach programs for the protection of the
community’s environment, and teachers state that the educational community does
not participate in activities to reduce nuisances and/or risks in road traffic,
nor does it participate in the care of parks, gardens, streets, plazas, and
urban furniture in its surroundings.
Figure 4. Insufficient social relevance. Percentage of private
higher education institutions in the city of Culiacán that offer insufficient
social relevance in the classification of good, fair, and poor based on
responses from students and faculty. There are statistically significant
differences in the intragroup comparison (p > 0.05).
Relationships between educational institutions and
the community are cordial, and no conflicts or problems are reported. The
promotion of social and ethical responsibility is fundamental to establishing
better collective coexistence. We are not surprised to have found that the
quality of social relevance varies so greatly among the institutions analyzed.
This study quantifies the differences found, some of which are alarming.
Students and faculty who classify these institutions as “good” do so because the
institutions promote professional ethics and a sense of social responsibility,
which they consider necessary for better integration into the job market. In
the case of traditional universities, they state that local community issues
are frequently discussed at these institutions . Finally, in the institutions
where students and faculty rate the universities unfavorably, it is due to the
complete lack of social responsibility these institutions demonstrate.
A multivariate analysis was conducted with the aim
of testing a hypothetical causal model regarding the achievement of educational
quality. This model considers the following variables: university
characteristics—physical, geographic, and demographic. These are followed by
the variables: faculty professional profile—academic degree, research activity,
teaching performance, and training.
For this purpose, all included variables are
dichotomous or continuous. The indicators included in the regression runs were
selected after analyzing the strength of the correlations among them.
Regressions were run for each category: educational leadership, pedagogical
practice, academic mobility, and social relevance. The dependent variable is
the result of the quality assessment for the 18 evaluated universities.
Results of the multiple regression analysis by
category. Dependent variable: educational quality.
|
|
Category |
|
|||
|
Variable |
Educational leadership |
Teaching practice |
Academic mobility |
Social Relevance |
|
|
Geographic location |
0.3852 |
-0.2101 |
0.2583 |
-0.4051* |
|
|
Facility conditions |
-0.2755 |
-0.3686* |
0.1542 |
0.3925 |
|
|
Internet service |
0.8212+ |
0.3012 |
-0.2475+ |
-0.1946 |
|
|
Document printing service |
-0.3147 |
0.3982 |
0.1261 |
-0.6391* |
|
|
Library |
-0.3982+ |
-0.2404 |
-0.1764 |
0.1256 |
|
|
Cafeteria |
0.1992 |
0.5613* |
0.3041 |
0.2976 |
|
|
Teachers' academic degree |
0.1759+ |
0.3318 |
0.4227* |
0.4626+ |
|
|
Conducting research |
0.1388 |
0.1936+ |
-0.4534* |
-0.1871 |
|
|
Teacher performance evaluation |
-0.1381 |
-0.1732+ |
0.2675 |
0.3123 |
|
|
Teacher
training |
0.3413* |
0.3834+ |
0.2171 |
0.4852* |
|
|
Teacher age |
0.1085 |
0.2125 |
0.3925 |
0.2488 |
|
|
Eigenvalue |
3.7601 |
2.7843 |
4.9912 |
2.4985 |
|
|
% Variance |
0.1193 |
0.3147 |
0.2551 |
0.4363 |
|
|
Significance |
0.00001 |
0.00001 |
0.00001 |
0.00001 |
|
*Betas significance
level, p > 0.05
+Betas significance level, p > 0.01
As a result of this analysis, all four regressions
are significant. The percentage of variance explained by the variables included
in these regressions ranges from 43.6% for social relevance to 11.9% for
educational leadership. From the results obtained, we can conclude that:
1. When the context in which events occur remains
constant, demographic conditions lack the importance assigned to them in the
model. However, neither the services that universities provide to students—such
as internet access, cafeterias, and libraries—nor the services they offer
contribute significantly to the variance in educational leadership quality and
academic mobility.
2. The way in which respondents from educational
institutions evaluate educational leadership contributes significantly to the
variance in educational quality results. Members of the underdeveloped region
are more critical of how the school is run in terms of social responsibility
and ethics.
3. The variable in the dataset corresponding to
teacher characteristics with significant betas is age. This variable does not
contribute to the variance in educational quality outcomes regardless of
whether institutions provide such facilities or not. Age contributes very
significantly to the variance in quality outcomes only in the case of
universities in the city’s suburban areas, and as expected, older teachers
receive lower ratings in the academic mobility category. Therefore, the fact
that it is not significant in the urban area is because, in this region, being
older is an advantage for achieving better results.
4. Of all the data considered in the model, the
factors that make a significant contribution to explaining the variance in
educational quality are those related to faculty characteristics:
4.1. Teachers’ academic qualifications significantly
contribute to their pedagogical performance, regardless of the geographic
location of the university where they are based.
4.2. Teachers’ engagement in research significantly
contributes to the variance in educational quality outcomes in both regions in
the expected direction. Teachers who conduct research in addition to teaching
achieve better results. Teachers with above-average education feel better
adapted to the requirements of the institutions where they work.
5. Teacher performance evaluation does not
contribute significantly to the variance in educational quality outcomes, with
the exception of social relevance. Teachers who receive professional
development training are the ones who achieve better results.
Discussion
When discussing the evaluation of educational
quality, different concepts emerge depending on the reference point for
evaluation. The results of the multivariate analysis correlating the four
evaluated categories showed that private higher education institutions in the
city of Culiacán, Sinaloa, offer average educational quality, with some
caveats.
In these four areas evaluated in our research, we
found that the results vary in quality—ranging from poor to average to
good—depending on the specific area evaluated. This aligns with the findings of
Cueto (2018), who reports that the quality offered by educational institutions
in all categories is of an average level in the evaluated dimensions. We agree,
however, regarding the categories of educational leadership and academic
mobility, where both are of good quality, as reported by Saraiva (2008), who notes
that an institution that provides a high-quality education is one that fosters
the development of analytical, decision-making, and research skills, as well as
intellectual abilities, human autonomy, and a critical spirit, and that
motivates students. In the case of satisfaction levels regarding the categories
of leadership and academic mobility, the distribution of quality ratings is
good, above 80% (Figs. 1 and 3), while for the category of teaching practice
performance, the distribution is nearly homogeneous between good and poor
quality, where, according to our multivariate analysis, it is classified as
average quality.
Our results do not correspond to those found by Mas
(2014), who notes that the quality of education reported by the evaluated
schools is at a poor level, with some factors at a fair level but no factors
evaluated at a good level, whereas we did have some results in the good quality
category, since the evaluation of administrative leadership yielded
satisfaction scores at the good quality level, allowing us to observe
satisfaction similar to that reported by Cuevas, Díaz, and Hidalgo (2008),
where the scores achieved in their study were above 80%.
The fact that the perception of quality shifts from
good to average and subsequently to poor indicates that there is a distribution
of opinions such that, if the perception is not of good quality, then it will
subsequently be fair, and thus, if it is not fair quality, it will be poor
quality. It is in the category of social relevance that we observe this
pattern, which allows us to see that although the evaluations of the other
three assessed parameters—whether good, fair, or poor—were consistent, we could
observe that opinions fell into two distinct categories. In this case,
regarding social relevance, we noted that this assertion weakened and led to a
truly significant participation of institutions classified as of average
quality, in addition to those of good and poor quality, yielding results of
similar magnitude for quality without any statistically significant differences
among these three evaluation levels. This finding takes on a different meaning
when the distribution of opinions indicates that, if the perception of quality
is good and the subsequent distribution of opinions is bad, it suggests that
the perception is all-or-nothing.
The research results in the category of pedagogical
practice evaluation showed that schools offer good and poor quality in similar
proportions, contrasting with the findings of Corona (2014), who states that
this aspect in the evaluated schools is in a developmental phase, with positive
responses not exceeding 35 percent.
Geographic distribution has a partial influence on
these results, given that the educational institutions evaluated as low-quality
are located in the city’s suburban area, while the high-quality educational
institutions are located in the urban area. This finding is consistent with the
results of García Villegas and Quiroz López (2011) and Cantú (2012), who report
a significant association between educational quality and socioeconomic status,
as their findings indicate that higher socioeconomic levels tend to be
associated with better outcomes and that higher education institutions,
depending on their location, are segregated by socioeconomic status. However,
some of the institutions with average quality in our study are also located in
urban areas, which suggests that, if distribution were the determining factor
for quality, these institutions would be classified as high-quality.
There is no doubt that, to contribute to the quality
of education, the training of faculty hired at these institutions will make a
significant difference. If the training of faculty members working at these
institutions includes, for example, a commitment to research, students at that
institution will receive comprehensive support through advising and tutoring in
areas where they need additional attention outside of class, thereby deepening
the learning of students, the faculty themselves, and benefiting society as a
whole. Academic qualifications are truly important, as teachers with a
doctorate in science have a very clear understanding of the realities of
education and contribute much more to teaching, ensuring the relevance of
learning for their students.
Contrary to the findings of Pérez Díaz (2002), who
reported that only 62.5% of classroom teachers held a degree, we found that
100% of the classroom teachers in this study hold at least a bachelor’s degree
to qualify as teachers. Teacher performance, of course, plays an important role
in the quality of education, since year-after-year performance shapes teachers’
career trajectories and academic significance and specializes them in the tasks
they perform.
In line with Acuña Gamboa and Pons Bonals (2018), who note that the primary responsibility for
educational quality does not rest solely with the teacher, however, teachers
are a key factor in determining the quality of education in the institutions
where they work, since the evaluated institutions where the quality of
education is perceived as good have teachers who face much more rigorous
professional demands than those in other institutions, so it is no coincidence
that students and teachers at institutions evaluated as good agree in their
responses regarding the perception of good quality in three of the four
evaluated categories, and the same applies to educational institutions
classified as having average quality, where they obtained.
Acuña
Gamboa, L. A., López Ordoñez, C., & Mérida Martínez, Y. (2015). Teacher professional development in globalized
contexts: Autonomy of the Mexican state or transnational domination? 3rd
International Congress on Educational Research: Education and Globalization,
1–14.
Acuña, L., & Pons, L. (2018). The
quality of basic education: meanings from teaching practice. Atenas,
1, 12.
Aguila Cabrera, V. (2005). The
concept of quality in higher education: key to achieving institutional
competitiveness. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 36(12),
1–7. DOI:10.35362/rie36122886
Alfaro, P. L. (2010). The leadership
component in the validation of a school management model toward quality. Education
and Research, 36(3), 779–794. DOI:10.1590/S1517-97022010000300009
Álvarez Botello, J., Chaparro
Salinas, E., & Reyes Pérez, D. (2015). Study of student satisfaction with
educational services provided by higher education institutions in the Toluca
Valley. REICE. Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness, and Change
in Education, 13(2), 5–26.
ANUIES (2000) Higher Education in the 21st Century:
Strategic Development Guidelines. Mexico, National Association of
Universities and Institutions of Higher Education.
Aparicio Molina, C., Sepúlveda López, F., Valverde
Huincatripay, X., Cárdenas Merino, V., Contreras Sanzana, G., & Valenzuela
Ravanal, M. (2020). Administrative
leadership and educational change: Analysis of a university-school
collaboration experience. Páginas de Educación, 13(1), 19-41. DOI:10.22235/pe.v13i1.1915
Areválo Zamudio, J., Miranda Galindo, N., Galindo Miranda, J.
L., & Gold Morgan, M. (2004). Paradigms of educational quality: From self-assessment to accreditation.
World Bank (1995) Priorities and
strategies for education in R. Campos (ed.) Current challenges in higher
education: documents. Mexico, Praxis-UNAM, 36-62.
Bandura, A. (1999).
Self-efficacy: How we cope with changes in today’s society. Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the
transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130.
Bazdresch, M. (2000). Living
education, transforming practice. Mexico: Textos educar-Educación, Jalisco.
Berdrow, I. (2010). King among kings:
Understanding the role and responsibilities of the department chair in higher
education. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership, 38(4),
499-514. DOI:10.1177/1741143210368146
Bernal del Castillo, J. (June 2014). The Erasmus
faculty mobility exchange project in the field of criminal sciences. Journal
of Legal Research and Educational Innovation, (10), 127-140.
Castejón Silvo, N. (2013). Mobility programs in CUD: A general
evaluative overview. In Irisarri Primicia, S. (Ed.) Evaluation
of Mobility Programs in University Cooperation for Development ( ), 47-56.
Pamplona: Public University of Navarra.
Carlos Guzmán, J. (2005). The
effective professor in higher education. In F. Fierro and M. H. García,
Didactic Thought and Teaching Practice, 115–67, Mexico: UNAM.
Cantú, C. (2012). Educational Quality
in Argentina from an Economic Perspective. Argentina.
National University of Cuyo.
Castillo-Cedeño, I., Flores-Davis, L. E., Miranda-Cervantes,
G., & León, S. M. (2016). Healthy
Teaching at the University Level: An Urgent Metamorphosis. Educare
Electronic Journal, 20(2), 366-392.
Castro-Gómez, S. (2007). Decolonizing
the University. The Hubris of Point Zero and the Dialogue of Knowledges. The Decolonial Turn. Reflections on Epistemic
Diversity Beyond Global Capitalism. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores.
Corona Zapata, J.A.
(2014). Revista Electrónica Actualidades Investigativas en
Educación, 14 (3), 1-19.
Costa, M. E. (1996). Contributions of
the language sciences to the consideration of quality in education and its
evaluation. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 10, 79–99.
DOI:10.35362/rie1001168
Crispín, M. L. (1998). Linking
evaluation processes to the training of university faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Anáhuac University, Mexico City,
Mexico.
Cuevas López, M., Díaz Rosas, F., & Hidalgo
Hernández, V. (2008). Principals’
leadership and educational quality. A study of the profile of school
administrators in a multicultural context. Journal
of Curriculum and Teacher Education,
12(2), 1–20.
Cueto Huayascachi, R. K.
(2018). Assessment of educational quality based on the total quality model in
institutions in the district of Chaclacayo, Peru.
Universidad Peruana Unión.
Education, Q. (2013). Quality and
Educational Quality. Educational Research, 17(2), 49–72.
Egido Gálvez, I. (2005). Reflections
on the Evaluation of Educational Quality. Pedagogical Trends, 10,
17–28.
Estévez, Etty, Manuel Coronado, and Rosa Aída Martínez
(2012), Innovative Model for Evaluating Higher Education Institutions with an
Emphasis on Teaching, Hermosillo, University of Sonora.
Fernández Batanero, J. M., & Fernández, A. H. (2013). Administrative leadership and
educational inclusion: A case study. Educational Profiles, 35(142),
27–41. DOI:10.1016/s0185-2698(13)71847-6
Fresán, M. (2000). A proposal for
teaching evaluation at the graduate level. In J. Loredo Enríquez, Evaluation of
teaching practice in higher education, 37–62, Mexico: Porrúa.
García Garduño, J. M., & Sandoval, J. O. (2006). Motivation and expectations for
entering the primary education teaching program: A study of three generations
of first-year Mexican teacher education students. Revista
Electronica de Investigacion Educativa,
8(2), 1–17.
Gómez, A. G. (2014). Quality or relevance? Perspectives in higher education. Integra
Educativa Journal, 7(2), 127–135.
González Martín, R. (2018). The
autonomy of public schools: Key to the development of administrative
leadership. Inter-American Journal of Research, Education, and Pedagogy,
RIIEP, 11(2), 9–33. DOI:10.15332/s1657-107x.2018.0002.01
Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M.,
& Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for
academics, executives, and professionals in higher education. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67–78.
DOI:10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334
Knight, J. (2010). Internationalization of Higher
Education. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. University of Toronto.
Lago de Vergara, D., Gamoba Suárez, A. A., & Montes
Miranda, A. J. (2014). Quality
of Higher Education. Saber, Science and Freedom, 9(1), 157–170.
DOI:10.18041/2382-3240/saber.2014v9n1.2006
Madarro, A. (2011). Academic mobility networks for regional
cooperation and integration in Ibero-America. Ibero-American Journal of
Education, (57) 71-107.
Mas Sandoval, H. G. (2014). The assessment of complex
competencies: the practice of the portfolio. Educere,
9 (3), 497-504.
Michavilla, F. and Zamorano, S. (2008). Overview of quality
assurance systems in Europe: a transnational perspective on accreditation. Journal
of Education, special issue 2008, 235-263.
Morin, E. (1993). The Method I: The Nature of
Nature. Madrid:
Ediciones Cátedra.
Olvera,
Adriana (2010). Teacher Mobility. Latin
American Journal of Educational Studies (Mexico), XL (1), 131–142.
Pérez Díaz, O. (2002). “Alternatives for Improving the
Quality of Basic Education in the State of Táchira.” University of the Andes,
Mérida.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the
effective university. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1),
347–370. DOI:10.1080/0729436980170307
Rodriguez, L. and A. (2009). Quality
evaluation and accreditation system in Mexico. Aventuras del Pensamiento,
1–8.
Salabur, P. (2011). Spain and the Bologna Process: An
Essential Encounter. Madrid: European Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Saraiva, Margarida (2008). Quality and the clients of
Portuguese higher education. Revista Horizontes Educacionales, 13 (2), 41–54.
Schmelkes, Sylvia (1996): School
Management and the Components of Quality in Basic Education, unpublished
document from the First National Course for Primary School Principals, SEP,
Mexico.
Schön, D. (1994). Reflective
practice: accepting and learning from discrepancy. Pedagogy Notebooks, 222,
88–92.
Sierra Villamil, G. M. (2017).
Educational leadership in the 21st century, from the perspective of sustainable
entrepreneurship. Revista EAN, 81, 111.
DOI:10.21158/01208160.n81.2016.1562
Stromquist, Nélida P. (2009). The Academic Profession
in Globalization: Six Countries, Six Experiences. Mexico: National Association
of Universities and Institutes of Higher Education.
Surdez Pérez, E. G., Sandoval Caraveo, M. del C., &
Lamoyi, C. L. (2018). Student
satisfaction in the assessment of university educational quality. Education
and Educators, 21(1), 9–26. DOI:10.5294/edu.2018.21.1.1ba
UNESCO (1995). Policy document for
change and development in higher education in R. Campos. Current Dilemmas in
Higher Education: Documents. Mexico, Praxis-UNAM, 63–74.
García Villegas, M. & Quiroz López,
L. (2011). Educational apartheid: Education, inequality, and social immobility
in Bogotá. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(25), 137–162.
Zabalza, M. A. (1990). Assessment
aimed at improvement. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 186,
295-317.