7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

122

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANGLOPHONE AND FRANCOPHONE HIGHER EDUCATIONAL MODELS: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE QUALITY

OF PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES

Diane Issa Nauffal University of Balamand, Lebanon

Ramzi Nasser

Notre Dame University, Lebanon The article examines differences in students’ perceptions of quality between two types of higher educational models, Anglophone and Francophone, in the Lebanon. The study explores the impact of the two educational models on a range of performance outcomes based on students’ perceptions of their overall educational experience. More specifically, it examines the different modes of operation adopted by the universities to facilitate the realisation of tangible mission objectives reflected in demonstrable outcomes, such as the realization of democracy ideals, the effectiveness of teaching/learning experiences, the quality of services, and student destinations. The findings indicate that both Anglophone and Francophone institutions tend to support democracy and readily involve students in decision-making in both academic and non-academic activities. Anglophone institutions tend to provide a more liberal and student-centred mode of education than the Francophone institution. In both institutional types, however, students expressed satisfaction in the quality of the university in terms of teaching/learning experiences despite the considerable differences in the pedagogical approaches adopted by the institutions. INTRODUCTION The concern with quality in higher education is by no means new. It is articulated primarily because higher education which was mainly producer-oriented, directed towards the interest of its scholars, has shifted emphasis focusing more on the interests of a larger population of stakeholders as students, parents, employers, staff and governments (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). While there is no overall consensus among academics, policy makers and other concerned parties on what constitutes quality in higher education (Lakomski and Marshall, 1998), different stakeholders assign different values to criteria of quality based on their own goals (Donald and Denison, 2001). This article focuses on students as stakeholders and on their perceptions of quality in higher education, taken from a larger study of the Lebanon (Nauffal, 2005). It provides a unique setting which is comparative in itself having so many educational models under one roof. The uniqueness of the setting however seems insignificant, particularly in multicultural times where highly educated charismatic youth are a mobile economic resource and where knowledge and skill are a source of relative economic advantage (Thurow, 1999). The different educational models produce different core activities in teaching and learning and varied educational outcomes, the ‘quality’ of which is the basis for competition among the institutions of the Lebanon. In contextual situations where

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

123

student perceptions of quality are used as performance indicators, this study perhaps will have resonances for academics and academic leadership in other parts of the world. Quality of a University Education The literature on students’ perspectives on quality indicates that the quality of a university education is a function of many variables such as the quality of teaching, the quality of a university experience, possibilities of employment, career horizons, opportunities for personal growth, and many others. Students understand that the market value of their education is a function of the perceived quality of education (Ortmann and Squire, 1998). As quality of education is difficult to evaluate directly, the market value of a degree is a function of the institution’s high academic standing and relative merit (Keith, 2001). Institutional ratings are positively influenced by a range of factors such as student admission selectivity and graduation rates) and faculty scholarship outcomes (research funds, research publications and consultancy rates) (Keith, 2001). As noted by Benjamin and Hersh (2002) however, these ratings depend mainly on input variables such as student aptitude, student-faculty ratios, financial and institutional resources and do not measure the knowledge, skills, and competencies that students develop as a result of their university education. The degree to which an institution develops the abilities of its students and facilitates transformations in their understanding is referred to as ‘value added’ or what Harvey and Green (1993) have defined as the ‘transformative’ implication of the term ‘quality’. It is the ‘value added’ that reflects the quality of an education attained which is enhanced primarily through effective teaching and learning practices. Teaching and Learning Effectiveness Teaching effectiveness has been found to be multidimensional; in other words, there are different components to effective teaching. From the perspective of faculty members, effective teaching entails the development of critical thinking, the enhancement of a deep understanding of principles, the establishment of links between theory and practice and the acquisition of lifelong learning skills (Knapper, 1990). According to employers, effective teaching instils in students qualities such as flexibility, creativity, as well as communication, analytical and problem solving skills. From the perspective of students, subject knowledge, organisation, efficiency, self-confidence, clarity of objectives, value of assessment, availability, expectation level for students, class orientation and openness were some identified characteristics of effective teaching in the USA in the 1970s (Feldman, 1976). More recently, Sheehan and DuPrey (1999) conducted a study in the USA in which they found five items to be associated with effective teaching. These items, in descending order of significance are: (1) informative lectures, (2) tests, papers and other assignments as good measures of course material, (3) instructor preparation, (4) interesting lectures and (5) students’ perceptions of a challenging class environment. Marsh and Roche (1997) identified nine dimensions of effective teaching based on input from both students and faculty members. These dimensions are: learning/value, instructor enthusiasm, group interaction, individual rapport, organization/clarity, breadth of coverage, examinations /grading, assignments/readings, and workload/difficulty.

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

124

While what constitutes effective teaching has not evolved profoundly over the years as indicated by a literature review, any changes in approaches to teaching and learning in higher education have also been rare (Lueddeke, 1999). According to Barr and Tagg (1995) students must be active discoverers and constructors of their own knowledge for them to be able to uncover knowledge. For deeper understanding they must actively engage in learning (Howell, 2002), reflect on learning experiences from a range of perspectives, form concepts and develop theories (Gardner and Korth, 1997). According to Clark (1997: 242) an efficacious way to educate students is through their involvement in research which serves as ‘an important mode of teaching and a valuable means of learning’. Jacob and Eleser (1997) claim that depriving students of such learning experiences denies them of their independence and reduces their decision-making power. It seems then that a primary goal of engaging students in their own learning is to develop autonomy and foster a sense of responsibility (Howel, 2002). In most universities however, the prevailing learning approach is the lecture approach (Lueddeke, 1999). This approach is the product of an educational system that teaches students to view instructors as authorities who relate truth and are responsible for student learning (Greene, 1988). In such educational systems students assume a role of passivity. As Beane (1997) notes, the consequences of such a learning style is the development of a sense of dependency in students and avoidance or lack of participation in decision-making. The adoption of this approach is supported by arguments of limited resources, prevailing methods of reward that encourage faculty to shift efforts towards research which offers opportunities for personal and institutional advancement away from effective teaching (Ortmann and Squire, 2000) and issues related to the culture of the organisation. The debate concerning the purposes of higher education has oscillated since the days of Hippocrates between vocationalism, which stresses the importance of skills and their transferability and truth-seeking which stresses the importance of knowledge and understanding (Brown, Bull, and Pendlebury, 1997). In their assessment of student learning in higher education, Atkins et al’s. (1993) outline of the purposes of higher education goes beyond the vocationalism and truth-seeking views to include (1) specific vocational preparation, (2) preparation for general employment, (3) preparation for knowledge creation and (4) general educational experience. Accompanying the different views of the purposes of education are varied values assigned to student learning and achievements. Rowntree (1987) indicates that one must look into the student qualities and achievements that are actively valued and rewarded by an educational system to discover the truth about the system. An effective institution, as Astin (1988) asserts, is one that can affect its students and faculty favourably through the simultaneous consideration of inputs, environments, and outcomes, an essential component of any quality management strategy. Based on these constituents of quality management, this study explores the impact of the various historically grounded institutions of higher education in Lebanon, which follow different educational models, on a range of performance outcomes. More specifically, it examines the different modes of operation adopted by the universities to facilitate the realisation of clear tangible mission objectives reflected in a set of demonstrable outcomes, such as the realization of democracy ideals, the effectiveness of teaching/learning experiences, the quality of facilities, infrastructure and student destinations.

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

125

METHOD The study included five universities. Four of the five universities follow the Anglophone educational model or more specifically the American educational model, namely; the American University of Beirut (AUB), and the Lebanese American University (LAU), the University of Balamand (UOB) and Notre Dame University (NDU). The Université Saint Joseph (USJ) follows the Francophone educational model. The student makeup of these universities accounted for approximately 20% of the student body in Lebanon or 80% of the higher education cohort of students registered in universities following both the Anglophone and Francophone educational model for the academic year 2001 (CERD, 2001). To measure student output, a questionnaire was designed around four themes, namely; the realization of democracy ideals, the effectiveness of teaching/learning experiences, the quality of facilities and services, and student destinations. Research literature relevant to the outcomes of higher education for students and their relationship to the concept of institutional effectiveness informed the construction of the student questionnaire (Sheehan and Duprey, 1999; Marsh and Roche, 1997). The investigators constructed the 26 items on the questionnaire written originally in English, which is the language the investigators are eloquent in. Respondents in the Francophone institutions where the language of instruction is French were given a translated Arabic version of the questionnaire to complete since Arabic is the native language of the country. Respondents in all universities however, were given the choice to complete the questionnaire in either Arabic or English according to their preference. A pilot study was conducted in two stages. The first stage involved a sample of 40 third year students, 10 from each Anglophone institution. All students completed the questionnaire in English. In order to discover potential pitfalls in the translated questionnaire, two students from each Anglophone university agreed to fill out the Arabic version of the questionnaire alongside the English version. Upon completion of the questionnaires respondents discussed with one of the investigators various issues as format, clarity, language, vocabulary, ambiguities and the conceptual difficulty for both the English and Arabic versions. Modifications in the questionnaires were then made based on the findings of the initial pilot study. The 26 student output items were closed-ended 5 point Likert-scale with responses ranging either from ‘strongly agree’ through to ‘strongly disagree’ or from ‘very high’ through to ‘very poor’. The student output part measures were presented under 3 categories or themes: student democracy, evaluation of teaching and learning and quality of academic and non-academic services. Sampling The study involved five of seven universities surveyed for a larger scope study. Except for one Francophone university which declined to participate in the study, these five institutions were the only establishments officially recognized as ‘universities’ by the Lebanese government following the Anglophone or Francophone educational model. The two universities excluded from the study did not follow the Anglophone or Francophone

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

126

educational model. To gain access to the university, letters were mailed to the presidents of each institution. The letters indicated the description and scope of the project and the assessment instrument to be used in the study. Universities responded in a period of two months. A stratified sampling procedure was used to select students. The strata were the departments and about 10 students from each stratum were used for the sample. Sampling of students stopped at 210. In total there were 1050 students selected from the five universities for this study. The selection was made so that students from all the various departments in a university were surveyed. Not all students responded to all the questions. RESULTS Table 1 reports the satisfaction levels of students in both Anglophone and Francophone universities. No differences were found between the institutional types in relation to the extent to which students were involved in institutional decision-making at both the academic and non-academic levels. Anglophone institutions more than the Francophone institute however promoted the teaching of democratic ideals through the open and free discussion of political, social and religious issues in courses. In terms of teaching and learning the results indicate that students in Anglophone universities expressed greater satisfaction in the quality of the university than those in the Francophone institute. Particularly, students in Anglophone universities felt that the university has set standards to perform academically more than the Francophone university. In addition, students in Anglophone universities believed that the method of instruction was innovative with the use of modern technologies. A setback however was the larger class size in the Anglophone universities. Several other features clearly distinguished the Anglophone educational model from the Francophone model. First, Anglophone patterned universities tend to support course work choice and flexibility essential for maintaining a liberal arts education. Second, students in Anglophone universities indicated that the courses were designed to encourage student participation in projects and research activity. Finally, students in Anglophone universities enjoyed more opportunities of instructional assistance beyond the confines of the classroom both with the instructor and with their peers. On the satisfaction measures students in the Francophone university seemed more satisfied with the library resources in comparison to those in the Anglophone universities. No differences were found in relation to student satisfaction with other aspects of academic services as electronic resources, labs and equipment. In terms of non-academic services the Anglophone universities surpassed the Francophone university in most aspects such as extra curricula activities, recreational services and student services including housing, food and health services.

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

127

Table 1: Mean Satisfaction Levels of Students Statement A F t-test 1. Sudent bodies play an important role in the decision-making process with regards to various academic functions a the University.

3.08 1.35

2.91 1.36

1.63

2. Sudent bodies play an important role in the decision-making process with regards to various non-academic functions of the University.

3.47 1.29

3.52 1.09

-0.46

3. Students are clearly informed at the beginning of each course of the evaluation procedure to be followed.

4.00 0.96

3.88 1.07

1.65

4. The University has set standards at which participants are to perform academically.

4.18 0.81

3.95 1.02

3.49*

5. Professors may in general be considered competent. 3.75 1.04

3.99 1.02

-2.98*

6. Professors mainly use the traditional lecturing approach (teachers talk and students listen) in their teaching.

2.75 1.17

2.64 1.22

1.26

7. Professors use a variety of teaching learning approaches in a course such as the lecturing approach, the inter-active discussion approach.

3.84 1.17

3.43 1.23

4.50**

8. Professors use modern technologies in their teaching.

3.67 1.02

3.35 1.21

3.93*

9. Classes, in general, are too large to allow for effective teaching and learning.

3.22 1.31

3.84 1.18

-6.27*

10. Courses are designed in a manner that allows all issues (social, political, religious, etc.) to be discussed openly.

3.40 1.11

3.06 1.29

3.84*

11. Courses are designed to encourage student participation in projects and research activity.

3.74 0.97

3.31 1.20

5.45*

12. The curriculum is designed in a manner that ensures students get practical experience related to their education.

3.47 1.18

3.52 1.15

-0.57

13. Students have a wide range of elective courses to choose from. 3.23 1.30

2.33 1.46

8.74*

14. Professors set specific office hours to allow individual students or small groups of students to obtain additional instruction or assistance in their courses outside regular class sessions.

3.88 1.04

2.67 1.57

13.41*

15. Academically excellent students (teaching assistants) provide instruction for students with weaknesses in certain areas under the supervision of faculty advisors.

3.41 1.47

2.84 1.57

4.98*

16. As a student you progressed through your field of study towards graduation with few problems as failing or withdrawing from courses or as in changing your major.

3.57 1.34

3.58 1.33

-0.10

17. Student evaluation of the teaching performance of instructors is very important to the instructor.

3.49 1.29

3.62 1.27

-1.28

18. Student evaluation of the teaching performance of instructors is very important to the administration.

3.58 1.33

3.46 1.50

1.06

19.The level of resources in the library/libraries is 3.69 1.12

3.96 0.98

-3.22*

20.The level of access to electronic resources through online databases is

3.64 1.18

3.65 1.21

-0.07

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

128

21.The ease of access to the internet for educational and research purposes is

3.63 1.21

3.70 1.28

-0.77

22.The standard of computers in the labs you have access to in your course of study is

3.55 1.20

3.63 1.25

-0.89

23. The standard of equipment in the various laboratories you have accessed through your course of study.

3.73 1.21

3.75 1.31

-0.27

24.The standard of extra curricula activities and clubs is 3.39 1.29

2.61 1.24

7.82*

25.The standard of student services (such as housing, food services, health services etc.) is

3.40 1.32

2.90 1.30

4.86

26. The standard of recreational facilities (such as gym, sports grounds, etc.) is

3.32 1.40

2.72 1.30

5.55

A: Anglophone universities; F: Francophone universities DISCUSSION A priority of higher education is to teach democratic ideals and to teach the working of democratic ideals in an environment that is conducive to student learning and growth (Love and Miller, 2003). One way to achieve this is through empowering students to assume an active role in institutional decision-making. No difference was found between the universities in the extent to which they involved students in the decision-making process and in giving them some ownership of the educational process; however ‘student voice’ was more readily heard in relation to non-academic functions as compared to academic functions. Variations between the two institutional types in the implementation of democratic practices were found in relation to course design in that Anglophone more than Francophone institutions permitted for the free and open discussion of all political, religious, and social issues. Generally, universities in the Lebanon seem to be falling short of fulfilling their mission which is to promote the awareness of human rights among citizens and to encourage the respect for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction. A rationale for the findings may be found in Davies’ (2000: 2) claim that ‘…firm national systems for pupil voice …. are part of a mature democracy that ensures rights and responsibilities for all its citizens and subjects of whatever age’. Both the Anglophone and Francophone institutions however are not embedded in a mature but rather an ailing democracy as that of the Lebanon struggling to survive in the compelling authoritarian structures of political rule of the surrounding Arab countries. The high level of statist coercion in these Arab countries has stifled the emergence of democratization processes and practices. In such an environment, another element of concern would be the counterproductive effects resulting from giving pupils a voice ‘if such voices are ignored or incorporated into structures where …the impact is not felt’ (Davies, 2000: 7). ‘Democracy can only flourish with strong supportive institutions and laws, and a pervasive democratic culture, which encompasses democratic values, ways of knowing and acting, ethical judgments, analytical competencies, and skills of engagement’ (Directorate General IV: Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport of the Council of Europe 2006: 2). Education, particularly higher education, is considered a

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

129

decisive force for shaping the democratic development of societies. When institutes of higher education are embedded and surrounded by an authoritarian, patriarchal culture that is a heritage of Arab societies however, prospects of a democracy are appreciably hampered. Institutes adopting the Anglophone and Francophone educational systems where the teaching of democratic principles and their workings or processes is an integral constituency of the system have not been able to escape completely the overarching reach of the Arab culture. A Lebanese political scientist notes, ‘a democratic government needs a democratic political culture, and vice versa’ (Harik, 1994: 56). Along similar lines it seems plausible to conclude that a democratic educational system is effectively sustainable in a culture that endorses the legitimacy of democracy. Differences between the two institutional types did appear in terms of the evaluation of teaching and learning experiences. Distinguishing features between the two educational models found to be more pronounced in Anglophone institutions were: first, set standards at which participants had to perform academically; second, the flexibility and support of course work choice essential for maintaining a liberal arts education; and finally, course design that encouraged student participation in projects and research activity. The active involvement of staff members in research - considered in most Anglophone patterned universities as a basic component of staff members’ job descriptions and essential for promotion and progression in rank – facilitates its incorporation in course design and in turn student involvement in such research activities and projects. Scott (1988) argues that for students to develop the ability to think critically and independently they need to be taught by active not passive spectators in their discipline. In the Francophone university, although the research activity of academic staff was highly appreciated, excellence in teaching seemed to be the sole basic component of faculty members’ job descriptions and to some degree a sufficient requirement for progression. Ultimately such weak involvement on the part of academic staff members in research projects will reflect to some extent on the design of courses and the skills acquired by students, as claimed by Volkwein and Carbone (1994). In a study they conducted at a public research institution, students were found to exhibit greater academic integration and intellectual growth in departments that rated high on both research and teaching. An obligation of the university to students, which is the development of intellectual independence, is thus lacking. Regardless, most students expressed satisfaction with the education they are obtaining, possibly since they have not been exposed to more liberal forms of learning whereby firstly students are actually involved in the creation of knowledge by participating in research and project activity rather than merely being recipients of knowledge and information and secondly whereby through its regular programmes and the extra curricular activities students develop skills and competencies in areas they find personally interesting and rewarding. On the other hand, while the integration of research in curriculum and course design seemed to be a distinguishing factor among universities, the incorporation of technical or experiential components in curriculum design did not. A characteristic of the teaching learning process more clearly associated with the Francophone educational model than the Anglophone model is the limited possibilities for individual students or groups of students to seek additional instruction or assistance outside regular class sessions either by instructor him or herself or by their peers. Such a characteristic of an educational system that limits the teaching/learning process to the

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

130

classroom sets the professor on a pedestal, distancing him or her from the students and thus limiting possibilities for student-staff interaction and the exchange of information and ideas that could prove essential for effective learning. In a study conducted by Terenzini and Pascarella (1980), they found that while not all types of informal student-faculty contact were of equal importance, those that involved the discussion of intellectual matters had more impact on academic achievement. Faculty members thus do play a significant role in the academic achievement skill development of students, a role that as noted by Terenzini, Theophilides, and Lorang (1984) need not be confined to the classroom. As there is substantial research evidence to suggest that the active engagement of students and faculty members in the teaching/learning process fosters critical thinking and student learning (Kember and Gow ,1994), it would seem that attention should be given to this ‘arena of social interaction’ (Howard, 2002: 764) which encourages openness, competition, pluralism and tolerance of differences, fundamental requirements of a democracy. The Francophone institution shares with the Anglophone institutes quality of academic services. The standard of extra curricular activities and student services such as housing, food and health services in Anglophone modelled institutions however surpasses that of the Francophone university. These findings reflect to some degree the concerns of management at the Francophone university with the knowledge formation of students rather than their total mental and physical development, while in contrast the President of a historically grounded Anglophone institute claimed in the University bulletin (AUB, 2004) that such provision was the thing ‘that sets us apart’. The distinctiveness of the Anglophone universities is in their academic and student affairs bodies. It is these bodies that represent a distinctive quality attribute of Anglophone universities, thus providing a competitive edge over other universities in the Lebanese higher education market. The Anglophone universities and particularly the historically grounded universities have a long tradition of encouraging social and secular progressive ideals of human life and both attend carefully to maintaining this culture in their campus life. References American University of Beirut. (2004). AUB bulletin today. Beirut: Office of Information and Public Relations. Astin, A. (1985). Achieving Educational Excellence: A Critical Assessment of Priorities and Practices in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Atkins, M., Beattie, J. and Dockrell, B. (1993). Assessment Issues in Higher Education. Sheffield: Employment Department. Barr, R. and Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27, 12-25. Beane, A. (1997). A teaching model that promotes commitment, accountability, and responsibility. Educational Horizons, 76, 45-52.

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

131

Benjamin, R. and Hersh, R. (2002). Measuring the difference college makes: The Rand/CAE value added assessment initiative. Peer Review, 4, 7-11. Brown, G., Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Clark, B. (1997). The modern integration of research activities with teaching and learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(3), 241-255. Davies, L. (2000). Pupils’ voice in Europ. In L. Davies and G. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The EURIDEM Project: A Review of Pupil Democracy in Europe. London: Children’s Rights Alliance. Directorate General IV: Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport of the Council of Europe, (2006). Declaration Higher Education and Democratic Culture: Citizenship, Human Rights and Civic Responsibility. Donald, J. and Denison, D. (2001). Quality assessment of university students: Student perceptions of quality criteria. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(4), 478-502. Feldman, K. (1976). The superior college teacher from the student’s view. Research in Higher Education, 52, 1182-1186. Gardner, B. and Korth, S. (1997). Classroom strategies that facilitate transfer of learning to the workplace. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 45-55. Greene, M. (1988). The Dialectic of Freedom. New York: Teachers College Press. Harik, I. (1994). Pluralism in the Arab World. Journal of Democracy, 5, 43-56. Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education: An International Journal, 18(19), 9-34. Howard, J. (2002). Do college students participate more in discussion in traditional delivery courses or in interactive telecourses? A preliminary comparison. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 764-781. Howell, C. (2002). Reforming higher education curriculum to emphasise student responsibility: Waves of rhetoric but glacial change. College Teacher, 50(3), 116-118. Jacob, S. and Eleser, C. (1997). Learner responsibility through ‘presence’. College Student Journal, 3, 460-466. Keith, B. (2001). Organisational contexts and university performance outcomes: The limited role of purposive action in the management of institutional status. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 493-516. Kember, D., and Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effects on the quality of student learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 65, 58-74.

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

132

Knapper, C. (1990). Lifelong learning and university teaching. In I. Moses. (Ed.), Higher education in the late twentieth century: Reflections on a changing system. University of Queensland: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Lakomski, G. and Marshall, S. (1998). Special issue: Maintaining and developing quality in institutions of higher education in the 21st century. Australian Journal of Education, 42(3), 233-236. Love, R. and Miller, M. (2003). Increasing student participation in self governance: A comparison of graduate and undergraduate student perceptions. College Student Journal, 37, 532-544. Lueddeke, G. (1999). Towards a constructive framework for guiding change and innovation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 235-254. Marsh, W. and Roche, L. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effect. American Psychologist, 52, 1187-1197. Nauffal, D. I., Ph.D., Higher Education in Lebanon: Management Cultures and Their Impact on Performance Outcomes. Diss. University of Birmingham, 2005. Ann Arbor.UMI, 2001.ATT 3243910 Ortmann, A. and Squire, R. May (1998). The Internal Organisation of Colleges and Universities: A Game Theoretic Approach. A discussion paper of the Programme on Non-Profit Organisations at Yale University, New Haven. Ortmann, A. and Squire, R. (2000). A game-theoretic explanation of the administrative lattice in institutions of higher learning. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 43(3), 377-392. Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing Students – How Shall We Know Them? London: Harper and Row. Scott, P. (1988). Commonwealth university conference: Worries tended to dominate. University Affairs. 26(6), 2-3. Sheehan, E. and DuPrey, T. (1999). Student evaluations of university teaching. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 26(3), 188-193. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Terenzini, P. and Pascarella, E. (1980). Student-faculty relationships and freshman year educational outcomes: A further investigation. Journal of College Student Personnel. 21, 521-528.

7th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 – 7 September 2007, Bangkok, Thailand

133

Terenzini, P., Theophilides, C. and Lorang, W. (1984). Influences on students’ perceptions of their academic skill development during college. The Journal of Higher Education. 12, 621-636. Thurow, L. (1999) Building Wealth: New Rules for Individuals, Companies and Countries in a Knowledge-Based Economy. London: HarperCollins. Volkwein, J. and Carbone, D. (1994). The impact of departmental research and teaching climates on undergraduate groeth and satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(2), 147-168.