Motivation to study in Higher Education:a comparison between Germany and Great Britain

This article deals with reasons for the motivation to study in higher education. To find out about motives, around 200 A-level students in Germany and Great Britain were asked about their plans for the time after completion of their A-levels. Through socio-demographic data the authors could deploy facts about social backgrounds and the affiliations to socio-economic classes. There are some expected findings (e.g., British A-level students are more likely to study than their German comrades) and some pretty unexpected results (e.g., social classes do not seem to divide students into choosing university or not).

Perceptions of learning and teaching quality in Higher Education:developing a culture of co-creation of value

Perceptions about the quality of learning and teaching in Higher Education has for many years focused upon the application of market based principles. This includes the notion of students as “customers” of the Higher Education Institutions (HEI) service. We argue that the application of the customer analogy is unhelpful however, as students this approach is likely to affect student expectations about the service and their judgements about its quality. The purpose of this paper is to propose a study consisting of a series of interventions to develop a culture of value co-creation at a UK based HEI. By introducing CCV principles, it is hoped to steer students away from seeing themselves as “customers”, and passive recipients of in the learning and teaching process, to one where they take responsibility for their own learning experience, to be explored and acted upon in partnership with their lecturers and other stakeholders.

About Electronic Assessment, Accreditation and Management of the Quality of Teaching in Higher Education

The article examines the main approaches to external evaluation and accreditation in higher education. It also presents COMPASS-OK: a social network for electronic evaluation and management of the quality of education, which utilizes mechanisms for management of documentation flows and supports tools for modeling of evaluation methods and procedures.

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida: 1989--1994

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^

Industry Education: The Merger Continues

In the discussion - Industry Education: The Merger Continues - by Rob Heiman Assistant Professor Hospitality Food Service Management at Kent State University, the author originally declares, “Integrating the process of an on-going catering and banquet function with that of selected behavioral academic objectives leads to an effective, practical course of instruction in catering and banquet management. Through an illustrated model, this article highlights such a merger while addressing a variety of related problems and concerns to the discipline of hospitality food service management education.” The article stresses the importance of blending the theoretical; curriculum based learning process with that of a hands-on approach, in essence combining an in-reality working program, with academics, to develop a well rounded hospitality student. “How many programs are enjoying the luxury of excessive demand for students from industry [?],” the author asks in proxy for, and to highlight the immense need for qualified personnel in the hospitality industry. As the author describes it, “An ideal education program concerns itself with the integration of theory and simulation with hands-on experience to teach the cognitive as well as the technical skills required to achieve the pre-determined hospitality education objectives.” In food service one way to achieve this integrated learning curve is to have the students prepare foods and then consume them. Heiman suggests this will quickly illustrate to students the rights and wrongs of food preparation. Another way is to have students integrating the academic program with feeding the university population. Your author offers more illustrations on similar principles. Heiman takes special care in characterizing the banquet and catering portions of the food service industry, and he offers empirical data to support the descriptions. It is in these areas, banquet and catering, that Heiman says special attention is needed to produce qualified students to those fields. This is the real focus of the discussion, and it is in this venue that the remainder of the article is devoted. “Based on the perception that quality education is aided by implementing project assignments through the course of study in food service education, a model description can be implemented for a course in Catering and Banquet Management and Operations. This project model first considers the prioritized objectives of education and industry and then illustrates the successful merging of resources for mutual benefits,” Heiman sketches. The model referred to above is also the one aforementioned in the thesis statement at the beginning of the article. This model is divided into six major components; Heiman lists and details them. “The model has been tested through two semesters involving 29 students,” says Heiman. “Reaction by all participants has been extremely positive. Recent graduates of this type of program have received a sound theoretical framework and demonstrated their creative interpretation of this theory in practical application,” Heiman says in summation.