برداشت علمی از کیفیت و تضمین کیفیت در برنامه های مهمان نوازی، گردشگری و اوقات فراغت در مقطع کارشناسی: مقایسه انگلستان و برنامه های تایوانی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|5225||2012||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8024 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, Available online 9 October 2012
This study explores and compares academic perspectives of quality assurance and its procedures to evaluate undergraduate hospitality, tourism and leisure programmes (HTLPs) in both the UK and Taiwanese higher education systems. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted to identify academic key concerns and issues about HTLP quality. Additionally, a questionnaire survey was used to assess academic perceptions regarding the quality of HTLP provision in the aspects of strategic planning, curriculum and instruction, faculty, student achievement, resources, and administrative management. The results indicated that overall HTLP quality was perceived as satisfactory in both countries. The specific areas of ‘curriculum and instruction’ and ‘resources’ were commonly perceived as good quality, while relatively poor sub-dimensions such as ‘alumni feedback’ and ‘teacher performance’ were identified as areas requiring special attention for improving programme quality. The implications of this study provide useful insights into quality improvement and enhancement in HTLPs.
Given the growing demand for skilled personnel at all levels in the hospitality, tourism and leisure industries, numbers of undergraduate hospitality, tourism and leisure programmes (HTLPs) and enroled students have expanded substantially in both the UK and Taiwan. In 2007, UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) data revealed HTLPs as a whole to be among the fastest growing course category in UK higher education (HE), where over 150 HE and further education institutions offered awards as part of their portfolios of taught programmes (QAA, 2008). Likewise, the number of HTLPs in Taiwan has increased significantly from 64 to 182 between 2002 and 2009 (Ministry of Education, 2010). Majoring in HTLPs has increased in popularity in numerous countries (Kim, Guo, Wang & Agrusa, 2007). To prepare for future global challenges, institutions that provide HTLPs have had to become more aware of the quality and standards of each programme and academic award, particularly in the international context in which they operate (Horng et al., 2009 and Robbins, 2005). HTLPs in different countries adopt very different educational models to fit local practice, with diversity in level, content and structure (Baum, 2004). Consequently, more evidence regarding comparison of HTLP quality among countries is necessary to identify fundamental differences and similarities in philosophies and approaches used to assess programme quality. Given the historical and cultural differences between the UK and Taiwanese HE systems, exploring quality issues in HTLPs at an international level is of particular interest, and is essential to international HTLP development. These issues are significant to decision makers and HTLP members, especially for those who like to establish overseas programmes, as they can provide valuable information on cross-cultural evaluation and standard requirements for quality assurance (QA). Furthermore, the UK was the first country in Europe to introduce formal QA systems into HE (Westerheijden, Brennan, & Maassen, 1994). As such, its QA systems can provide useful models for HE in countries such as Taiwan which are having to develop culturally appropriate QA systems and procedures in the fast-growing area of HLTP. The investigation of Taiwan aims to provide insight into the challenges presented by the growing popularity of HTLPs in some Asian countries (Kim et al., 2007), in addition to providing information on the development of international QA strategies in HTLPs. Previous studies have recognised the need to pay greater attention to academic views regarding HE quality (e.g., Mertova & Webster, 2009). As faculty members are key stakeholders and “insiders” in HE, their perceptions should be valued as they can reflect on and further improve programme quality. Therefore, the objectives of this study are twofold. First, this study intends to identify academic concerns about quality assurance and procedures to ensure the quality of HTLP provision in each country. Second, this study attempts to understand how academics in both the UK and Taiwan rate the quality of HTLP provision in terms of different quality standards. The implications of this study are important to HE policy makers, programme managers and faculty members seeking to continually improve and enhance programme quality to achieve international competitive advantage in HE.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This study assessed academic perceptions of the quality of HTLP provision, identified key concerns of QA, and compared major QA methods and procedures used in the UK and Taiwanese HE systems. Despite the innate differences in HE between the UK and Taiwan, this study found that these two countries share commonalities regarding the QA systems operated in HE institutions/HTLPs. In both countries, strong regulation of national authorities influences QA processes for HE systems. A majority of the academics involved in the focus groups and individual interviews felt that QA methods and practices at all levels of HE institutions have benefited both educational units and students by providing an explicit framework for the assessment and improvement of HE quality. However, a number of UK academics felt that the quality systems currently operating at universities primarily focus on institutional conformity and the need for documentation and ‘box-ticking’, rather than on directly enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Despite the above argument, the survey results presented in this study indicated that quality management in HE can provide the benefits of efficiency and effectiveness in HTLPs, especially in terms of strategic planning and administrative management. By analysing academic perceptions of HE quality, this study identified three definitions, including ‘fitness for purpose’, ‘customer centeredness’, and ‘added value’, which reflected various academic values and key concerns regarding specific aspects of quality in HTLPs. These definitions provide a better understanding of how academic concerns can be addressed to ensure quality in diverse HE institutions/HTLPs. Academics in both countries indicated that the student satisfaction approach, applied via internal and external evaluations, has been used in numerous HE institutions as a feedback system to enhance teaching and learning satisfaction. In particular, some UK academics felt that internal evaluation, such as programme/course review, serves as a useful self-evaluation method that can truly enhance student experience. Owing to the importance of HE in developing student employability, HTLPs must clearly identify and articulate the important knowledge and skills developed during the educational process as quality guidelines to ensure HTLP graduate qualifications. Most academics felt that HTLP quality statements should focus on enhancing student capabilities related to the HTL industries. The emphasis on obtaining professional licences/certificates relevant to HTL professions in Taiwanese HTLPs, specifically raised by Taiwanese academics, was strongly encouraged as evidence of student achievement in specific areas of HTL qualifications. Despite the vocational nature of HTLPs, academics felt a growing need to balance quality statements in both the general and subject-related dimensions to ensure students were broadly educated and occupationally developed in HTLPs. Using a valid instrument to assess academic perceived quality in HTLPs can provide useful information for self-improvement and the development of appropriate QA strategies for HTLPs. The questionnaire survey revealed that HTLP academics in both countries responded positively to the overall quality of their own programme. Specifically, the good results obtained in the aspects of ‘curriculum and instruction’ and ‘resources’ in HTLPs indicated that the critical components directly related to student learning experience were assured and achieved good quality. However, the poor quality aspects in the UK and Taiwanese HTLPs, such as alumni feedback and others, clearly indicated the areas requiring specific concerns to improve programme quality. Most importantly, HTLPs need to take timely action in response to these key concerns to ensure HTLP quality.