Search results
1 – 2 of 2Philipp Pohlenz, Annika Felix, Sarah Berndt and Markus Seyfried
This paper aims to investigate student subgroups’ responses to the coercive digitalisation of teaching and learning processes during the pandemic. Respective variance is discussed…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to investigate student subgroups’ responses to the coercive digitalisation of teaching and learning processes during the pandemic. Respective variance is discussed in terms of digital inequality and is interpreted as a need to individualise teaching and learning and quality assurance practices.
Design/methodology/approach
This study uses data from surveys (N = 955) on student perceptions of the introduction of emergency digitalisation – an important aspect of higher education. The authors perform latent class analyses to identify student subgroups. The students were asked to rate digital learning processes and their overall learning experiences.
Findings
The identified student subgroups are proponents, pragmatics and sceptics of digitalised teaching and learning processes. These subgroups have different preferences with regard to teaching and learning modes of delivery, which implies the relevance of individualised educational services and respective quality assurance practices to reflections on improvement needs.
Research limitations/implications
The data are from a single, typical German university; therefore, the scope of the results may be limited. However, this study enriches future research on the traits of student subgroups and students’ coping strategies in an ever-changing learning environment.
Practical implications
The findings may help individualise universities’ counselling services to enhance overall teaching performance and quality assurance practices in a digitalised environment.
Originality/value
The findings provide insights into students’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on teaching and learning. This paper enriches the research on student heterogeneity and relates this to development needs of quality assurance practice.
Details
Keywords
The management of higher education institutions (HEIs) is undergoing a period of rapid development around the world and particularly in Asia. Competing forces of neoliberal…
Abstract
Purpose
The management of higher education institutions (HEIs) is undergoing a period of rapid development around the world and particularly in Asia. Competing forces of neoliberal decentralisation, increased government oversight, internationalisation and regionalism are creating difficulties for managers and stakeholders alike. This paper aims to look at the ways in which universities have institutionalised their strategies for coping with these forces, in the form of their mission statements (MSs), particularly within an East Asian context.
Design/methodology/approach
Several major international university ranking tables were used to compile a list of “world class” institutions in East Asia. Those with available MSs in English were examined for reference to factors existing within the literature, as well as those which were not previously identified.
Findings
East Asian universities placed a high degree of emphasis on aspects related to university management, as well as social, cultural and historical foci. Far less emphasis was placed on aspects such as engagement of stakeholders and inclusion.
Originality/value
The paper draws on previous research from other regions and attempts to provide some insights into the particularities of higher education in East Asia from a management perspective.
Details