The Relationship between Level of Total Quality Management (TQM ...

IRACST- International Journal of Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012The Relationship between Level of Total QualityManagement (TQM) and the Level of Culture ofTeaching and Learning (COTL) in SchoolMasoumeh Pourrajab *PhD Candidate in Educational Administration, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)Serdang, MalaysiaDr. Ramli BasriSenior Lecturer in Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)Serdang, MalaysiaDr. Shaffe Mohd DaudSenior Lecturer in Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)Serdang, MalaysiaDr. Soaib AsimiranSenior Lecturer in Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)Serdang, MalaysiaSeyedehhava MousavyMaster student in TESL, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)Serdang, MalaysiaAbstract- The aim of this paper is to identify the level ofTotal Quality Management (TQM), and the level of Cultureof Teaching and Learning (COTL). Additionally, the paperaims to investigate the relationship between TQM andCOTL in Iranian secondary schools. To achieve this aims,researchers conducted a survey research and applieddescriptive method to determine the level of TQM andCOTL, as well as using correlation method to find therelationship between level of TQM and COTL. The findingsof this study show that, the level of TQM and COTL is highin Iranian secondary schools. It also finds that an increase inthe level of TQM in schools will also increase the level ofCOTL.Keywords- Total quality management, culture of teachingand learning, Iranian secondary schoolI. INTRODUCTIONAfter World War II Edward Deming developed TQMwhich is a widespread management idea to maintain andimprove the quality of goods and it was first embraced bythe Japanese industrial sector [1]. The theoretical basis ofTQM came from several scholars notably; W. EdwardsDeming, Joseph M. Juran and Philip Crosby in the Americaand Genichi Taguchi and Kaoru Ishikawa in Japan [2, 3].Americans did not take TQM seriously until 1950 when theJapanese accepted it to restore their business and industryactivities after the war. The world markets were dominatedby Japanese till 1980’s because they took TQM seriously.Meanwhile, the U.S. companies had ultimately accepted toupdate and change their model of assembly line into theglobal competitive economic markets since it belong to thenineteenth century and was really out of date [4].Nowadays it is very necessary to improve and enhancethe quality in some areas such as industry, manufacturing,health, and education [5]. All organizations in spite of theirstructure, culture, and goals such as business company;319

corporations, service organizations, universities, and schoolscan apply TQM principles [6]. Deming [7] pointed out thoseTQM principles that are utilized in industry can be used ineducational institutions and the process of education toimprove outcome and performance. The purpose of theeducation system and schools is to increase the number ofstudents who can fulfill or go beyond the proficiency levelsof academic achievement and prove themselves highlyskillful and competitive in high technology in the modernworld [8]. This needs a change in the schools and educationsystem and to bring about this change they should focus onstudents need to be successful in today’s and future world[9]. So schools must improve the structure and culture of theschool itself [10].To achieve these goals, school must improve the Cultureof Teaching and Learning (COTL) as a first step and thenapply some quality improvement model like Total QualityManagement (TQM). In this way efficiency andeffectiveness of the school can be enhanced [11]. In thisresearch COTL refers to the values, norms, behaviors,climate and attitudes of teachers, principals, and studentstowards teaching and learning. The most important conceptin COTL is culture. Culture change within an organization iscreated by a number of factors, including behaviors basedon people interactions, norms, resulting from teams andindividuals, dominants values by the organization and theclimate of the organization [12]. In the context of education,culture refers to behavior based on educators (teachers andprincipals) and students interaction, norms and criteriaresulting from team work, individuals’ dominant values,educators and learners attitudes towards teaching andlearning and provisions of services. These attitudes involvethe spirit of devotion and commitment in and to a school’sculture, which develops through the combined efforts ofschool management and leadership.TQM has attracted the interest of many theorists andpractitioners such as DeCosmo, Parker and Heverly [13],Ewell [14], Sherr and Lozier [15], Bonser [16], Tribus [17],Brigham [18], and Rhodes [19], and later they worked onapplicability of TQM theories in the educational area.These scholars also explained that educational institutionshave applied TQM for a lot of reasons that industries andbusinesses have instituted quality programs. According tothis Cunningham [11] suggested that TQM models must beredesigned in order to fit the educational goals in schools.Walpole and Noeth [20], pointed out that applying TQM ineducation system can improve the performance of schoolsespecially improving teaching and learning quality. Toachieve these goals, researchers search the notion of TQMin terms of its philosophy, principles, culture andimplementation of TQM in school. Some scholars such asKumar, Choisne, Grosbois and Uma Kumar [21] pointed outthat the principles of TQM could be used as a means forboosting students’ morale, raising productivity, saving time,empowering people at all levels, enhancing moral ofeducators, and providing higher quality services toIRACST- International Journal of Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012customers. In other words, by applying TQM principles,improvement in quality helps to diminish waste and raiseproductivity hence keeping costs low and raising studentsatisfaction. Also, the COTL will be increased by applyingTQM in education.320Iranian education system like other education systemswas also looking for methods and strategies to improve itsquality and to keep up with the world standards [22].Despite great efforts to change the school-oriented system tostudent-oriented one as a general goal, the schoolperformance particularly the quality of COTL, could notimprove as expected [23]. Now the top executives in theeducation system of Iran believe in changing the presentstructure and, improving COTL is the key for improvingschool performance [24]. So educators are looking for asolution to solve the mentioned educational problems [11]and a model or models to improve the school structure orculture so as to improve the quality of education in Iran.Kamali [25] in his studies presented that some of the TQMprinciples have been applied in the education system of Iranlike new teaching techniques, emphasis on pre-serviceteacher training, in-service training for teachers andprincipals, upgrading classes with the world facilities,improving evaluation methods, employing team and groupwork in class, paying attention to teachers knowledge andmotivation, and organizing parents association. But theinfluence of all these points (improvements) has not beenexplicitly specified, the present researcher could find verylittle literature focusing on the application of this model indifferent databases such as Pro-Quest, and Emerald,especially in the province of Lorestan (researchpopulation), Iran. Therefore, this area is still in needs offurther research. Hence, the present study tries to identifylevel of TQM and Level of COTL implementation inschools, and investigate the relationship between these twovariables. To achieve this goal, one general hypothesis andtwo detailed hypotheses were stated as follows:General Hypothesis: there is a statistically significantrelationship between the level of TQM and the level ofCOTL in school.Hypothesis one: there is a statistically significantrelationship between the level of TQM and the level ofCOTL based on principals’ view in school.Hypothesis two: there is a statistically significantrelationship between the level of TQM and the level ofCOTL based on teachers’ view in school.

IRACST- International Journal of Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012METHODOLOGYTable 1: Distribution of years of experienceII.This research was carried out in secondary schoolslocated Lorestan Provinces of Iran. The target population ofthis study was principals and teachers of public schools,which included 1354 teachers and 206 principals. Thesample comprised of 280 teachers and 40 principals. Therespondents of the study were selected using random andcluster sampling method. First, all secondary schools weredivided into two geographical regions (east, and west) andtwo cities were selected randomly in each region (four citiesas whole). For each city 20 schools were selected randomly.For each school seven teachers were selected randomly andevery principal of these schools are selected as respondents.So in total the respondents include 280 teachers and 40principals.PrincipalTeacherN % Mean SD N % Mean SD≤10 1 2.5 19.73 3.85 62 22.1 16.29 6.31years11-20 28 70 152 54.3years21-30 11 27.5 60 23.6yearsTotal 40 100280 100The results in Table 1, shows that the majority ofprincipals and teachers in this study has working experiencebetween 11-20 years.The research instrument was a set questionnaireprepared by Rampa [26] for data collection in his research.The questionnaire was divided into three sections; Socio-Demographic data, COTL, and TQM. This questionnaireconsists of 30 items which were completed by teachers andprincipals. They were asked to complete the descriptiveitems as much as they are true for their schools based on theLikert Scale. This scale involved a minimum score of 30and a maximum score of 120 and a subsidiary dimensionwith a range of 1 to 4. SPSS software was used to determinethe reliability of the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alphavalue was 0.86 and this showed that the questionnaire has aquite satisfactory reliability [27].The researchers used descriptive method to determinethe level of TQM and level of COTL, and applied PearsonCorrelation method to investigate the relationship betweenlevel and TQM and level of COTLIII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe collected data shows that out of 320 participants in thisstudy, 280 respondents (87.5%) were teachers, and 40respondents (21.5%) were principals. The majority ofrespondents, i.e. 168 (52.5%) were female and 152 (47.5%)were male. This study considers the experiences ofeducators from 1 year to 30 years. The data shows only oneprincipal (2.5%) had less than 10 years of experience, 28principals (70%) between 11-20 years experience, and 11principals (27.5%) more than 21 years of experience(M=19.73; SD=3.85). Another hand, 62 teachers (22.1%)had less than 10 years of experience, 152 teachers (54.3%)between 11-20 years experience, and 60 teachers (23.6%)more than 21 years of experience (M=16.29; SD=6.31).Additionally, based on the distribution of their degrees,only one principal (2.5%) had diploma and one principal(2.5%) had associate diploma degree, 38 principals (95%)had bachelor degree, as well as 93 teachers (33.2%) hadassociate diploma, 174 teachers (62.1%) had bachelordegree and 13 teachers (4.6%) had master degree.Table 2: Distribution of qualificationPrincipal TeacherN % N %Diploma 1 2.5 0 0Associate 1 2.5 93 33.2diplomaBachelor 38 95 174 62.1Master 0 0 13 4.6Total 40 100 280 100As can be seen from Table 2, the majority of educatorsparticipated in this study had bachelor degree.Table 3 shows that the level of TQM. As can be seen thelevel of TQM is high based on principals and teachers view.Table 3: Mean distribution of TQM levelMean SD LevelPrincipal 3.12 0.65 HighTeacher 3.08 0.72 HighNote: Low (1.00

IRACST- International Journal of Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012Table 4: Mean distribution of COTL levelTable 6: Results of Pearson Correlation based onteachers viewMean SD LevelTQM COTLPrincipal 3.03 0.71 HighPearson Correlation 1 0.47**Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00Teacher 3.05 0.77 HighN 280 280Note: low (1.00

IRACST- International Journal of Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), ISSN: 2249-9563Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012REFERENCES19. Rhodes, L.A., On the road to quality. EducationalLeadership, 1992. 49(6): p. 76-80.20. Walpole, M. and R.J. Noeth, The promise of1. Svensson, M. and B. Klefsjo, TQM-based SelfassessmentBaldrige for K–12 education, in ACT Office ofin the Education Sector, ExperiencesPolicy Research. 2002, New Jersey and Asburyfrom a Swedish Upper Secondary School Project.Park High School (NJ).Quality Assurance in Education, 2006. 14(4): p. 21. Kumar, et al., Impact of TQM on Company's299-323.Performance. International Journal of Quality &2. Beckford, J., Quality: A Critical Introduction. 3rdReliability Management, 2009. 26(1): p. 22-37.ed. 2009, London: Routledge.22. Ministry of Education of the I.R. the Iran, National3. Speegle, M., Quality Concepts for the ProcessReport on Development of Education in the I.R. ofIndustry. 2nd ed. 2010, New York: Delmar Pub.Iran with an Emphasis on Inclusive Education a4. Dheeraj, M., Applying Total Quality Managementway to Future. 2008, Devised by, Bureau ofin Academics, Quality Guide to the Non-formal andInternational Scientific Cooperation.Informal learning Processes. 2004, SEEQUEL.23. Mirderikvand, A., Preparing for Implementation of5. Singh, V., S. Grover, and A. Kumar, Evaluation ofTQM in Headquarter in Lorestan Province, inQuality in an Educational Institute: a QualityEducation. 2007, Azad University: Tehran.Function Deployment Approach. Educational 24. Chisholm, L. and S. Vally, The culture of learningResearch and Reviews, 2008. 3(5): p. 156-162.and teaching in Gauteng schools: report of the6. Ngware, M.W., D.K. Wamukuru, and S.O.Committee on the culture of learning and teaching.Odebero, Total Quality Management in Secondary1996: Education Policy Unit, University of theSchools in Kenya: extent of practice. QualityWitwatersrand.Assurance in Education, 2006. 14(4): p. 339-362. 25. Kamali, A., What Is the Main Problem Facing to7. Deming, E., Out of the Crisis: Quality, ProductivityPublic Education System in Your Community?and Competitive Position. 1986, Cambridge:Quarterly Journal of Education, 2009. 25(3).Cambridge University Press.26. Rampa, S.H., The Relationship between Total8. Burke, W.W., Organization change: Theory andQuality Management and School Improvement.practice. 3rd ed. 2010: Sage Publications, Inc.2004, University of Pretoria: South Africa.9. Comer, J.P. and H.L. Gates, Leave no child behind: 27. Ary, D., L.C. Jacobs, and A. Razavieh,Preparing today's youth for tomorrow's world.Introduction to Research in Education. 8th ed.2004: Yale Univ Pr.2009, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.10. Burke, W.W., D.G. Lake, and J.W. Paine, 28. Lodico, M.G., D.T. Spaulding, and K.H. Voegtle,Organization Change: A Comprehensive Reader.Methods in Educational Research: from Theory to2009, Sun Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Practice. 2006, San Francisco: Wiley.11. Cunningham, M.K., Educator Attitudes towards the 29. Heyward, R.P. and G.M. Steyn, The potential ofAppropriateness of Total Quality Management: Atotal quality education: a case study of a primarySurvey of Elementary and middle Schoolschool in South Africa. South Africa Journal ofAdministrators and Faculty. 2007, CapellaEducation, 2001. 21(2).University.30. Grahamstowm. St andrew’s Preparatory School in12. Oakland, J., Total Quality Management: Text withGrahamstowm. 2011; Available from:Cases. 2003, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.http://www.grahamstown.co.za.13. DeCosmo, R.D., J.S. Parker, and M.A. Heverly,Total quality management goes to communitycollege. New Directions for Institutional Research,1991. 1991(71): p. 13-25.14. Ewell, P.T., Total quality and academic practice:the idea we've been waiting for? Change, 1993.25(3): p. 49-55.15. Sherr, L.A. and G. Gregory Lozier, Total qualitymanagement in higher education. New Directionsfor Institutional Research, 1991. 1991(71): p. 3-11.16. Bonser, C.F., Total Quality Education? PublicAdministration Review, 1992. 52(5): p. 504-512.17. Tribus, M., TQM in Education: The Theory andHow To Put It To Work. 1993.18. Brigham, S.E., TQM: Lessons we can learn fromindustry. Change, 1993. 25(3): p. 42-48.323