Bruce C. Raymond
Business
MSU-Bozeman
Cornesky's The Quality Professor prescribes a teacher-centered solution for the ills that are currently ascribed to higher education. For now, let's accept his premise that "we're not meeting expectations, and we've got to acknowledge that failure" (12), and look carefully at the solutions implied by the adoption of Total Quality Management (TQM) in the classroom. First, a brief introduction and review of the history of TQM.
Total quality management has come to represent a loosely structured set of concepts and procedures which supporters claim have applicability in any organizational setting. These fundamentals include using a formalized, data-driven approach to continuous improvement and empowering employee groups to take responsibility and solve their own problems. The roots of quality management lie in the statistical and engineering workrooms of corporate America during the 1920s and 1930s. Quality control, as it was called then, was a statistical methodology applied by quality engineers, but largely ignored or misunderstood by managers. Following World War II, the Japanese aggressively expanded quality control into a company-wide focus, total quality control. In response to declining market share in many industries such as automobiles and electronics between 1970 and 1980, U.S. companies brought quality back to America. Today, in response to demands that we get our tax-dollars' worth out of state educational budgets, TQM has come to the university.
Cornesky describes in great detail the characteristics of the faculty and the students in the TQM classroom. Guidance is also given regarding the policies and procedures which when implemented will improve faculty and student performance. These idealistic depictions are useful as standards for comparison, and also serve to illustrate Cornesky's views regarding TQM. Let's start with the teacher.
Cornesky sets high standards for the TQM teacher. His TQM teacher is a "Super-leader" (43) who is fair, sincere, open-minded, responsive, responsible, proactive, and self-disciplined. This ideal teacher is seeking continuous improvement by setting and achieving personal goals. He or she is well-prepared, and has comprehensive professional knowledge. Above all else, the TQM teacher is TQM trained and committed to total quality principles.
In relationships with others, the TQM teacher mirrors a high personal code of conduct. This ideal instructor motivates, encourages, guides, coaches, cheer-leads, and rewards students appropriately without coercion. He or she respects students, listens to student input, and implements student suggestions in the classroom. This teacher sets high expectations for students, provides personal and peer examples of excellence, and motivates all students to high levels of success. The TQM teacher also influences colleagues through example and persuasion to adopt the TQM philosophy.
Life isn't just all work and no play, however, for Cornesky's ideal teacher. The TQM teacher is in good physical health, and has many hobbies to provide renewal from professional life.
The student in the TQM classroom is motivated by the example of the teacher to similarly high levels of personal behavior and performance. TQM students are curious, responsible, self-motivated, interactive, collaborative, confident, and intelligent. The participative TQM classroom, along with their own innate desires to learn, motivates these students to take responsibility for their own learning, to take pride in their work, and to become life-long learners. These students love to attack problems, and not only thrive in our complex dynamic society, but become the problem solvers for our nation and world.
Cornesky also provides a detailed description of the TQM classroom environment, including appropriate procedures and policies. Group processes are emphasized over individual processes. Group assignments with "real-world" (57) relevance are structured to encourage questioning and discovery learning. Peer- and self-evaluation are used in place of traditional methods of grading, and testing is administered after material is mastered. Methods are structured using outcome-based education such that all students succeed.
Formalized improvement in classroom processes is also emphasized. Student teams participate in identifying problem areas, gathering relevant data, developing plans for improvement, and implementing solutions. Change, however, is a gradual, measured process, building upon previous successes. Groups select one or two problem areas to investigate, and implementation is made only when all students and the teacher agree it is appropriate. In this cooperative environment communication flows easily between teacher and students, and among the students themselves. Particular effort is given to identifying and satisfying the expectations of important "customers" (13), students, parents, alumni, employers, and graduate schools.
Let's critically examine this description of TQM in the classroom and attempt to discern what, if any, are the real contributions of TQM applicable to our classrooms. Many critics of TQM argue that like the emperor's new clothes, TQM promises almost magical results, but in reality the effects are transparent and illusory. Others, however, point to significant, measurable changes in organizations, and attribute these positive outcomes to TQM. Rather than a complete sham like the emperor's clothes, TQM is just an ill-fitting garment when applied naïvely in the classroom. If I were to wear the clothing created for someone else, I would have to tailor the garments to fit my individual requirements. Similarly, TQM can prove to be beneficial if altered carefully to each individual instructor's needs. Here are some alterations which I would make before I wore the TQM suit to class.
First, outcome based education in which all students are likely to succeed is not by necessity synonymous with the application of TQM to the classroom. Without getting into the outcome-based education debate we can examine the relationship between TQM and outcome-based education. The adoption of TQM does not imply that all members of an organization will flourish and succeed. Examples from other organizations indicate that TQM-based employee teams are quick to fire fellow employees who don't meet team expectations, and that managers who are unable to adapt to the TQM environment are replaced or leave voluntarily (Harvard Business Review, November-December 1990). Cornesky indicates that all students should succeed in the TQM classroom, yet he contends that ineffective faculty should be replaced (vi). These inconsistencies are eliminated if we accept the view that not all students will succeed in the TQM classroom.
Another tenuous TQM supposition is the notion that student teams will make effective decisions regarding course content, design, and policies. Students are not motivated, nor are they qualified, to make short-term changes in course requirements, expectations, content, etc. Cornesky's suggestion that "rules and course competencies result from a consensus among you, your students, and other customers..." (57) implies a sharing of the contractual responsibility which is placed on the instructor alone. This is not to say that student input should not be considered in making course improvements over time. However, in my experience it has proven to be ill-advised to make mid-course corrections based on student complaints and discomfort. Sticking to the syllabus as a student/teacher contract, while making improvements in future courses, creates a more secure learning environment for students.
A final adjustment which I would make regards Cornesky's suggestion that TQM must be included in the topical content of every course. It would be a waste of resources to devote classroom time to TQM topics in every course from architecture to zoology. A better approach is for each instructor to apply the concepts of TQM in the classroom. Rather than memorizing TQM terminology for a test, the student would be learning life-long TQM behaviors by example.
Despite the weaknesses, TQM does make some valid and unique contributions to the improvement of classroom teaching. Cornesky's unique contributions are not in the idealized characterizations of the perfect teacher which to a large degree are repetitions of other depictions of excellent teaching. However, Cornesky's unique contributions are found in the application of formalized TQM methods in evaluating and improving classroom performance. Chapters five and six describe the conceptual foundations of why formal analysis is important, while chapters seven and eight provide a useful reference and academic examples explaining how to apply these TQM methods.
Specifying clear goals and objectives for all classroom activities will improve classroom success, as well as support departmental, college, and university missions. Goals and objectives should be set in light of expectations from important external constituents (customers) such as parents, alumni, graduate schools, employers, and the public. Collecting and analyzing data regarding the strengths and weaknesses of classroom methods, and then implementing improvements, is another useful suggestion. Evaluations from students and fellow teachers should be included in this improvement process.
In summary, The Quality Professor provides a useful description of TQM as applied to the teacher/student interaction. The first five chapters give a comprehensive characterization of the TQM teacher and student, while the later chapters contain useful examples and applications.