The Effectiveness of teaching ICT course to B.ED 4 Students

1.0 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background Information 

The process of developing and implementing new policies and ICT teaching methods is a tasking one (Girdwood, 1999; Meek et al, 1996; Sabatier, 1991). According to Smith (2002) educators should first subject the existing ICT teaching startegies to an intensive evaluative analysis with the view of establishing what needs to be changed, how should it be changed, the impacts of such changes to the existing and envisaged learning institutional goals, political ramifications (if any) of such new policies, the amount of resources to be used for the development and implementation process. Such prerequisite considerations are important as they enhance smooth transition as well as aiding in reducing any possibility of internal and/or external conflicts as well as duplication of efforts. In this regard, it is important to highlight that the quality (nature and scope) of the envisaged teaching policies or strategy is also very important as it determines whether the existing as well as the new goals will be achieved or not. As a matter of fact, Girdwood (1999) asserts that, so as to achieve the set strategic goals in Bed and other course, learning institutions should not only formulate new policies but should ensure that such policies are compatible with the expectations of the course (BE.d). 

In extension, so as to create healthy and sustainable programmes for B.ED 4 Students, there is need for sound policies to be formulated and successfully implemented (Badu & Loughridge, 1997). This however, is a conventionally tasking endeavour that has posed significant challenges among educators in various learning institutions. Moreover, as Smith (2002) explains, creating sound policies alone is not enough as institutions can still experience problems in the overall execution of a program or teaching method. In this regard, there is need to follow through such policies and ensure that they are successful teaching methods or programs. As a matter of fact, it is even prudent to acknowledge that even the strongest policies can as well as be meaningless if they are not implemented in the right manner. This is because as Brinkerhoff (1999) opines, the life of a policy is long; it begins at creation and continues into infinity, until it is replaced or even fails in its entirety, the same way a educational program operates. This therefore calls for proper planning and a sense of responsiveness on the part of educators. Consequently, there must be proper deliberations to mitigate the inevitable implementation challenges that may otherwise scuttle any hopes of successfully utilizing policies.

1.2 Study Context 

For smooth management, institutions of higher learning develop and implement many policies (Gibbons, 1998). In the UEW, for instance, several policy areas spanning the realms of academic, student welfare, finance, security, administration, sports, sanitation, staff welfare, community services and many more other areas are addressed (UEW, 2011). Even so, for purposes of this study, only a few Effectiveness of teaching ICT course to B.ED 4 Students will be tackled. Ideally, the selection of only one area was based on their importance in the overall in the governance process of the University. Other programs can deal with: academic, environment and facilities, finance, human resource, procedures and guidelines, information and communication, library and research policies. 

The educational reforms that were embarked upon by the government in 1988 put enormous pressures on universities to develop policies to meet the challenges and stem students’ protests, staff disenchantment and remain relevant in the face of global competition. In view of this, Governing Councils and Academic Boards were called upon to enact policies for the effective teaching methods (Leach et al, 2008).  As a matter of fact, Leach et al argue that just like other institutions of higher learning in most countries, Universities in UAE were expected to operate as businesses and generate income to make up for the shortfalls in government funding.  However, between the 1990s and 2000, there were tensions between administrators and academic staff on the issue of participation in decision making and university management. Academic staff felt that most policies enacted lacked collegial participation and that academic decision making was being dominated by professional managers. 

1.3 Scope of the Study 

According to Meek et al (1996), in almost all higher education systems, institutional diversity is considered an “inherent good.” As such, governments always try to provide considerable leeway to institutions as well as developing to enhance education.  It is therefore important to note that policy serves several purposes including control, consistency and uniformity, and fairness. Policies ensure control when they are well developed and well publicized, they enable learning institution members to know what they should do, and in what manner, in certain specific circumstances. This ensures that educators operate within defined limits and do not act in ways that would create problems for the learning institution. In addition, policies also ensure consistency and uniformity. For instance, a policy targeting to bring new changes on employee interactions at the workplace is expected to affect all learning institutions. Consistency of policy is achieved to a large extent because the discipline procedure today is expected to be consistent with the procedure adopted in the past. All the educators should be actively involved in every process of developing, implementing, and evaluating the new policies. 

Nonetheless, in most cases the majority of the University educators members are not informed of important policies in the University. In fact, most members of the University educators only come to learn of new policies when they are confronted by such policies or even when they are faced with problems regarding their conditions of service or when they are affected by some management decisions (Leach et al, 2008). The general observation in the University of Education,  is that when policy statements are reviewed and approved by the governing council, academic board and other committees they are not disseminated to all identifiable groups within the institution but remain in the heads of individuals and in the files and cabinets of heads of department. This makes it difficult for staff to support policies to make them effective and enhance the governance and management process of the institution.

I am also aware that the University statutes, rules, policies and associated procedures, and plans form part of the governance framework of the University and therefore all employees and students of the University, by accepting employment and enrolment with the university, agree to operate in ways that are consistent and in harmony with the university’s governance framework.  Therefore it is important that those who are affected by the policies of the university are aware and understand them.  Even so, as indicated above, this is not the case as evidence from feedback received from staff and student representatives, at Council meetings.

It is this perception and my observations of display of ignorance on the part of staff and students about the various policies in operation that informs this research. The research will engage with some selected staff, both academic and administrative/professional, heads of department and deans as a means to understand The Effectiveness of teaching ICT course to B.ED 4 Students

and implementation. This would lead to unearthing the fundamental issues involved in The Effectiveness of teaching ICT course to B.ED 4 Students in the University.

1.4. Rationale 

In the University of Education, just like in any other institutions of higher learning, policies are critical for effective teaching in the institution (Osborne, 2003a).  In most cases policies are the outcome of decisions arrived at during board/committee meetings, and may refer to a statement of principles or position that is intended to guide or direct decision-making and operations in a sphere of the University activities and may also specify requirements that need to be met (Leach et al, 2008). Though there are a number of existing studies tackling various teaching methods, there is no existing documented research tackling The Effectiveness of teaching ICT course to B.ED 4 Students.  

This research will therefore attempt to develop a framework for the development, implementation and review of teaching policies in the university. What are the guidelines and procedures in policy formulation and how does it impact on staff’s performance as well as student performance

1.5. Study Objectives (Research Questions)

As it has been established elsewhere in this study that policy development and implementation are complex teaching processes that demands high levels of commitments on the part of the edcator (Badu & Loughridge, 1997; Girdwood, 1999; Anthony, 1999). In extension, the process of examining the manner in which institutional policies in the higher education realm get developed and implemented as well as the effects of those actions, requires in the view of Sabatier (1991), an understanding of the behaviour of the major educators. In addition, these critical processes can only be achieved through a keen observance of the behaviours of other interest groups such learners.

This research will rely of data collected through interaction with senior staff (senior non-teaching and senior-teaching staff).  The interaction will take the form of structured face-to-face, over-the-phone and online questionnares  that will be administered to selected participants representing the groups mentioned above. Though the structured questionnares  will comprise of many questions, the central premise will be the pertinent issues touching on policy development and implementation as well the impacts of policy reforms on University education system in general. In this regard, the study will seek to get answer(s) for the following overarching research question: “What issues are critical in developing and implementing selected policies in The Effectiveness of teaching ICT course to B.ED 4 Students?”  From this overarching question other research questions can be drawn out.

2.0 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1 Introduction 

As a critical chapter of the study, the noble purpose of this literature review section is to provide the background and critical points theoretically and methodologically of current knowledge about a particular topic (Bruce, 1994), in this case the development, implementation, and impacts of policies on the management of institutions of higher learning. In this regard, Cooper (1988) asserts that literature review chapters in a study act as secondary sources of information. Precisely, this is an indicator that they do not report any new primary work. Even so, studies should not omit literature review chapters as doing so will only make the arguments made thereof to lack connectivity and support of the existing theoretical frameworks within the respective fields of knowledge.

As a matter of fact, Bruce (1994) asserts that a study that does not review the existing relevant literary materials is void in its findings and conclusions. Precisely, as Bourner (1996) reports, it is very important that studies put efforts on the preparation of a literature review chapter as it helps to identify the gap in the literature and enable one to define the research questions. In this regard, it is hoped that by reviewing the relevant literary materials the breadth of knowledge of the study topic will be increased and a rich bank of relevant information and ideas will be created. As such therefore, the review of the literature pertaining to policy development, implementation, and impacts from a general perspective and from tertiary institutions standpoint will be one crucial element in this research study. 

Basing on Creswell (2003) postulations on the creation of literature maps and abstracting of existing literary materials, this chapter has been structured into various sub-titles that have been compressed into the following four subsections. 

1. Introduction – introduces the chapter by briefly according the audience an opportunity to deduce what the chapter tackles. 
2. Change theory – offers the conceptual framework within which the relevant literary materials are reviewed. In addition, the section emphasizes the essence of rolling out new policies and how such policies can be successfully rolled out. 

2.2 Change Theory 

Perhaps to elucidate how policy reforms are initiated, accepted and successfully implemented within learning institutions it is wise to invoke the change theory as advanced by Kurt Lewin. According to Lewin, the hallmark of this change theory rests on the postulation that change does not happen instantaneously, it is gradual, and that it comprises of significant amount of adaptations and adjustments (Schein, 1995). Precisely, based on elucidations by Robbins (2003), any form of change does not just happen – it only takes place when the forces sponsoring it are stronger than those that oppose it. Essentially, change whether from an individual or collective perspective is phenomenal, in that, it entails, “a profound psychological dynamic process that involved painful unlearning without loss of ego identity and difficult relearning as one cognitively attempted to restructure one’s thoughts, perceptions, feelings, and attitudes” (Schein, 1995, p.2). 

Similarly, within the context of higher education sector in UAE, for instance, institutions must first carryout extensive sensitization drills among the members forming its community on the need for reforms and then conduct surveys to determine the level of acceptance by the members regarding such reforms. The institutions should also consider communicating the survey results to the government through the respective line ministries so as to seek the support as well as to avoid contradicting the set national education goal. This is because in many situations, it is only after the central government consents to support the reforms that the institutions can now embark on the process of drawing out frameworks and timelines for initiating, developing, and implementing the reforms (Trucano, 2006). 

Even within the frameworks of Lewin’s change theory it is only fair to acknowledge that the process of imparting change is a complex one. This is because change entails the transformation of individuals or groups from conditions generally believed to be redundant to more productive ones, and hence it can only be realized when the existing structures are convincingly perceived to be ineffective (Schein, 1995). Perhaps this is the main reason as to why Robbins (2003) affirms that the process of achieving change is gradual and it is directly dependent on the nature of relationships between those at the helm and their subordinates. Based on Schein (1985) opinions, change can be perceived as a by-product of concerted efforts meant to address looming issues that impede maximum realization of the envisaged goals and objectives. For instance, in the context of policy development and implementation at the University, as well as other institutions of higher learning in UAE, there are a number of frameworks capable of enhancing the realization of change as per the envisaged goals and objectives. 

As Melton (2009) and Orr (2006) observes, the nature and scope of policy reforms within educational contexts at any jurisdictional level involves a lot of processes and personnel. As such, imparting change in such a bureaucratic environment can be a daunting task. From a UAEian tertiary education sector standpoint, for instance, university senates/councils are required to carry out extensive consultations with all the educators and initiate foolproof frameworks within which to change the existing programmes and put in place new ones (Girdwood, 1999; Trucano, 2006). Analytically, change agents within institutions of higher learning must not only work hand in hand with all these educators but should also be exemplary persons so as to gain the confidence of such educators. To achieve this however, change agents should step-up the driving forces in order to steer the educators toward the desired ends and to prevent them from reverting their old ways (Robbins, 2003). 

Based on Kearns (2007) opinions, the initiation of change is more often than not a very tasking endeavour given the obvious conflicting modes of reasoning among educators. Even so, Kearns clarifies that change can be realized with minimal hassles if it is not imposed on educators and if a sufficient amount of information relating to key issues surrounding the envisaged change is provided to the concerned persons in good time. In this regard, change agents are encouraged to exhibit high levels of professionalism, patience, and humility in lobbying the educators to agree on the importance of the envisaged change.

2.2.1 The Three-Step Framework

Lewin envisaged that for change to take place, at least, three basic steps must be fulfilled (Schein, 1995; Robbins, 2003). In extension, so as to maximize such change, these three steps must be realized in a successive manner (Robbins, 2003). Perhaps this successive arrangement of the three steps was as a result of his conviction that change can only take place when the force behind it is powerful. For instance, when instituting academic change in an institution of higher learning, there must be visionary leaders drawn from both the administrative and academic departments. These leaders, whose main duty is to ensure that there are enough structures to sponsor the change, are in actual sense the force behind the changes. To achieve this, Lewin postulated that these leaders should seek to opportunistically engage all the members forming a community/learning institution at all the stages of the policy reforms. This, he opined can be achieved by cultivating appropriate atmosphere where all the educators can exchange critical information with relative ease. A free atmosphere among the educators helps to identify any drawbacks within the envisaged policy reforms as well as within the existing system. Needless to say, when drawbacks are identified in good time it becomes very easy for them to be fixed.  In essence, this gradual undertaking helps to break the existing norms and practices and therefore preparing the ground for change. 

Essentially, breaking existing norms and practices requires significant wit on the part of the change initiators as it should be done in a professional and diligent manner that allows for the creation of an atmosphere of trust and confidence among the members of the group (Schein, 1985). Ideally, it is these friendly and trustful atmospheres that play the role of incentivizing individuals to develop positive attitudes toward change. Most importantly, it is only after securing trust from all the concerned entities that the team leader can then employ preventive forces that serve as impediments toward any potential slip-backs to the existing behaviours. For example, within the context of the policy making process in the UAE tertiary education sector, tertiary institutions management authorities are expected to “sell” the ideas on the need for policy reforms on a particular aspect of the institutional administration or even on faculty matters to all the educators before laying down structures to cushion such reforms (Trucano, 2006). Moreover, the change agent should then closely monitor the overall reception of the change so as to make timely decisions whether to accelerate or even trim down either of the driving or the restrictive forces applied (Robins, 2003). In this regard, Schein (1985) asserts that for real change to be realized learning institutions must build strong capacities capable of managing immediate and perpetual change. In this regard, the change initiators should acclimatize the entire educator-body so as to willingly “learn how to learn” from emerging issues within their area of operation. 

The second step according to Lewin entails the change itself (Robbins, 2003). For change to be fully realized, Lewin posits that the change agent in conjunction with all the educators should invest significant efforts in the overall process of behaviour change. Even so, he cautions that the behaviour change process should be gradual and methodical lest it draws out bad feelings among the educators (Schein, 1995). In this regard, evaluation drives should be conducted very often so as to determine the acceptance levels among the educators as well as the extent which the new reforms are being implemented. In connection to this position, Lewin advances three distinct sub-steps whose hallmark is creating a clear distinction between the existing and the envisaged behaviour so as to achieve a consensus among the educators. A rule of thumb here is that, change agents should make efforts to enhance teamwork among the educators. In extension, so as to enhance smooth and quick acceptance of the envisaged behaviour changes, the change agent should cleverly create visible links showing true success stories or even prominent personalities behind the envisaged change (Robbins, 2003). In the case of institutions of higher learning, Governing Councils should closely liaise with other local and international institutions so as to judicially determine what policy reforms can better work for them and in what circumstances. Similar postulations are shared by Schein (1985) when he asserts that learning institutions should formulate malleable structures that allow emerging issues as well as new ideas to be effectively entrenched. For example, universities should consider embracing emergent IT innovations capable of facilitating videoconferencing services so as to increase the accessibility to academic programmes even to remotely located students. 

The third step in Lewin’s three-step change framework involves the complete entrenchment of the acquired change into the existing systems. This crucial stage is also known as refreezing (Schein, 1995). This step is meant to cement the new change into the existing systems and therefore can only be applicable in situations when the envisaged change has been realized (Robbins, 2003). As the final stage in the change process, this step is indeed crucial as it aims to prevent any potential slip-backs to the old ways after a short time of realizing the new change. In addition, this stage also acquaints the educators with the necessary tools to smoothly embrace perpetual changes that may occur after the major changes have been realized. As such therefore, this step involves the active entrenchment of new values, practices, and policies that are responsible for sustaining the new change(s) at the long term. To achieve this, the change agent needs to maintain a state of equilibrium between the driving and restrictive forces through the creation of new institutions, positions, as well as the engagement of additional personnel to man the newly created institutions and positions (Robbins, 2003). Schein (1985) strengthens these sentiments by opining that learning institutions should come up with policies, processes, events, and tasks that allow the optimization of the set goals and objectives while still allowing the participants to freely interact and form strong interpersonal bonds. 

3.0. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction

This chapter describes the processes that were involved in the sampling, collection and analysis of data in this research study. As briefly explained in the introduction chapter, this study utilizes an explorative quantitative methodology in extracting crucial information from the sampled participants (non-teaching and teaching senior staff) from the University. The main source of data will be structured questionnaire which were administered on the students and staff members. In addition, so as to draw out sound generalizations and well supported inferences from the study findings, significant amount of information was also sourced from existing relevant literary materials that included journal articles, textbooks and authentic websites. 

In essence, this chapter forms perhaps the most important part of the study given that it provides a strong basis on which results, discussions, inferences, and findings will be drawn from to shed more light on the study topic. Precisely, in achieving this, the chapter advances a new, well grounded and explorative set of ideas that not only helps to shed light into the development, implementation and impacts of policy at the UEA but also affords the audience a better opportunity to interpret the existing scant knowledge base on the development, implementation and impacts of policy on UAE institutions of higher learning.

Ideally, this was made possible by a careful and thoughtful presentation of the various procedures and processes utilized in gathering of the study’s data. To this end, the researcher relied on his hands-on experience acquired during the time he has spent working as a senior administrative officer at the university as well as the rich professional knowledge acquired in his academic pursuits.

Based on Crewel (2003) opinions that the methodology chapter in a study should be organized in a coherent and clear manner so as to accord the audience an opportunity to envision the sampling techniques employed, the number of participants, the data collection and analysis tools employed as well as the study limitations.

3.2 Conceptual Framework (Post-modernism)

The policy-making process is often a complex endeavour. Though there is no conventionally approved model that policymakers can adhere to, it is only wise to assert that the process entails many processes which tend to be successive and yet cyclical in nature (Walt, 1994). For instance, while employing learning institutional contingency theory, Bouchard and Carroll (2003) assert that there is a significant variance between policy areas yet the policies and programs employed thereof may exhibit significant similarities across the global divide. This similarity, they opine is not coincidental but it is brought about by the inherent convergence and transfer of ideologies that underlie majority policy areas. For example, policies and in extension, programs rolled out in the immigration and housing sectors might cut across several jurisdictions particularly those harbouring almost similar socio-political and economic ideologies. Even so, the authors caution that there is no correct approach to carrying out policy reforms but agree that “certain inherent policy characteristics affect the use of policy discretion, the structural attributes of policies and programs, and the number of unintended consequences” (p.2). These characteristics include, “complexity, learning institutional differentiation, comprehension, decision points, the degree of internal and external coupling within the policy area, homogeneity, resonance, technology and visibility” of the policy reforms (p.3). 

In essence, based on the policy areas in question as well as the conceptual frameworks adopted, several policy-making models have since been advanced. For instance, while studying policymaking in the public health sector, Walt (1994) identifies a four-step model while Ruwaard et al (1999), also identifies a four-step procedure with policy evaluation as the first step. On their part, Bouchard and Carroll (2003) propose a five-tiered model that has got the following major variables: policy characteristics, discretion, structural attributes, unintended consequences, and outcomes. Perhaps the main assumption that can be drawn from this scenario is that, there is almost always already a relevant policy-making model for any existing policy area. Even so, it is only wise to argue that no matter the variance in models adopted for policy-making, the most crucial element is the underlying conceptual framework grounding a research study. In essence, while the choice of this study’s research design was influenced by the policy characteristics advanced by Bouchard and Carroll (2003), as will be explained later in this chapter, it has been grounded on a postmodernism framework. Basically, a postmodernism framework seeks to deconstruct the concept of “subject” and the “field” by enhancing equality through fault-finding on culturally sponsored meta-narratives (Silverman, 2005).

Ideally, among institutions of higher learning, policy-making process is characterized by great variance brought about by different versions of meta-narratives that may take the form of socio-economic, cultural and political ideologies employed by a particular nation and/or region (Bloom et al, 2006; Osborne, 2003a). In the UAEian institutions of higher learning and in extension, the University of Education, , for instance, the policy-making process has been normally the preserve of senior administrative staff members (Leach et al, 2008). Perhaps this scenario may be as a result of the held notion that administrative staff members are the most suitable given their professional qualifications. Consequently, academic staff members, junior staff members as well as students have been forced to play only peripheral roles or even sometimes not taking any substantial role at all. Interestingly, this has been happening despite the institution(like many other tertiary institutions in the country) having to put up with challenges relating to decline in government funding, lack of infrastructural development, increase in student intake, competition from other educational providers, quality assurance issues, and full cost recovery (Leach et al, 2008). 

3.2. Research Design 

According to Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (2006) research methods can be broadly classified into research families, research approaches and research techniques. Precisely, the authors point out that, research families can further be broken down into the following two major categories depending on the nature of the topic being studied; quantitative or quantitative and deskwork or fieldwork. On the same note, other research approaches that can be effectively utilized include; action research, case studies, experiments and surveys. Ideally, irrespective of what research design has been chosen, it is prudent to highlight that all research methods are typically utilized to bring out three core purposes, which are; exploratory, descriptive and explanatory (Yin, 2009).

Even so, based on Babbie (2004) postulations, a number of research strategies can be applied in studying policy development, implementation and its impact on the management of institutions of higher learning in UAE in general, and at the University Of Education, , in particular. In this regard, both exploratory and explanatory methodologies can be applied with much ease. Whereas exploratory methodology can only be applied in a quantitative research scenario, explanatory method can be applied with significant success in either quantitative or quantitative scenarios. As such therefore, this research study employed an explorative quantitative theoretical framework. Tellingly, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest an exploratory research necessitates the creation of a fundamental framework that helps to draw out clear insights as well as conclusions into a social issue that has not received prior research. 

Precisely, an explorative quantitative methodology was fundamental given the complex nature and scope of policy reforms at institutions of higher learning. Precisely, among institutions of higher learning the process of developing and implementing new policy reforms involve a wide chain particularly in countries where the central government has some leverage in making the final decision (Osborne, 2003a). Even in situations such as UAE where the central government only plays a peripheral role in rolling out new policies there is a lot of unnecessary procedures (bureaucracies) which lengthen the compression period (period between the time policies are rolled out and the time their intended impacts are felt) (Girdwood, 199; Leach et al, 2008). Moreover, two major policy characteristics of external coupling (the nature and scope of interaction between a certain new policy and other policies already in place) and internal coupling (the nature and scope of interaction between new policies and the educators) as advanced by Bouchard and Carroll (1994) are known to impact (positively and negatively) the process of developing and implementing new policies among UAEian tertiary institutions and therefore there is need to embrace an explorative methodology that will enhance the chances of determining the extent which these two characteristics impact the whole process (Girdwood, 1999). 

Given that Lincoln and Guba (1985) opine that an explorative quantitative framework accords researchers a wide range of opportunities to make regarding the salient processes involved in the study, this methodology was the most appropriate. Perhaps this is because the framework espouses relatively simple procedures to complex research problems that otherwise may pose significant challenges in terms of learning institution, presentation and engagement of context. As a matter of fact, this research framework allows researchers a wide range of sampling, data collection and analysis methods hence making the investigation of complex social phenomena more enjoyable and meaningful. For instance, through the use of internet, a researcher can get to easily unearth large volumes of crucial data and most importantly, interact with the sampled study participants with relative ease. No doubt this intensive interaction between the researcher and the study participants as well as the easy retrieval of data allows for deeper understanding and insights into the critical social determinants that underlies major social happenings (Shields & Tajalli, 2006). 

Essentially, the decision to opt for an exploratory quantitative methodology was based on the fact that it is very easy to identify the procedures involved in the policy-making process in the University and most importantly, the impacts of such policies to the smooth running of the University programmes than when using a quantitative research design. As a matter of fact, a quantitative methodology ensured that all key issues affecting a particular phenomenon such as the critical steps involved in the “lifecycle” of policy reforms in the University of Education,  (Babbie, 2004). Moreover, basing on Creswell (2003) postulations on questionnares  and case studies it is most probable that a quantitative research will offer the best results for the study given that the underlying research problem centres on policy development, implementation and its impact on the management of universities in UAE with specific emphasis given to the University. 

3.4 Data Collection

As hinted above the process of gathering data for this study involved one level, that is, structured questionnaires . This is in line with Babbie (2004) postulations regarding data collection in quantitative research methodologies. Additionally, the researcher undertook to review the existing relevant literary materials as well as the University records and/or website. This was important as it aided in the reinforcement and interpretation of the primary information gathered through the structured questionnaires. To allow for maximum retrieval of information, the questionnaires  were structured according to the guidelines offered by Creswell (2003) and Kvale and Britmann (2008), where both open-ended and closed-ended questions were collectively utilized. 

3.4.2 Questionnaires 

As explained in the preceding sections, this study utilized structured questionnaires  as its only data collection tool. Ideally, the structured questionnaires  were administered on all the forty participants sampled in the study. The questionnaires  were carried out through face-to-face encounters, over the phone, as well as through the internet. The prerogative to make a choice between these three options was determined by the participants’ ease of availability as well as the ease of access to reliable telephone and internet facilities. Even so, due to the involving nature of the structured questionnaires  as well as the unpredictable work schedules on the part of the participants, the questionnaires  took a relatively longer period of time to be satisfactorily completed. Precisely, as explained in the resources and timing section, the field work was carried out between May and June 2010, a relatively longer period of time given the small number of the study participants (forty). 

3.4.2. Questionnaire Item 

[See Appendices for the Questionnaire Item]

3.4.4 Ethical Assurances and Validity Issues

            In designing this research project, the researcher was mindful of the view expressed by Lather (1986) that, “just as there is no neutral education there is no neutral research” (p.67). In this regard, the researcher undertook to ensure that credible data checks are in place in all the salient procedures involved in the preparation and execution of the study plan. Precisely, the author asserts the conclusions usually drawn by the researcher are largely grounded in the moral and political beliefs of the researcher. Even the researcher’s commitment to scientific method can be described as a value issue. On his part Silverman (2005) argues that it is only through those values do certain problems get indentified and studied in particular ways. There is therefore the need on the part of the researcher to be aware of the type of information being given out. This should be relevant and allow subjects to make their own decisions on whether to participate in the research project. Perhaps the best way to achieve this feat is for the researcher to carryout an intensive review of the existing relevant literary materials and most importantly to study the target demographic well so that a highly representative and knowledgeable sample can be drawn out. 

On his part, Mason (1996), to overcome ethical dilemmas, the researcher should try to clarify his or her intentions while formulating the research problem. And in this particular case, he or she should be very sensitive and self-reflexive about how his or her own insider position will be read and/or interpreted by those whose views he or she seeks. In this regard, though this research has implications for university governance and management in general, the researcher undertook to examine which individuals or groups might be interested or affected by the research. In doing this, the researcher also factored the possible implications (positive negative) for these individuals and/or groups. Ideally, this was only possible through the collaboration with the relevant university authorities by explaining what the study entailed and what nature of information the researcher would require from the target university staff.

Most importantly, the researcher employed a “voluntary-based” approach in selecting the study participants. After going the university staff inventory and successfully highlighting individuals eligible for the study (see the sampling criteria section above), the researcher sent consent letters to them. Then using random sampling technique, a set of forty participants was selected from those potential participants who returned a “willing” response following the consent request letters sent to them. 

Moreover, to enhance participation, the researcher briefed the potential participants about the nature of information they were required to provide and at the same time assured them (potential participants) that only the information they were willing to divulge would be used in the study. In addition, the potential participants were assured that their identity would be kept unknown if they felt it necessary to keep it anonymous.

4.0 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter presents the analyzed set of quantitative data that was collected from senior non-teaching and senior teaching staff at the University of Education questionnaires . Ideally, the results cover the study’s main aim of investigating policy development, implementation and its impact on the management of universities in UAE in general. In order to enhance precision of ideas, the chapter is divided into a number of sections as determined by the study objectives/questions as well as nature of the data collected. Essentially, these sections are arranged in a successive manner to enhance easy and objective interpretation (Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005). In a nutshell, and as Creswell (2009) opine, the chapter provides a set of carefully analyzed data presented in the most clear and precise manner. 

Precisely, going by Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) opinions the results are presented within the following three sub-headings: policy development; policy implementation, and; policy impacts. Even so, it is imperative to note that the presentation of the results is not based on order of the questionnaire item questions; rather, it is based on the responses drawn from such questions. For example, some questions which drew out responses that span the three key subheadings (policy development; policy implementation, and; policy impacts) have been repeated in more than one subheading. 

In addition, the analyzed data is presented in three methods: short notes (codes); frequency tables, and; Likert scale. Needless to say, this enriches the results as it accords the audience the opportunities to not only compare the results presented in the three formats but also to enhance a better understanding of the results. In extension, this format of results presented is not only easy for understanding, but it also aids in validating the results. This is because responses (results) to various questions are presented alongside the reasons for such responses.

This is critical as it accords the audience an opportunity to judicially make preliminary inferences regarding the process of initiating, developing and implementing policy reforms at the University of Education. For example, from the “bare” findings the audience can easily draw quick inferences as to whether all the UEA educators, teaching staff, administrative staff, students, community, government, and donors are actively involved in core decision making activities such as deciding on the scope and depth of the academic programmes offered by the various campuses and colleges affiliated to the university.

4.2 Policy Development 

4.2.1 The participants gave out the following answers to the question on why policy reforms inputs from the university community are necessary. 

• To ensure Community participation 
• To ensure ownership
• To have a representative document
• To enhance the quality of the document
• For smooth implementation
• To ensure social/community accountability

4.2.2 Comparatively, as the table below shows, 20.0 percent of the study participants did not give any response regarding whether there was indeed a reflection of the University’s preference for the immediate community while as high as 62.5 percent of the participants agreed that there was indeed a true reflection of the university’s preference for the immediate community. 

Table 1: 

4.2.3 In regard to the question whether external exigencies such as policy reforms have any impact on policy development at the University, the participants gave what can be termed as highly disproportionate results. Precisely, as the table 2 below shows, 22.5 percent of the participants did not respond to this question, 65.0 percent answered in affirmation of the question, while 12.5 percent gave a negative answer. 

Table 2: 

4.2.4 On the same note, the respondents gave out the following reasons in regard to the question whether external exigencies or reforms lead to internal policy development. 

• The university is part of the larger University society.
• The university takes policy directives from bodies like the Ministry of Education, NCTE, etc.
• To remain competitive and be in step with changes in Government policy and international benchmarks.

4.2.4 On the other hand, the participants gave out the following responses when asked to give out the reasons for involving the University Academic Board in formulating and reviewing policies at the university. 

For:           

• The Academic Board is the highest decision-making body
• To assure more responsibility and prepare members for implementation of the policies. 
• It is fairly representative of faculty.
• A requirement stipulated in the Acts/statutes of the University.

Against:

• The academic board takes decisions on other issues which are non-academic unfortunately the academic board comprises of only academicians, but take decisions on all policy issues.

4.2.5 In regard to the active inclusion of the University educators in the policy reforms process the following results were observed. 45 percent of the participants indicated a “yes” answer while the remaining percent (55 percent) indicated they were not inducted upon their first appointment to the university. 

Table 3:

4.2.6 As for the question touching on why the University Governing Council formulate or review policies, the participants gave the following answers. 

For:

• It is the highest governing body.
• After Academic Board has approved a policy, the Governing Council needs to rectify the policy to make it operational.
• Conventional corporate governance practices require such.
• The Act establishing the university gives them the power to do so.
• The Council as the referee may have to ratify some decisions made by the Academic Board. 
• To meet changing treads in Higher Education Management.
• It is representative of all educators of the University

Against:

• The University Governing Council does not formulate policies but when the policies are approved by Academic Board, the Governing Council takes a look and approves accordingly.
• The Governing Council should not be seen as directly managing the institution.
• Academic Board should be more involved than the Governing Council.
• They are to give them blessing, but not to be seen as deciding for the University.
• The Governing Council mainly concerns itself with policies of national interest.

4.2.7 In regard to the source of new policy reforms as well as the overall process of initiating and developing policy reforms at the University, the participants gave the following responses to the following question. 

Table 4:

4.2.8 In respect to the regulations (statutes) governing the process of initiating and developing policy reforms at the University, the participants gave the following responses to the following question. 

Table 5:

4.2.9 In respect to the scope and nature of policy reforms initiated and developed at the University, the participants gave the following responses to the following question. 

Table 6:

4.2.10 To authenticate the answers given to the immediately preceding question, the respondents gave out the following examples of policy reforms that are exposed to the University Educators.

• Conditions of Services
• The Statutes
• Financial and stores regulations
• Policy on Appointments and Promotions
• Policy on Gender
• HIV/AIDS Policy 
• Policy on admission
• Examinations
• UEW Affiliation Policy
• Financial and stores regulation
• Sexual harassment Policy
• Research Policy
• Housing
• Vehicle Transport Policy

4.2.11 In regard to the need to incorporate the University educators during the process of initiating and developing policy reforms at the University, the participants gave the following responses to the following question. 

Table 7:

4.2.12 On the other hand, and in respect to the manner in which the University educators are exposed to new policy reforms as well as the magnitude (documented and/or undocumented) of the policy reforms at the University, the participants gave the following responses to the following question. 

Table 8:

4.3 Policy Implementation

4.3.2 The respondents gave the following examples of policy reforms that most University employee departments were involved in their development and implementation.

• The Conditions of Service
• HIV Policy essentially in editing
• Transport Management Policy
• Admission Policy
• Gender Policy
• Research Policy
• Appointment and Promotion of Senior Members

4.3.3 On the other hand, and in regard to support for implementation of policies, the participants gave out the following responses. 

Yes:

• They are consulted in the formulation of the policy/policies.
• Head of Departments consults the Scheme of Service when staff in their sections applies for promotion.
• The implementation Committee consists of members from all categories of staff
• It is a duty for these officers and they are accountable to their Head of Departments and Deans.
• Once a policy is developed the department responsible for the implementation makes sure all are supportive – through education
• Since policies are enshrined in the statutes, it is like everyone has to comply and submit to its tenets.

No:

• Policies are not known
• There is the need for an empirical evidence to indicate whether or not supportive.

4.3.4 In regard to the dissemination of policies across the various University employees (educators), the following responses were observed. 

• Copies of the statutes are sent to departments for their study and comments which are considered for inclusion whilst the Academic Board of the university finally decide on its acceptance.
• At the launching of the programme
• Workshops, memos, letters and committee
• Discussions at meetings especially meeting of senior members e.g. convocation meeting, Registrar’s meeting, UTAG, GAUA.

4.3.5 The following points were considered as the most pertinent when it comes to policy implementation process.

• The regulations are binding on all in the institution regardless of sex, position and religion.
• Fairness in its application
• Participation of management
• Efficiency of the departments and faculties.
• Timeliness and monitoring.     
• Smooth running of the university

4.3.5 The following tables present the tabulated results of various questions touching on policy implementation, specifically in the areas of: support from various educators, dissemination of policies, time allotment, as well as planning and evaluation in regard to human resources, academic, and communication policy reforms. 

4.3.5.1 Human resource systems and policy implementation Table 9: 

4.3.5.2 Role of various constituencies in the implementation process Table 10:

4.3.5.3 Dissemination of policies before implementation Table 11: 

4.3.5.4 Implementation of human resource policies Table12:

4.3.5.5 Implementation of academic policies Table 13:

4.3.5.6 Implementation of communication policies Table 14:

4.3.5.7 Monitoring and evaluation of policies Table 15:

4.4 Impact of Policies

4.4.1 The participants gave out the following answers to the question about the translation of policy aspirations into clear policy guidelines. As the results indicate, some participants supported the idea while others objected to it. 

For:

• It has helped with streamlining and responding to daily issues that crop up.
• These policies guide the day to day operations of members
• Academic Board decisions derive from policy guidelines.

Against:

• Most times members of staff are not adequately informed which leads to apathy.
• It appears only senior members are involved and understand policy issues. Middle level 
•  staff and junior staff are not involved.
• Not much time is allotted for implementation.

4.4.2 In regard to the overall effectiveness of the University Boards and/or Committees responsible for formulating policies, the following answers were recorded. 

For:

• The composition of the Board/Committee is very selective and the management ensures they have the best brains for such assignments.
• Policies that are not approved by the Academic Board cannot be implemented.
• Important decisions are made at that level which helps in governing the University.
• Relevant constituencies are promptly notified of changes in policies

Against:

• There are occasional lapses
• Does not involve grassroots inputs

4.4.3 Overall, the participants gave out the following answers regarding the impact of policies on the University’s performance. 

For:

• It helps with the smooth running of the university.  It can easily be cited in correspondence to buttress a point or an issue.
• Members of staff are aware of their terms of appointment; students know what issues affect them.
• Procedures are followed and feedback provided to enhance smooth administrative practices in the university.
• Most decisions taken in the university are guided by these policies.

Against:

• There are some breaks in communication since many do not try to check their mails and read the float files.
• Implementation is not monitored.

4.4.4 The following general comments were recorded in regard to the University’s policies.

• The university usually adopts the top-down mode in the development of policies. The bottom-up approach can help in some cases since members know what is best for them.
• There is the need to have a follow-up mechanism.
• Efforts should be made for constant evaluation of the implementation of the policy at the grassroots level.
• In order for a policy to impact on any learning institution, it ought to be monitored and evaluated – regularly. 

4.4.5 In regard to the overall impact of policy reforms at the university mission and vision, the participants gave out the following responses touching on the following indicator: consistency. 

Table 16:

4.4.6 In regard to the overall impact of policy reforms at the university mission and vision, the participants gave out the following responses touching on the following indicator: uniformity. 

Table 17:

4.4.7 In regard to the overall impact of policy reforms at the university mission and vision, the participants gave out the following responses touching on the following indicator: fairness. 

Table 18:

4.4.8 The table below shows the answers from various questions touching on the impacts of various policies on the smooth operation of the university. As the descriptions below the table shows, the results were analyzed using a Likert scale, with scores rated from 1-3. 

Table 19:

                                    University’s Policies and their Impacts

Explanatory note                                                         

1. Likert scale: 1 – 3
2. A mean value of 1 means highly in favour of the issue at hand 
3. A mean value of 3 means not in favour of the issue at hand

4.5 Conclusion 

This chapter has presented a set of comprehensive results as collected through the structured online questionnaires administered on the forty participants sampled from the University’s senior non-teaching and senior teaching staff members. Essentially, the results reflect the three key aspects of policy reforms, that is, development, implementation, and impacts.  Results in each of these three aspects of policy reforms have been presented by way of short (point-form) notes, frequency tables as well as a Likert scale. As Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) assert, this arrangement allows for easy interpretation and in extension quick understanding of the study results as the three methods (short notes, frequency tables and Likert scale) supplement each other in presenting the results in a concise manner. Basically, the chapter captures the exact picture on the prevailing policy reforms environment among UAEian institutions of higher learning in general, and at the UEW, in particular.

7.0 REFERENCES 

Ader, H. J., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Hand, D. J. (2008). Advising on research methods: A consultant’s companion. Huizen, The Netherlands: Johannes van Kessel Publishing.

Agyepong, I.A. & Adjei, S. (2008). Public social policy development and implementation: a case study of the UAE National Health Insurance scheme. Health Policy and Planning, 23:150–160. 

Anderson, W.T. (1995). The Truth about the Truth (New Consciousness Reader). New York: Tarcher.

Annan, K. (August 3, 2000). Information Technology Should Be Used to Tap Knowledge from 
Greatest Universities to Bring Learning to All, Kofi Annan Says. Press Release No: UNIS/SG/2625 Release Date:   3 August 2000. 

Anthony, J. H. (2009). Access to Education for Students with Autism in UAE: Implications for EFA. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010, 2010/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/10.

Aryee J.R.A. (2000). Saints, wizards, demons and systems: explaining the success or failure of public policies and programs. Inaugural lecture at the Amegashie Auditorium School of Administration, University of UAE, 4 May 2000. Accra, UAE: UAE Universities Press.

Association of African Universities (AAU) (2005). Report of the Executive Board to the 11th AAU General Conference. 61st (special) Meeting of the Executive Board Cape Town, South Africa, February 17 & 18, 2005. 

Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research (10th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Badu, E. E. & Loughridge, B.L. (1997). Towards an information provision strategy for university libraries in UAE. Information Research, 3(2). 

Ball, S. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: explorations in policy sociology. Routlegde. 

Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., & Higgins, C. (2001). Learning institutional research: Determining appropriate sample size for survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1) 43–50.

Barton L. & Tomlinson S. (1984). Special Education and Social Interests. U.K: Croom Helm LMD.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2006). How to Research. Open University Press. 

Bloom, D., Canning, D., & Chan, K. (2006). Higher Education and Economic Development in Africa. Harvard University, Human Development Sector, Africa Region. 

Bouchard, G. & Carroll, B.W. (2003). One size does not fit all: A contingency theory approach to policy-making. A paper presented at the CPSA meeting (Public administration section) Halifax, Nova Scotia May 29 – June 1, 2003. 

Bourner, T. (1996). The research process: four steps to success. In Greenfield, T. (ed.), Research methods: guidance for postgraduates. Arnold, London.

Brinkenhoff, D.W. (1999). Exploring State Civil University society Collaboration: Policy Partnerships in Developing Countries.  Non-Project and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4); 59-87.

Brinkerhoff D.W. (2004). Accountability and health systems: towards conceptual clarity and policy relevance. Health Policy and Planning 19: 371–9.

Brinkerhoff, D.W. & Crosby, B. (2002). Managing policy reform: concepts and tools for decision-makers in developing and transitioning countries. Kumarian Press. 

Bruce, C. S. (1994). Research student’s early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2); 217-229. 

Cibuka, J.G. (1994).  Policy analysis and the study of the politics of education.  Politics of Education Association yearbook, 105-125.

Cobbe, S. (1990). Education Indicators for Policy Purposes in Indonesia. Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture.

Cooper, H. M. (1988). The structure of knowledge synthesis. Knowledge in University society, 1; 104-126.

Creswell, J. (2009). Quantitative inquiry and research design. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Quantitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA” Sage. 

Cummings, W.K. (1997). Management Initiatives for Reaching the Periphery. In H. Dean Nielsen and William K. Cummings, (eds.) Quality Education for All: Community-Oriented Approaches. New York: Garland.

Deakin University Governance Unit, (2008). Retrieved January 12, 2011, from: www.deakin.edu.au/executive/vpais/governance/ 

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2005). The sage handbook of quantitative research (3rd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Fisher, C.M. (2007). Researching and writing a dissertation: A guidebook for business students. Financial Times Prentice Hall. 

 Fox, N. F. (2003). The new sartre: Explorations in postmodernism. New York, London; Continuum.

UAE (2002). Meeting the challenges of education in the twenty first century – Report of the president’s committee on review of education reforms in UAE. Accra: Education, Adwinsa Publications (Gh) Ltd.

Gibbons, M. (1998): Higher education relevance in the 21st century. Association of Commonwealth Universities. 

Glassman, A., Reich. M.R., Laserson, K., & Rojas, F. (1999). Political analysis of health reform in the Dominican Republic. Health Policy and Planning, 14:115-26.

Glatthorn, A. & Joyner, R. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step Guide, (2nd Ed.). Corwin Press.

Grindle, M.S. & Thomas, J.W. (1991). Public choices and policy change: the political economy of reform in developing countries. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1994).  Changing teachers, changing times. London; Cassell.

Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. 

Hesse, M. (1980). Revolution and reconstruction in the philosophy of science. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Hill, M.J. & Hupe, P.L. (2002), Implementing Public Policy; governance in theory and practice.  SAGE Publications London.

Huisman, J., Meek, L. & Wood, F. (2007). Institutional Diversity in Higher Education.  A cross-national and longitudinal analysis.  Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4); 563-577. 

Huyssen, A. (1986). After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernsim or, the cultural logic of late capitalism, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991.

Johnstone, D.B, Aora, A., & Experton, W. (1998). The Financing and Management of Higher Education: A Status Report on Worldwide Reforms. The World Bank. Retrieved December 17, 2010, from: http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/educ/postbasc.htm/

Kearns, K. (2007). The business of childcare. Pearson Education, Australia. 

Kogan, M. (1975).  Education policy making; A study of interest groups and parliament.  London: Allen and Unwin. 

Kvale, S. & Britmann, S. (2008). Questionnaireing: Learning the craft of quantitative questionnaireing. London: Sage.

Kwapong, O.A.T.F. (2007). Widening access to tertiary education for women in UAE. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 8 (4); 1302-6488.

Lather, O. (1991).  Getting smart; feminist research and pedagogy in the postmodern.  New York and London; Routledge.

Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(4); 63-84.

Leach, F. et al (2008). Widening Participation in Higher Education in UAE and Tanzania: Developing an Equity Scorecard. An ESRC/DfID Poverty Reduction Programme funded Research Project, Working Paper 4: A Profile of Participation in Higher Education in UAE and Tanzania. 

Leu, E. & Price-Rom, A. (2006). Quality of education and teacher learning: A review of the literature. U.S. Agency for International Development Cooperative Agreement No. GDG-A-00-03-00006-00. 

Liasidou, A. (2009). Critical Policy Research and Special Education Policymaking: A Policy Trajectory Approach. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(1); 107-130. 

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Lyotard, J. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by Geoff Bennington, and Brian Massumi. Vol. 10 of Theory and History of Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Malen, B. (1991). The micropolitics of education; mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in school politics.  Politics of Education Association Yearbook, 147-167.

Mason, J. (1996).  Quantitative Researching. London: Sage.

Maxfield, M.G. & Babbie, E. (1995). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

Meek, V.L. Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O., and Rinne, R. (Eds). (1996).  The Mockers and Drocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Melton, A. (2009). Leadership matters: A mixed-methods study of South Carolina superintendents’ change style preferences, longevity and student achievement. Dissertation, University of South Carolina. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from: http://www.proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1745453501&Fmt=7&clientI d=79356&RQT=309&VName=PQD/   

Merriam, S. (2009). Quantitative research: a guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons, Boston. 

Mine, G. (2007).  Making Policy: A Guide to the Federal Government’s Policy Process. Ginsler and Associates.  U.S.A.

Muller, A. (ed.) (2007). Trends in curriculum reform and the transformation of higher education Management Insights, vol. 2. Paper presented by UJ Faculty of Management staff as part of the Management Insights staff paper series. 

Muskin, J.A. (1999). Including Local Priorities to Assess School Quality: The Case of Save the Children Community Schools in Mali. Comparative Education Review 43 (1): 36-63.

 Naoum, S. (2007). Dissertation research and writing for construction students. Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Newman, F. (2000). Saving higher education’s soul. In: Change, 33(5), 16-23.

O’ Toole, L.J. (2002).  Research on Policy Implementation:  Assessment and Prospects.  Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2): 263-288.

Orr, M. T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: Socialization, negotiation, and determination. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1362-1403.

Osborne, M. (2003a). Increasing or Widening Participation in Higher Education? — A European overview.  European Journal of Education, 38(1); 5-24. 

Osborne, M. (2003b). Policy and practice in widening participation — a six country comparative study of access as flexibility. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22, pp. 43–58.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Quantitative evaluation and research methods. Newberry Park, CA, Sage Publications.

Pressman, J. & Wildavsky, A. (1984).  Implementation.  Berkelay: University of   California Press.

Prouty, D. & Tegegn, W. (2000). This School Is Ours. We Own It: A Report on the Stocktaking Exercise of the BESO Community Schools Activity Program. Addis Ababa: World Learning Inc.

Robbins, S. (2003). Learning institutional Behavior (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ruwaard, D., Kramers P.G.N., Jeths A, & Achterberg, P.W. (1994). Public Health Status and forecasts.  National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Netherlands.

Sabatier, P.A. (1991).  Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process.  Political Science and Politics, 24(2); 147-156.

Salamini, L. (1981). The sociology of political praxis: An introduction to Gramsci’s theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Salmi, K. (1992). Higher education and economic development: Strategies for reform–A policy brief. Paper presented at the Senior Policy Seminar on Enhancing effectiveness and efficiency in African Higher Education. The World Bank, EDI, March 1992, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Sawyerr, A. (2004). Challenges Facing African Universities: Selected Issues. African Studies Review, 47(1); 1-59.   

Schein, E.H. (1985). Learning institutional culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Schein, E.H. (1995). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Working Paper 3821. 

Scheurich, J.J. (1997). Research method in the postmodern. The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis, Inc. 

Shields, P. & Tajalli, H. (2006). Intermediate Theory: The Missing Link in Successful Student Scholarship. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(3); 313-334.

Sikwibele, A. (2003). Assessment of Education Policy: Issues and challenges. Retrieved December 30, 2010, from: www.dpms.org/publications.Bullentive /jan-o3/editorial.html/ 

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Quantitative Research (2nd ed.) Sage Publication, London.

Smith, K.B. (2002). Typologies and the Benefits of Policy Classification. Policy Journal, 30; 379-395.

Somekh, B. (2006). Action Research: A Methodology for Change and Development, Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Spasoff, R.A. (1999).  Epidemiologic methods for health Policy. Oxford University Press.

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out: Feminist consciousness and feminist research. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

The World Bank (1994). Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. 

Trucano, M. (2006). Education management information system: A short case study of UAE. Cambridge Education, Working Paper, No. 4.

UNESCO, (2004). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: Education for All – The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO.

UNICEF, (2000). Defining Quality in Education. Working Paper Series. New York: UNICEF.

University of Education, (UEW), (2011). Retrieved January 12, 2011, from: www.uew.edu.gh/ 

USAID/EQUIP2, (2006). Educator Collaboration: An Imperative for Education Quality. Washington, DC: EQUIP2 Program.

Vidouich, L. (2001). A conceptual Framework for Analysis of Education Policy and Practices. Retrieved December 30, 2010, from: www.aare.edu.aul01.pap/vid012 1276.hn/ 

Walt, G. & Gilson, L. (1994). Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 9:353-70.

Walt, G. (1994).  Health Policy: An introduction to Process and Power.  London and New Jersey: Zed Books.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

8.0 APPENDIX 

8.1 Questionnaire Item 

• Questionnaire/Questionnaire Schedule on policy development, implementation and impact on the management of universities in UAE.
• We should be grateful if you could spend a few minutes answering the questions below. Your responses will be treated as confidential.

1. Bio-data

Please tick (√) responses as appropriate

1. Sex      

• Male    
• Female     

1. Your status

• Senior Member (Teaching)                 
• Senior Member (Non-Teaching)
• Senior Staff
• Junior Staff

1. Name of Faculty/Department/Section/Centre/Unit

…………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………..

1. Years of service in the University

• Less than two years
• 2 – 5 years
• 6 – 10 years
• More than 10 years

1. Policy Development
2. Were you inducted on your first appointment to the University?
3. Yes                                              b.             No
4. Which policies were you exposed to?

……………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………..

1. Was there any indication as to how or where the policies emanated from?
2. Yes                                             b. No
3. Please give explanation to your response to q.7

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

1. Do the policies you were exposed to ensure
2. Consistency                       Yes                              No
3. Uniformity                        Yes                              No
4. Fairness                 Yes                              No
5. Does the University have statutes?
6. Yes                              b. No
7. Does it incorporate academic/human resource policies?
8. Yes                                          b. No
9. Were there inputs from various categories of staff/unions to the statutes?

            a.   Yes                                        b. No

1.   Please give reason(s) why inputs from university community were necessary.

            …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

          ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

          …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    14. Were these inputs indications of the true reflections of the official preference for the university community?

          a. Yes                                        b. No

   15. To what extent should the Academic Board be involved in formulating and reviewing policies?       A. Very large extent                    b. Large extent                        c. Not to a large extent

   16. Give reasons to your answer above

        ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

17.   To what extent should the University Governing Council formulate or review policies?         

        A. Very large extent                   b. Large extent                        c. Not to a large extent

18.   Give reasons to your answer above

        ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

19. Overall would you say that external exigencies or reforms lead to internal policy development in the University?

a. Yes                          b. No

20. Please give reasons to your answer above.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

   ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

   …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1. Policy Implementation

21. Please list the various policies you were exposed to

      a.

      b.

      c.

      d.

      e. others list ……

22. Are they documented?

     a. Yes                     b. No

23. Where are they kept?

     ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

   …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

  ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

24. Which of these policies were your constituents involved in its development and implementation?

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

   ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

  ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

25. Which department/committee/staff is responsible in the implementation of the policies you listed   in Q.21?

  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

26. Do the policies embody sufficient human resource systems to support their implementation?

  a. Yes                                                b. No

27. Please state reasons to your response above

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

28. Are the various constituencies supportive of the implementation of the policies?

  a. Yes                                                b. No

29. Give reasons to your answer above

     ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

     ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

     …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

     …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

30. Were policies disseminated extensively before implementation?

  a. Yes                                                b. No

31. Which avenue/medium was used to disseminate the policies?

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

32. State any one underlying principle of the implementation process.

  ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

33. Please circle the percentage share of time you allot to implementing the following:

a. Human resource policies: less than 20%; more than 30%; more than 50%

b. Academic policies: less than 20%; more than 30%; more than 50%

c. Communication policies: less than 20%; more than 30%; more than 50%

1. Impact
2. Bio-data

34. How far does an institutional policy aspiration translate into clear policy guidelines which are meaningful at the constituency level?

a. To a very far extent             b. Very far extent        c. Not to a very far extent

35. Give reasons to your answer above

     ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

     …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

      …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

36. How will you rate the effectiveness of the Boards/Committees which formulate the policies?

  a. Highly effective                            b. Effective                 c. Not effective 

37. Give reasons to your answer above

     ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

     ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

     …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

     …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

38. How have these policies impacted on the learning institutional structure and performance of the University? Please tick (√)

Policies                                    Very Large Extent       Large Extent              Not Very Large Extent

Human Resource                                                                                                         

Academic                                                                                                                    

Communication                                   

39. Give reasons to your answer above

     ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

     ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

     …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

     …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

40. Do the policies contain planned monitoring and evaluation systems to enhance organisational commitment?

a. Yes                          b. No

Any other comments?

  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Thank you for spending time to complete this questionnaire questionnaire.

 – THE END –

8.2 Seven-Question Summative Questionnaire Item 

• Questionnaire/Questionnaire Schedule on policy development, implementation and impact on the management of universities in UAE.
• We should be grateful if you could spend a few minutes answering the questions below. Your responses will be treated as confidential.

Please tick (√) responses as appropriate

1. Sex                 

• Male                                        
• Female     

1. Your status

• Senior Member (Teaching)                 
• Senior Member (Non-Teaching)
• Senior Staff
• Junior Staff

1. Name of Faculty/Department/Section/Centre/Unit

…………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………..

1. Years of service in the University

• Less than two years
• 2 – 5 years
• 6 – 10 years
• More than 10 years

Please tick (√) responses as appropriate 

1. To what extent should the Academic Board be involved in formulating and reviewing policies? 

1. Not in favour     2. In favour     3. Highly in favour 

1. To what extent should the University Governing Council formulate or review policies? 

1. Not in favour     2. In favour     3. Highly in favour 

1. How far does an institutional policy aspiration translate into clear policy guidelines which are meaningful at the constituency level?

 1. Not in favour     2. In favour     3. Highly in favour 

1. How will you rate the effectiveness of the Boards/Committees which formulate the policies?

 1. Not in favour     2. In favour     3. Highly in favour 

1. How have these policies impacted on Human Resource? 

1. Not in favour     2. In favour     3. Highly in favour 

1. How have these policies impacted on Academic?

 1. Not in favour     2. In favour     3. Highly in favour 

1. How have these policies impacted on Communication? 

1. Not in favour     2. In favour     3. Highly in favour 

Thank you for spending time to complete this questionnaire questionnaire.

– THE END –

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount.