Mi tesis de Ph.D. en Educacion Superior, titulada: "CARACTERISTICAS DE LO DE LAS CARRERAS UNIVERSITARIAS DE CALIDAD...:

1. 1
ATTRIBUTES OF QUALITY PROGRAMS
IN UNIVERSITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:
CASE STUDIES OF TWO PRIVATE
UNIVERSITIES IN ECUADOR AND BEYOND
By
Mónica I. Urigüen,
Doctor of Philosophy
(Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis)
at the
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
2005
1

2. 2
ABSTRACT
This study sought to identify the key attributes of high-quality programs with an eye
toward helping developing countries such as Ecuador advance program quality.
The dissertation is divided into five chapters: 1) studying high-quality programs; 2)
literature review of attributes of high-quality programs; 3) method, to identify program
attributes that influence student learning outcomes, I used grounded theory; 4) findings
(the data for this qualitative study came from 60 interviewees); and 5) conclusions and
recommendations.
Attributes of High-Quality Programs
Cluster One Highly Cluster Two Cluster Three Cluster Four Cluster Five
Qualified Learning-Centered Interactive Teaching Connected Program Adequate Resources
Participants Cultures and Learning Requirements
1. Highly 3. Shared Program 7. Integrative 9. Planned Breadth 11. Support for
Qualified Direction learning: Theory and Depth Students
Faculty Focused on with Practice, Course Work 12. Support for
2. Highly Learning Self with 10. Tangible Faculty
Qualified 4. Real-World Subject Products 13. Support for
Students Learning 8. Exclusive Campus
Experiences Tutoring and Infrastructure
5. Reading- Mentoring
Centered
Culture
6. Supportive and
Risk-Taking
Environment
While I used grounded theory, my study was guided by Haworth and Conrad‘s (1997)
―Engagement Theory of High-Quality Programs.‖ Eleven of the attributes of high-
quality programs are closely connected to Haworth and Conrad‘s theory and the other
two attributes—real-world learning experiences and a reading-centered culture—make
the signature theoretical contributions of my study. Real-world learning experiences
encourage the active involvement of stakeholders in designing curricula with real-world
2

3. 3
learning experiences that result in positive student outcomes. The second attribute—a
reading-centered culture—has never before been identified in the literature.
There are four key differences between Haworth and Conrad‘s theory and the theory
developed in this study. In my theory, I found that four key attributes are even more
important in Ecuador and, possibly, other developing countries: highly-qualified
faculty, highly-qualified students, reading-centered cultures, and real-world learning
experiences.
If Latin American universities implement my recommendations, particularly in
Ecuadorian universities, I envision a better future for our universities. That is, Latin
American universities will become accountable to society by guaranteeing their students
high-quality programs, which will assure more sustainable development within each
country.
CONTENTS
Preface…………………………………………………………………………………v
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………vi
Chapter One
Introduction.………………………………………………………………………
High-Quality Programs in Higher Education: Program Quality Matters……………
Purpose of This Study…………………………………………………………………
Past and Present University Education in Latin America…………………………….
Higher Education in Developing Countries ………………………………………….
Higher Education in Latin American Universities since the 1980s…………………..
Integration Process of Latin American Universities………………………………….
Move toward More Liberal Education………………………………………………..
Recent Efforts to Improve Quality Programs in Latin American Universities……….
Ecuadorian Universities: Reforms and Changes………………………………………
Chapter Two
Literature Review……………………………………………………………………
3

4. 4
Conceptualizations of Quality …………………………………………………
Views and the Major Attributes of High-Quality Programs………………………….
The Engagement Theory of High-Quality Programs…………………………………
Actions to Implement the Attributes of the Engagement Theory…………………….
a. Cluster One: Diverse and Engaged Participants…………………………
b. Cluster Two: Participatory Cultures……………………………………
c. Cluster Three: Interactive Teaching and Learning………………………
d. Cluster Four: Connected Program Requirements………………………
e. Cluster Five: Adequate Resources……………………………………………
A Framework for Developing and Sustaining High-Quality Programs………………
Curricula Planning and Assessment Matter in High-Quality Programs………………
Assessing Quality Programs…………………………………………………………..
Review of the Literature on Quality Programs in Developing Countries…………….
Quality Education for Al………………………………………………………………
Quality Programs in Ecuador………………………………………………………….
Forces that Influence the Ecuadorian Higher Education System………………………
a. External Forces…………………………………………………………………
b. Internal Forces………………………………………………………………….
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………
Chapter Three
Method…………………………………………………………………………………
Purpose of The Study…………………………………………………………………...
Method…………………………………………………………………………………
Grounded Theory………………………………………………………………………
Multicase Study Design………………………………………………………………..
Interview Process………………………………………………………………………
Trustworthiness………………………………………………………………………
Further Tasting of the Attributes of High-Quality Programs ………………………….
Sampling Strategy and Procedures……………………………………………………...
Theoretical Sensitivity………………………………………………………………….
Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………
Selection of Programs…………………………………………………………………..
Selection of Interviewees within Programs…………………………………………….
4

5. 5
Participants……………………………………………………………………………..
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..
Interview Process and Protocols……………………………………………………….
Interview Questions……………………………………………………………………
Field Notes Taking……………………………………………………………………..
Limitations of This Study……………………………………………………………….
Chapter Four
Findings………………………………………………………………………………..
Attributes of High-Quality Programs in Latin American Universities
and in Ecuadorian Universities (Actions and Positive Outcomes)…………………
Cluster One: Highly Qualified and Engaged Participants:……………………………
- Highly Qualified Faculty……………………………………………………………
- Highly Qualified Students…………………………………………………………
Cluster Two: Learning-Centered Cultures…………………………
- Shared Program Direction Focused on Learning………
- Real-World Learning Experiences…………………………………………
- Reading-Centered Culture…………………………………………………………
- Supportive and Risk-Taking Environments…………………
Cluster Three Interactive Teaching and Learning…
- Integrative Learning: Theory with Practice, Self with Subject………………
- Exclusive Tutoring and Mentoring…………………………………………………
Cluster Four: Connected Program Requirements……………………
- Planned Breadth and Depth Course Work…………………………………
- Tangible Products…………………………………………………………
Cluster Five: Adequate Resources…………………
- Support for Students ……………………………………………
- Support for Faculty……………………………………………………
- Support for Campus Infrastructure………………
Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………
Support for the Theory in the Literature…………………………………………….
Contributions of the Theory of High-Quality Programs…………………………….
5

6. 6
High-Quality Programs in Latin American Universities: Key Differences in Mission of
the Universities and the Attributes of Quality Programs ……………………………
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………
Appendix A:
Attributes of High Quality in Latin American and in Ecuadorian Universities……..
University-Wide Educational Leadership
Cluster One: University Wide Educational Leadership………………………………
Interdisciplinary Problem-Base Research Teams……………………………………
Solid Connections between Society and the University ..…………
Conclusion and Recommendations ..…………………………………………………
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………...vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Five Clusters and Seventeen Attributes of High-Quality Program……
Table 2: Criteria for Evaluating Academic Programs……………………………
Table 3: Ecuadorian Universities in Light of Turbulent External and Internal
Environments…………………………………………………………
Table 4: Interviewees that Participated in this Study…………………………
Table 5: Attributes of High-Quality Programs in Latin American
and in Ecuadorian Universities……………………………………………
Table 6: Attributes of High-Quality Higher Education Institutions
In Latin America and in Ecuadorian Universities ……………………
6

7. 7
PREFACE
What does quality mean in terms of higher education? What attributes are found in
high-quality programs? How can universities in developing countries, especially in
Ecuador, advance quality programs? This dissertation sought to identify the key
attributes of high-quality programs with an eye toward helping developing countries
such as Ecuador advance program quality.
The dissertation is divided into five chapters. The first chapter advances the need for
studying high-quality programs, especially in universities in developing countries such
as in Ecuador. The first chapter also provides an overview of the higher education
system in Latin America and in Ecuador. The second chapter provides a literature
review of attributes of high-quality programs. The third chapter describes the qualitative
research method that I used in my research. In order to identify program attributes that
influence student learning outcomes, I used grounded theory, an inductive approach in
which a theory is generated based on the data I collected. Like Haworth and Conrad
(1997), I used a ―positioned subject‖ approach that grounded my research in the
perspectives of diverse stakeholders (administrators, faculty, students, alumni, and
employers). Chapter four presents my findings. The data for this qualitative study came
from 60 interviewees: 48 interviewees were from Ecuador, one interviewee was from
United States, and 11 interviewees were from other Latin American countries. The
interviews were conducted at two different times in two different countries: in Ecuador
during December 2001 and January 2002, and in Costa Rica during June and July 2003.
The fifth chapter advances my conclusions and recommendations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I offer my sincere thanks to all those persons in universities and private spheres who
allowed me to wander into their lives. Their reflections on the attributes of high-quality
programs are what made this dissertation inspiring to write. Also, I must thank my dear
husband, Cesar, and my beloved children Edgar, Melany, and Karina, for their constant
emotional support and encouragement to culminate this important stage of our lives.
Being far from them and from home has not been an easy experience; however, through
7

8. 8
this process we all have grown stronger. I want to acknowledge the support of my
family because their care has been the key factor in completing my Ph.D. In addition, I
would like to express my appreciation to my relatives and friends for caring for my
family while I was away from home. I especially thank my mother and father.
I would like to express my appreciation to Professor Clifton Conrad, my dissertation
director, for his insightful teaching, constructive criticisms, and editing on my
dissertation; and to the other members of my dissertation committee: Professor Alan
Knox, Professor Allen Phelps, Professor Jerlando Jackson, and Professor Diana
Frantzen.
Finally, I am grateful to the following institutions that participated in my study: The
Ecuadorian Higher Education Council (CONESUP), Universidad San Francisco de
Quito (USFQ), Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE), and my
colleagues from PAG1 53, INCAE 2003.
CHAPTER ONE
A movement toward increasing the quality and accountability of Ecuadorian
universities has been fueled by a number of concerns such as decline in the quality of
programs, deteriorating communication within the society and between all higher
education institutions and the State, a rising number of under-prepared students, and the
lack of national and international credibility of Ecuadorian universities.
The animating intent of this study is to contribute to the understanding of high-quality
programs in developing countries, especially in Ecuador.
High-Quality Programs in Higher Education: Program Quality Matters
Why is there a need for quality in higher education? What does program quality have to
do with students‘ development and growth? The principal reason for studying high-
1
PAG: Programa de Alta Gerencia, Costa Rica, INCAE.
8

9. 9
quality programs is that higher education plays a significant role in improving
individual lives as well as society. Therefore, establishing high-quality programs is
critical. Studying quality programs in developing countries is especially important
because the pivotal goal of education is preparing students for roles in which they can
contribute to the development of their societies.
Purpose of This Study
My study was guided by the overall question: What program attributes in universities
in developing countries contribute to positive learning outcomes for students? In regards
to identifying attributes, I addressed two sub-questions:
1. What actions do stakeholders engage in to develop the attributes?
2. What effects do these actions have on improving students‘ learning
outcomes?
Past and Present University Education in Latin America
In Latin America, the first universities were established in the late sixteenth- and early
seventeenth-centuries. For a considerable period of time, universities taught post-
secondary and religious courses. According to the chronicler Diego Vasquez, the first
university of the ―New World‖ was founded in the Dominican Republic in 1583. In
1551, the Universities of Lima and Mexico were founded. In 1586, the first Ecuadorian
university was founded: Universidad de San Fulgencio in Quito. In 1622, the Jesuits
established the Universidad de San Gregorio in Quito. Finally, between 1686 and
1688,2 the Dominicos established the Universidad de Santo Tomás de Aquino in Quito,
(Urigüen, M., 1997: 4). By the end of 17th century, the ―Old World‖ had only 16
universities. When Harvard College was founded in 1636, Latin America already had 13
universities – a number that rose to 31 after Latin America‘s independence from
Spanish control in the early 19th Century.
In brief, the colonial university was created within the framework of the cultural policy
imposed by the Spanish Empire. Its mission was to tend to the needs of the crown, the
2
Malo, H. (1984: 30). Hurtado, O. (1992: 19).
9

10. 10
church, and the upper classes of society. Native people were admitted as ―exceptions‖
when they were related to members of the ruling classes.
The Universidades de Salamanca and Alcalá de Henares, the two most famous colonial
Spanish universities, were the models for universities in Latin American countries.
Later, during 1918, the Cordoba Reform Movement took place in Argentina and
established the principle of co-governance.3 Co-governance has arguably restricted the
advance in quality programs because of significant conflicts between university
administration and political leaders.
Independence of Latin America from Spain gave new direction to higher education
based on the revolutionary ideology of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic
Model. Among the key features of the Napoleonic Model and the Cordoba Reform
Movement‘s principles are: 1) the emphasis on professional training; 2) the separation
of teaching from research; 3) open admission; 4) free tuition to all students; and 5) the
centralization of administration or what is known as university bureaucratization.
During the decades after the establishment of the Cordoba Reform Movement, open
admission and free tuition to all students took place at public universities. These two
Cordoba Reform principles resulted in a massive increase in students and subsequent
low quality standards that jeopardized quality programs. To illustrate, in Latin
American universities the number of students increased from 1.6 million students in
1970 to 5.9 million in 1984. The number of students at the Universidad Central in
Quito, the largest university in Ecuador, increased from 11,000 students in 19674 to
43,000 students in 1972 as a result of the student movement that took place at
Universidad de Guayaquil. A similar situation occurred throughout the country. 5 ―In
3
Co-governance, a Cordoba principle, is the conception of a university‘s governance equally integrated
by faculty, students, and administrators.
4
On May 29, 1967 the most important student movement toward free admission took place. During that
student movement, 29 students were killed at Casona Universitaria – Universidad de Guayaquil.
5
Uriguen, M. (1997: 16).
10

11. 11
1982 universities had 134,000 students,‖6 and ―by 1994 public universities and
polytechnic schools had more than 220,000 students.‖7
Since 1950, several new private universities have been founded in order to ensure
quality programs that were being jeopardized by open admission and free tuition. Some
of the actions that private universities took to guaranty quality programs were to
implement admission tests and faculty hiring policies aimed at attracting faculty with
outstanding academic credentials.
Simon Schwartzman (1991: 372) presents examples of past and present university
education in Latin America:
Brazil changed its legislation for higher education in 1968, ending with
the traditional chair system and opening the way for graduate
education, the strengthening of academic departments and the creation
of research institutes. Colombia followed similar lines. Chile
introduced a very ambitious project of regulating higher education
through market mechanisms and institutional differentiation in 1981. In
Argentina the military stimulated the creation of new universities in the
provinces, the expansion of non-university tertiary education and the
beginning of a private sector. University autonomy returned with
civilian rule in 1984, and the universities went through a
"normalization" period aimed at returning to the institutional
framework of 1966, which included a policy of open admissions.
Mexico began differentiating after 1968, through both provincial
institutions and a growing private sector.
Higher Education in Developing Countries
6
Grijalva, A. (1994: 126).
7
CONUEP (1994: 17).
11

12. 12
In Latin America, it is important to note that there are often significant differences from
country to country as well as from university to university despite the same colonial
heritage. Some differences can be seen in political, economic, and educational systems,
particularly in higher education systems. To illustrate, Schwartzman (1993: 9-20) says
that one of the main differences within universities is the presence European immigrants
in the history of their higher education systems: ―Places with a strong presence of
European immigrants and linkages, such as Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo, developed
very different, and usually better institutions, than those that remained more isolated,
such as Mexico or Rio de Janeiro.‖ Another important difference has to deal with the
influence of the Church and State and how they have affected higher education. For
example, Mexico, Argentina, and Ecuador among others have large university systems
dominated by a central, national university. If we compare these university systems with
those decentralized systems in Brazil, Colombia, and Chile, we could find historical
differences that may help us to understand the key differences in the universities.
Rolando Arellano (2003) adds that Latin American universities have focused most of
their efforts more on understanding and analysis of knowledge advanced in so-called
―developed counties‖ rather than creating their own theories.
In terms of faculty members in Latin American universities, the expansion of higher
education institutions has led to the hiring of a large number of professors ―who were
different both from the traditional professor (who got his earnings from private practice)
and the researcher (who could raise money from research agencies and research
contracts)… A parallel development was the creation of large administrative
bureaucracies in universities, with their own unions and political agendas‖
(Schwartzman 1993). Consequently, with the increase of public universities and the
number of professors, governments could not afford all the associated high-costs;
therefore, salary levels in public institutions deteriorated, or policies supporting full-
time faculty employment, much less reward structures that recognizes and stimulates
faculty academic achievement.
Rolando Arellano (2003) also points out that there are not many who graduate with a
doctorate degree in Latin America ―(4,229 in 1999 vs 58,747 in the USA in all
majors).‖ If we consider only few examples of Latin American higher education
offering graduate degrees, such as TEC of Monterrey, INCAE, and University of Chile,
12

13. 13
they ―have around 70 Ph.D.s each within their staff‖ (Arellano). But most professors
with graduate degrees working at those institutions have received their diplomas from
United States or European universities.
Higher Education in Latin American Universities since the 1980s
By the end of the 1980s, most military regimes disappeared in Latin America. At the
time, campuses confronted a new challenge in the form of ―economic stagnation.‖
According to UNESCO (2000), most public and private co-financed universities
received funding from the State. In several Latin American universities, particularly in
Ecuador, most faculty have not been earning enough money to devote full-time effort to
their academic pursuits, research, and teaching activities; many need other jobs to
supplement their income, and the quality of teaching has decreased. In Ecuadorian
universities, the financial crisis has resulted in the deterioration of quality. Since
professors have been receiving low salaries, universities are suffering the ―phenomenon
of high mobility, absenteeism, and abandonment of teaching.‖ 8 To solve this problem
at least partially, non-profit private corporations have been organized by universities to
improve quality standards. To illustrate this point, universities have established
contracts, received and invested money, hired staff, and paid better salaries to professors
in cooperation with non-profit private corporations.
Integration Process of Latin American Universities
According to many observers, Latin America needs to design a development strategy
aimed at a more favorable reintegration of the region in the process of forming
university alliances. In response to this need, the Union of Universities of Latin
America (UDUAL)9 has introduced strategies to assure the integration process of Latin
American universities. UDUAL promotes cultural and academic integration with
8
UNESCO 2002-2003.
9
UDUAL was founded on September 22, 1949, at the First Latin American Meeting in Guatemala.
Currently, UDUAL has more than 160 university members from 22 Latin American countries. UDUAL
has UNESCO´s approval, as a regional advisor.
13

14. 14
democratic principles in Latin American universities. To illustrate, faculty and students
have the opportunity to participate in study abroad academic programs.
Following the international recommendations related to the integration process, Latin
American countries have also established the Latin American Network Alliance for
Quality Assurance and Accreditation (RIACES), which was created in May 2003 in
Buenos Aires, Argentina. RIACES is a network alliance for inter-institutional
cooperation that facilitates studies on Latin American integration via regional or sub-
regional university cooperation in order to develop an integration culture and exchange
of experience related to quality programs.
Move toward More Liberal Education
By the mid-20th century, a number of Latin American universities chose to advance
liberal education in their academic programs because university authorities believed
there was a compelling need to pursue a more holistic education with a focus on
learning. Currently, liberal education is part of academic programs at first-tier, higher
education institutions. Therefore, only a minor sector of the populace in developing
countries receives general education. Since liberal education has significant impact on
each society, developing countries need leaders with ethics, well-educated alumni, and
trained professionals for industry, academe, and affairs of state, states the World Bank
Report (2000).
The movement toward more liberal education that universities in Latin America are
experiencing coincides with the so-called "university reforms" supported by academic
communities. Currently, these reform processes are aimed more at a redefinition of the
relations between the State, society, and individual universities. The State, society, and
individual universities join together as an academic community aimed at bringing about
a profound transformation of academic programs in developing countries. To illustrate,
in Ecuador, Article 44 of the Higher Education Law states that every academic program
has to introduce subjects from liberal education in order to guarantee higher quality
education.10
10
Ley de Educación Superior y Reglamento General, Ecuador 2002.
14

15. 15
Recent Efforts to Improve Quality in Programs in Latin American Universities
The organization of universities as a system within a regional and sub-regional
integration, the introduction of liberal education within academic programs, and the
expansion and diversification of education for all, are some of the current efforts to
improve quality in academic programs in Latin American universities. To illustrate the
integration process, the Andrés Bello Agreement facilitates credit transfer among Latin
American universities that have improved academic quality. Another illustration of this
academic integration is the new ―distance education systems‖ in Latin America. Some
of the current ―distance education systems‖ or open systems in Latin America include
Universidad Nacional Abierta (UNA) in Venezuela, Universidad Particular Técnica de
Loja in Ecuador, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) in Costa
Rica, Unidad Universitaria del Sur in Colombia, distance education system of the
Universities of Brasilia, and UNAM of Mexico. Other recent efforts to improve quality
in programs in Latin American universities are the improvement of teaching-learning
methods, university planning, student-teacher relationships, and budget formulation.
Ecuadorian Universities: Reforms and Changes
Inadequate connections between the universities and the external environment, poor
academic quality, weak management, insufficient funds, and lack of accountability
systems are among the main problems that need to be solved. For these reasons, the
Ecuadorian higher education system is currently undergoing reforms and changes to
improve quality programs.
The Ecuadorian financial crisis is one of the most significant obstacles to attaining high-
quality programs. ―A top-down structural reform of higher education systems may no
longer be possible or appropriate in Ecuador.‖ 11 In contrast to reforms that are specific,
large-scale, and embedded in law, accreditation and evaluation foster a much different
and potentially more responsive approach to reform. It is much more difficult to change
a law in a country such as Ecuador than it is to enhance the criteria, indicators, and
processes of institutional change and evaluation.
11
Twombly (1997: 7)
15

16. 16
Another significant obstacle in attaining quality programs is the small amount or total
lack of research. According to Jameson (1997: 4 – 7), there has been remarkably little
research done on higher education in Ecuador.
According to Twombly (1999), reforming higher education in Ecuador has been
sporadic and partial because for most universities, reform means curricular change and
most would argue that their universities are already engaged in a reform process.
Among the main reforms to improve quality programs in Ecuadorian universities are: 1)
continual redefinition of the mission and objectives of higher education; 2) creation of a
higher education system; 3) development of closer relations between the universities
and their environment; 4) encouragement of scientific and technological research; 5)
improvement of university leadership within administrations; 6) increase in and
diversification of sources of finances; 7) creation of a national system of evaluation and
accreditation as a means for ensuring accountability; and 8) changes to the current
higher education law.
To advance quality programs, Ecuadorian universities have started in the decade of
1990 a system of evaluation and accreditation, mostly patterned after the United States‘
evaluation systems. The evaluation system is aimed at assessing the following areas:
leadership within administrations, missions, and institutional plans, budgets and finance,
interactions between university and society, research, connected program requirements,
interactive teaching and learning, and adequate resources. Every effort related to reform
and change is being conducted through the ―Ecuadorian Higher Education Council‖
(CONESUP).12
12
According to the Ecuadorian Higher Education Law, Article 11, CONESUP is an autonomous and
public institution responsible for planning, regulating, coordinating, and guiding the Ecuadorian Higher
Education System (universities, polytechnic schools, and technological institutes). CONESUP also
approves the creation of any new higher education institution.
16

17. 17
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a literature review related to attributes of high-quality programs,
especially the literature on quality programs in universities in developed countries.
Conceptualizations of Quality
Not only does it cover three classical functions of Ortega and Gasset:
teaching, research and extension, which amounts to the quality of its
teaching staff, the quality of its program and the quality of its teaching-
learning methods, but it also includes the quality of its students, its
infrastructure and its academic surroundings.
UNESCO, 2002.
According to UNESCO, quality programs take place in a community whose members
are dedicated to academic freedom and are committed to the search for the truth, the
defense and promotion of human rights, democracy, social justice, and tolerance in their
own communities and in the world.
Seymour (1992) refers to quality programs as a day-to-day operating philosophy—a
never-ending quality journey. Seymour & Associates (1996) promote Baldrige, a
performance paradigm, as a robust system that stands in sharp contrast to the ―we-
know-it-when-we-see-it.‖ Baldrige‘s criteria to assess quality programs are: (1)
leadership; (2) information and analysis; (3) strategic and operational planning; (4)
human resource development and management; (5) educational and business process
management; (6) institutional performance results; and (7) student focus and student
and stakeholder satisfaction. Sims and Sims (1995: 8) state: ―The evolving view of
quality programs takes it to mean the degree to which student and other stakeholder
needs and expectations are consistently satisfied.‖ Quisumbing (2002) defines quality
programs as follows:
17

18. 18
A holistic, integrated and humanistic education retains the essential
meaning of Quality: the discovery and development of the talents of
every individual, the full flowering of the human potential, learning to be
a complete human person. After all, educare, the root word of education,
means the bringing forth of the wholeness within each one of us.
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 15) ―broadly define high-quality programs as those which,
from the perspective of diverse stakeholders, contribute to enriching learning
experiences for students that positively affect their growth and development.‖
Views and Attributes of High-Quality Programs
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 3 – 9), in their ―Engagement Theory of Quality,‖ identify
five views of quality: faculty, resource, student quality-and-effort view, curriculum
requirements, and multidimensional/multilevel views.
According to Haworth and Conrad: ―The faculty view enjoys direct empirical support
from studies of the quantitative attributes of ‗high-quality‘ programs insofar as
researchers have found a strong relationship between measures of faculty educational
training and qualification and program quality.‖ 13
Adequate resources—human, financial, and physical—are the sine qua non of high-
quality programs according to resources view. The resource view is supported both
directly through research on the quantitative attributes of program quality and indirectly
through objective indicator rankings.14 A student quality-and-effort-view, for those
advancing a student quality-and-effort view, suggests that well-qualified, involved, and
motivated students are the centerpiece of high quality programs. In terms of the
curriculum requirements view, Haworth and Conrad (1997) state that those advancing
this view tend to emphasize three quality-related attributes: core and specialized course
work; residency requirements that encourage on-campus study; and a culmination
13
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 4).
14
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 5).
18

19. 19
experience—such as a thesis, research project, or comprehensive examination. Finally,
the multidimensional/multilevel view encompasses each one of the above views of
program quality.
The Engagement Theory of High-Quality Programs: Conceptual Framework
My dissertation has been informed by Haworth and Conrad‘s (1997) ―Engagement
Theory of Quality Programs.‖ Haworth and Conrad‘s theory is organized around the
central idea of diverse stakeholders‘ engagement in high-quality programs.
Stakeholders embrace student, faculty, alumni, employers, community, and
administrative engagement in teaching and learning. Based upon interviews with 781
participants involved in diverse higher education institutions, the authors define ―high
quality programs as those which contribute to the learning experiences for students that
have positive effects on their growth and development‖ (pp xii).
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 27) define high-quality programs as follows:
High-quality programs are those in which students, faculty, and
administrators engage in mutually supportive teaching and learning:
students invest in teaching as well learning, and faculty and
administrators invest in learning as well as teaching. Moreover, faculty
and administrators invite alumni and employers of graduates to
participate in their programs. In short, the theory accentuates the dual
roles that invested participants play in constructing and sustaining
programs of high quality.
The theory maintains that in high-quality programs, stakeholders – academics, students,
and administrators – invest in five separate clusters of program attributes (see Table 1).
Each attribute contributes to enriching the learning experiences for students that
positively affect their growth and development. The five clusters of program attributes
are: diverse and engaged participants, participatory cultures, interactive teaching and
learning, connected program requirements, and adequate resources. Haworth and
Conrad (1997: 28) state that the most important of these clusters is diverse and engaged
participants because ―faculty and administrators continually seek to attract and support
19

20. 20
faculty and students who infuse diverse perspective into—and who are engaged in—
their own and others‘ teaching and learning.‖ The authors also emphasize that
stakeholders15 in high-quality programs invest heavily in ―participatory cultures‖ that
emphasize a shared program direction, a community of learners, and a risk-taking
environment.
These five clusters of the engagement theory encompass seventeen attributes. They are
listed in Table 1.
Table 1:
Five Clusters and Seventeen Attributes of High-Quality Program
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5
Diverse and Participatory Interactive Connected Adequate
Engaged Cultures Teaching and Program Resources
Participants learning Requirements
- Diverse and - Shared program - Critical - Planned - Support for
engaged faculty direction dialogue Breadth and Students
- Diverse and - Community - Integrative Depth of - Support for
engaged Learning Coursework Faculty
of learners
students - Mentoring - Professional - Support for
- Risk-taking
- Engaged leaders - Cooperative Residency Basic
environments
Peer learning - Tangible Infrastructure
- Out-of-class Products
activities
―Interactive teaching and learning‖ is the third cluster of attributes of high-quality
programs. Haworth and Conrad (1997) state that stakeholders actively participate in and
contribute to one another‘s learning by means of critical dialogues about knowledge and
professional practice, faculty-student mentoring, cooperative peer learning projects, out-
of-class activities and integrative and hands-on learning activities.
15
Stakeholders include: program administrators, faculty, and students, as well as institutional
administrators, alumni, and employers. (Haworth and Conrad, 1997: 24).
20

21. 21
The fourth cluster of attributes of high-quality program is ―connected program
requirements.‖ This cluster depends upon faculty and program administrators designing
program requirements that challenge students to develop a more mature and unified
understanding of their profession and its practice as they engage in breadth and depth
course work, apply and test their course-related knowledge and skills in a professional
residency, and complete a tangible product, such as a thesis, project report, or
performance.
The fifth cluster, ―adequate resources,‖ includes monetary as well as non-monetary
support for students, faculty, and basic infrastructure needs, in order to provide adequate
resources, faculty, and students to concentrate fully on teaching and learning.
Actions to Implement the Attributes of the Engagement Theory
According to Haworth and Conrad, for each of the seventeen attributes, stakeholders
take actions to implement the attribute, delineate the major consequences that these
actions have for enriching students‘ learning experiences, and specify the positive
effects that these learning experiences have on students‘ growth and development.
Below, I explain in a more detailed way each cluster of attributes.
Cluster One: Diverse and Engaged Participants
According to Haworth and Conrad (1997), diverse and engaged participants are the
people who take responsibility for teaching and learning. These participants play a
pivotal role in constructing and defining the quality of learning experiences that
students encounter in their programs. Faculty and administrators invest in two actions to
ensure that they have diverse and engaged faculty teaching in their programs. The first
is the development of hiring policies that value faculty members who have varied
theoretical and applied perspectives and a dedication to teaching. Second, a reward
structure that supports faculty for engaging in a broad range of scholarly activities
besides teaching is established. The main consequences of these actions are that they
consistently enrich the overall quality of students‘ learning experiences because faculty
infuse diverse perspectives into their classroom lectures, discussions, and out-of-class
interactions with students. In turn, the effects on students from their interactions with
21

22. 22
diverse and engaged faculty are: first, students who graduate with a richer and more
creative understanding of knowledge and professional practice; second, students who
become more motivated professionals who commit themselves more entirely to their
own growth and development.16
The idea of diverse and engaged students is the second attribute of diverse and engaged
participants. Haworth and Conrad (1997: 48 – 54) emphasize that diverse and engaged
students are vital to high-quality programs. For that reason, faculty and program
administrators use a two-part recruitment strategy to attract diverse and engaged
students to their programs. First, they establish admission policies that place a high
value on students who would bring to their studies varied disciplinary and
experientially-based perspectives as well as a passion for learning. Second, they select
and admit only those students whose professional interests and goals interrelate well
with those of their program‘s curriculum and faculty. The positive outcomes of this
attribute are seen in their (students‘ or faculty‘s) understanding of theory and
professional practice. For example, Haworth and Conrad (1997) state that students who
are committed to their own and others‘ learning inspire one another to devote more fully
to their professions.
Engaged leaders, such as department and program chairs, faculty, and administrators, is
the third attribute of cluster one – ―diverse and engaged participants.‖ Repeatedly,
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 54 – 60) emphasize that the investments which engaged
department and program chairs create in their programs markedly enhance the quality of
students‘ learning. To that end, faculty and administrators use two strategies to attract
and retain engaged leaders. First, they recruit department or program chairs who invest
time and energy in championing their program. Second, they recruit institutional
administrators and faculty engaged in various activities that are aimed at supporting
leaders. These actions enhance students‘ learning in three ways: first, leaders
successfully support their programs to internal and external audiences and secure
resources to sustain them; second, leaders put significant effort into recruiting diverse
and engaged participants to their program; and third, leaders encourage faculty and
16
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 42 – 47).
22

23. 23
students to assume informal leadership roles in their programs, thus enhancing their
ownership in them.
Cluster Two: Participatory Cultures
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 61 – 67) establish three attributes of quality within cluster
two. These attributes are: shared program direction, a community of learners, and a risk-
taking environment. The authors emphasize that stakeholders work together to build
shared understanding of and support for an overall program direction. Faculty,
administrators, and student leaders apply three strategies to develop and sustain a shared
direction in their programs. First, they invite program stakeholders to join them in
constructing a shared direction. Second, leaders encourage faculty, alumni, and
employers to participate in evaluation efforts in which they examine the fit between
their program‘s teaching and learning activities and its overall direction. And third,
leaders nurture and sustain understanding of their program‘s direction by frequently
communicating with internal and external audiences, both on and off campus. In
enhancing the quality of students‘ learning experiences, the positive effects on students
include: students develop distinct professional identities, and students who have
―connected‖ learning experiences become more keenly aware of where and how they
want to invest their energies after graduation.
The second attribute of participatory cultures is a ―community of learners.‖ Haworth
and Conrad (1997: 69 – 75), by working through nearly 800 interviews in their study,
found that an ethic of collegial teaching and learning imbued the culture of their
program such that faculty, students, and administrators interacted with one another more
or less as partners within a community of learners. The authors state: ―Membership in
such a community greatly enriched students‘ learning experiences and positively
affected their growth and development.‖ The main actions are: leaders who take
responsibility for helping to build a learning community; faculty who develop more
collegial and less hierarchical relations with students; and administrators, faculty, and
students who construct in- and out-of-class teaching and learning experiences to
facilitate and sustain co-learning among program participants. Thus, participants
encounter their programs as ―learning communities‖ in which faculty and students teach
and learn from one another as colleagues. Camaraderie permeates participants‘
23

24. 24
interactions, and it advances and complements the sense of community. Participating in
a community of learners enriches students‘ growth and development in two major ways,
according to Haworth and Conrad. First, the collegial interaction that students have
with one another and with faculty strengthens their communication and teamwork skills.
In addition, by owing a large part to the contributions that others make to their learning
within these ―communities,‖ students develop a greater appreciation of and respect for
the value of collaborative approaches to inquiry, problem solving, and leadership.
A risk-taking environment is another important attribute of high-quality programs. A
supportive and challenging environment permits students to feel ―safe‖ to take risks in
their learning. By promoting risk-taking environments, students find a safe environment
where they feel encouraged to explore new ideas and test developing skills; faculty and
administrators also take risks by encouraging students to follow their lead and to
challenge themselves to stretch and grow in new ways. These actions result in
enhancing the quality of students‘ learning experiences because students are much more
likely to question orthodoxies, advance alternative perspectives, and engage in learning
activities that press the boundaries of their potential.17 In turn, students who take risks
within a supportive learning environment enhance their growth and development in two
important ways. First, they graduate as more competent and self-assured professionals.
Second, students develop into more imaginative and resourceful professionals when
they are educated in risk-taking learning environments.
Cluster Three: Interactive Teaching and Learning
Interactive teaching and learning is advanced through five actions. Critical dialogue is
the first. Haworth and Conrad state that when faculty and students question extant
knowledge, challenge core assumptions in their fields, and generate critical
understanding of knowledge and professional practice, students achieve richer learning
experiences that enhance their growth and development.18 Amacher and Meiners (2004:
51) highlight the importance of faculty engaged in teaching and learning activities. As
they put it: ―From the perspective of trustees and administrators, who want productive
17
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 76 – 81).
18
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 83).
24

25. 25
faculty, the problem is to get faculty interested in teaching better and politicking
less….‖
Integrative learning is the second action. Haworth and Conrad (1997) state that students
have far richer learning experiences when they are challenged to link what they are
learning to tangible situations and issues in the outside world and when they link their
theory with practice, self with subject, and learning with living. In order to achieve
integrative learning, Haworth and Conrad found that faculty and administrators should
invest in teaching and learning activities that invite connections between theory and
practice by working with students in classes, on stage, in laboratories, or in the field.
Students who connect theoretical and applied knowledge to complex problems, issues,
and situations in the real world challenge themselves to interlace the principles and
practices of their disciplines into their own lives. Integrative learning positively affects
students‘ growth and development by approaching ―problems and issues in their fields
from a more holistic standpoint.‖19 In addition, students become more skilled at
communicating complex theoretical and technical knowledge to others in their work
settings.
Mentoring is the third action. Through this action faculty and administrators provide
instruction and direct feedback to students in order to strengthen their professional skills
and advance their understanding of knowledge and practice. Faculty and administrators
engage in three activities designed to promote mentoring in their programs: faculty and
administrators take an interest in students‘ career goals; faculty instruct students on a
one-on-one basis in order to sharpen their understanding of knowledge and professional
practice; and faculty provide students with regular feedback on the development of their
professional skills. The consequences and effects resulting from these actions are that
students have more meaningful learning experiences when faculty and administrators
invest in the mentoring process. Mentoring has two positive effects on students‘ growth
and development. First, the individualized feedback that students receive from their
mentors strengthens students‘ professional competence and confidence. Second,
19
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 98).
25

26. 26
mentoring helps students to advance their careers in the university and later in the
workplace.20
Cooperative peer learning is the fourth action. In this action students actively contribute
to and support one another‘s learning through various in- and out-of-class group
activities. Faculty and administrators use in- and out-of-class group activities to
promote cooperative learning among students. In addition, faculty members engage in
collaborative research and team-teaching activities. Students have opportunities to
participate in group activities in which they are able to contribute to and support one
another‘s learning toward their professional practice. These cooperative learning
experiences improve students‘ interpersonal and teamwork skills and improve students‘
confidence in their professional abilities.21
The notion of out-of-class activities is the fifth action. Through this action faculty,
administrators, and students develop sponsored formal and informal out-of-class
activities. Out-of-class activities could be ―involvement in a weekly journal club,
students‘ collaboration in writing activities, school-sponsored theater productions….‖22
These activities constitute an integral part of high-quality academic programs. Out-of-
class activities significantly enhance the quality of students‘ learning by helping
students to stay in touch with current developments in their fields. The favorable effects
on students‘ growth and development include enhanced oral communication and
interpersonal skills, as well as an appreciation of collaborative approaches to inquiry,
problem-solving, and leadership in their fields.
Cluster Four: Connected Program Requirements
Connected program requirements means the opportunity provided to students by faculty
and administrators to bridge the worlds of theory and practice—the classroom and the
workplace—through three sequential learning experiences. Through these requirements,
students develop a solid grasp of fundamental theories, practices, and skills. Faculty
20
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 99 - 104).
21
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 106 – 111).
22
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 112 – 117).
26

27. 27
challenge students to apply and assess their course-related understanding in a
professional residency; and faculty require students to complete a tangible project—a
thesis, project report, or creative performance—in which they are expected to prove to
themselves and to others their abilities to make significant contributions to their
professions. Connected program requirements include planned breadth and depth course
work meaning students need to complete a blend of core and specialized course work.
The positive effects on students include professional competency and the development
of holistic perspectives within their fields. Professional residency, such as university
research and teaching assistantships for students pursuing academic careers or
internships in government agencies, businesses, and human service organizations, is
another component of connected program requirements. Faculty and administrators
develop and implement professional residency requirements in three ways: professional
residency related to students‘ career interests; cooperative agreements with employers,
alumni, and community members; and regular guidance and feedback. Completing a
professional residency contributes to students‘ growth and envelopment in three ways:
students mature into more confident and competent professionals; residency experiences
further clarify and strengthen students‘ professional identities; and, through the
confidence, knowledge, and professional networks that students develop in their
professional residencies, their job prospects are enhanced upon graduation.23
Creation of a tangible product is another attribute of high-quality programs within the
fourth cluster. Usually a thesis, project report, or creative performances are considered
acceptable tangible products. Faculty and administrators develop and implement
tangible product requirements in two ways: requirements are designed in light of each
program‘s direction and goals, and students receive guidance and feedback from faculty
and administrators for the culmination of those requirements. The consequences of
tangible product requirements can be seen upon the integration of principles, practices,
and skills students apply in their final products. Through tangible product requirements,
students improve their analytical and written communication skills, become more
mature, confident and independent professionals due to their major responsibility for
their projects from start to finish, and develop a ―big picture‖ perspective of their
profession.
23
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 119 – 142)
27

28. 28
Cluster Five: Adequate Resources
Support for students is an important attribute of high-quality programs. ―Financial aid,
nontraditional course delivery formats, and career planning and placement assistance
consistently elevate the quality of students‘ learning experiences and favorably affected
their personal and professional development.‖24
Monetary and non-monetary supports for students often have positive effects on
their growth and development. Students who utilize career planning and placement
services are more likely to secure employment in their respective fields upon
graduation. Financial aid and nontraditional course delivery formats provide students
with the necessary support to concentrate more fully on their learning. Resources such
as these indirectly assist students in developing into more committed, lifelong learners
(Haworth and Conrad 1997).
The fifth cluster, adequate resources, encompasses support for students. Examples of
such support include financial aid, nontraditional course delivery formats, and career
planning and placement assistance, support for faculty including adequate monetary
resources and supportive reward structures, and support for basic infrastructure such as
laboratories, theaters, computers, library resources, and essential field-related equipment
and supplies.
Support for faculty includes adequate monetary resources and supportive reward
structures. Campus and departmental administrators support faculty through two major
actions. First, they allocate monetary resources for faculty salaries, sabbaticals, and
travel to professional conferences. Second, campus and departmental administrators
establish tenure and merit review policies that reward faculty for their involvement in
teaching and learning. Therefore, administrative efforts to support faculty almost always
help enhance students‘ learning. To illustrate, Haworth and Conrad (1997: 151) state
that when faculty are supported—monetarily as well as non-monetarily—for engaging
in teaching and learning, they invest considerable time and effort into teaching and
mentoring students.
24
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 143).
28

29. 29
The positive effect on students due to monetary and non-monetary support for faculty is
that students who study with faculty who are invested in their growth and development
are more self-confident, self-assured professionals.
Support for basic infrastructure (laboratories, theaters, computers, library resources, and
essential field-related equipment and supplies), the last attribute of high-quality
programs in the Engagement Theory, complements and enriches students‘ efforts to
learn advanced knowledge and techniques in their fields. In order to provide support for
basic infrastructure, campus and departmental administrators, as well as faculty,
monetary resources are needed to purchase requisite equipment and supplies to ensure
suitable laboratory, performance, and classroom facilities and to support institutional
library and computer needs.25
When resource needs are met, students have the ―tools‖ they need to learn advanced
knowledge and techniques in their fields. Support for basic infrastructure contributes to
students‘ growth and development in two ways: students develop into more
technically-competent professionals; and, as Haworth and Conrad state: ―This kind of
support indirectly complemented student investments further intensified many of the
effects that these attributes have on students.‖ state
A Framework for Developing and Sustaining High-Quality Programs
Haworth and Conrad (1997) propose a framework that is intended to help faculty,
administrators, and others learn about, assess, and improve the quality of undergraduate
and graduate programs. Anchored in their engagement theory of quality programs, the
framework reflects insights from the total quality management, organizational learning,
and higher education assessment literatures. Their framework for assessing and
improving the quality of academic programs places continuous learning among program
participants directly at the center of the program improvement effort and underscores
the integral roles that planning and evaluation play in this process. It encourages faculty,
administrators, and other program participants to make their ―working space a learning
25
(Haworth and Conrad (1997: 156).
29

30. 30
space‖26 through an ongoing and dynamic process of study, feedback, modification, and
improvement.
Haworth and Conrad‘s (1997) framework is comprised of a set of guiding principles,
questions to inform assessment and improvement, and quality assessment criteria and
indicators. The guiding principles comprise a statement of ―best practices‖ for
evaluating and improving the quality of academic programs. Haworth and Conrad
developed these principles on the basis of what they learned from the nearly 800
interviews in their study, as well as from a critical reading of the total quality
management, organizational learning, and higher education assessment literatures. The
four principles are:
1. The Linking Pin: A Constant Commitment to Student Learning
2. People Make Quality Happen: Inclusivity and Engagement
3. Learning Never Ends: Continuous Program Improvement
4. Thinking Multidimensionally: Multiple Methods of Assessment
A constant commitment to student learning ―is not an easy task: it challenges faculty
and administrators to examine their beliefs about what their assumptions are, whom
they should serve, and what they hope to accomplish in their programs.‖27 This
directing principle makes students and their learning the central purpose of program
evaluation and improvement efforts. The second guiding principle is ―people make
quality happen: inclusivity and engagement.‖ This tenet considers establishing
participatory governance structures such as alumni councils, employer advisory boards,
and open forums with students.
The third principle for developing and sustaining high-quality programs considers the
idea that ―learning never ends: continuous program improvement.‖ Haworth and Conrad
(1997: 170) believe that meaningful quality assessment requires faculty and
administrators to make their ―working space a learning space‖ in which they constantly
examine and seek to learn about the inner workings of their own programs.
26
Senge et al. (1994: 35).
27
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 168).
30

31. 31
The final but not least important principle for assessing high-quality programs is
―thinking multi-dimensionally: multiple methods of assessment.‖ Haworth and Conrad
provide two justifications for this principle. ―To begin with, when a combination of
methods is used, faculty and administrators are far more likely to develop a more
holistic understanding of the quality of their programs…. Multiple methods have
another advantage as well. Since they build on the strengths of different approaches,
they help to cancel out the weaknesses embedded in a solitary approach to assessment.‖
The major benefits of this framework are: (1) it has a clear and consistent focus on
student learning and development; (2) this framework proposes a number of principles,
guiding questions, criteria, and assessment methods that place continuous quality
improvement squarely at the center of the quality assessment process; (3) the framework
has the potential to provide faculty, administrators, and others with useful data upon
which to base program planning and improvement decisions. All in all, ―This
framework offers those who have program planning and evaluation responsibilities with
a template for collecting relevant and trustworthy evidence that can better inform
decisions related to ongoing program improvement.‖28
In summary, the engagement theory advances a new perspective on high-quality
programs which emphasizes students‘ learning experiences and learning outcomes as
the primary purpose of academic programs, highlights the essential role that
stakeholders – primarily the academics, administrators, and students – occupy, and
provides a template for assessing quality.
Curricula Planning and Assessment Matter in High-Quality Programs
In broad strokes, the literature on program quality suggests that curricula planning and
assessment are crucial in developing high-quality programs because both promote
program continuous improvement. Curricula planning and assessment lead to
continuous program design, recruitment of outstanding faculty according to each
academic program‘s mission and vision, selection of students based on quality
28
Haworth and Conrad (1997: 175).
31

32. 32
standards, and provisions of the resources and services needed for promoting more
active learning.
Assessing Quality Programs
Rooted in a long-standing tradition of institutional attention to quality programs and
shaped on the anvil of a period of retrenchment and accountability, assessing the quality
of academic program has emerged as a central area of concern in higher education.
Conrad and Wilson (1985: 31) advanced the following criteria for evaluation in
academic program review (see Table 2).
Table 2:
Criteria for Evaluating Academic Programs
Quality Need Demand Cost
- Quality of faculty - Centrality to - Present and - Cost
- Quality of students mission and other projected effectiveness
- Quality of curriculum campus programs student - Non-pecuniary
- Quality of support services (library, - Value to society demand costs and benefits
laboratories and equipment, physical - Demand for
plant, computer facilities) graduate
- Financial resources
- Quality of program administrators
Review of the Literature on Quality Programs in Developing Countries
Quality Education for All
Recent literature suggests that Latin American countries need to re-think quality
education for all, including diversity as an important attribute of high-quality programs.
For example, in its proposal, ―Education for All in the Americas: Regional Framework
of Action,‖ UNESCO (2000) recommends advancing quality education for all into a
32

33. 33
national goal anchored in these common denominators: equity and equality of
opportunity.
UNESCO advanced the following recommendations to Latin American countries that
can help quality improvements: 1) create necessary frameworks so that education
becomes a task for all and that guarantee popular participation in the formulation of
state policies and transparency in policy administration; 2) increase social investment in
the entire educational system; 3) guarantee access and retention of all to the educational
system; 4) assure access to quality education to vulnerable social groups; 29 5) give
greater priority to literacy training and education of young people and adults as part of
national education systems to improve existing programs and to create alternatives for
all young people and adults, especially those at risk; 6) continue to improve the quality
of education, by looking at education institutions as learning environments and
recognizing the social value of faculty and improving assessment systems; 7) formulate
inclusive education policies and design diversified curricula and education delivery
systems in order to serve the population that has been traditionally excluded for reasons
of gender, language, culture, or individual differences; 8) increase and reallocate
resources using criteria of equity and efficiency, as well as to mobilize other resources
with alternative delivery systems; 9) offer high levels of professional enhancement to
teachers/faculty and career development policies that improve the quality of their lives
and the conditions of their work; 10) coordinate education policies that encourage
multi-sector actions aimed at overcoming poverty and directed to populations at risk;
11) adopt and strengthen the use of information and communication technologies in the
management of education systems and in teaching and learning processes; 12) promote
educational leadership by granting individual institution autonomy with broad citizen
participation; 13) organize universities as a system rather than as an entity located in
one specific place or city;30 14) define administrative structures that take the university
as the basic unit, with autonomy, with citizen participation and establishing levels of
responsibility for each actor in the leadership process, in the control of results, and in
29
Latin America has opened university systems such as: Universidad Nacional Abierta (UNA) in
Venezuela, Universidad Particular Técnica de Loja in Ecuador, Universidad Nacional de Educación a
Distancia (UNED) in Costa Rica, Unidad Universitaria del Sur in Colombia, and distance education
system of the Universities of Brasilia, UNAM of Mexico
30
The Andrés Bello Agreement is a good example of such a system. It develops a regional analysis of the
future of the Latin American countries in order to promote cooperative agreements among countries.
These agreements focus on innovations and advances of science and technology and how those
innovations and advance can contribute for the development of each country.
33

34. 34
accountability; 15) provide general education and liberal arts education to satisfy
learning-for-life needs; 16) engage faculty, students, administrators, and leaders of the
community by investing in shared program direction and active teaching and learning
and cooperative peer learning; 17) provide books and other didactic and technological
resources in order to improve student learning; 18) introduce community service, social
work, and university extension in all academic programs; 19) train faculty,
administrators, and students so that they may promote and support learning in everyday
life experiences; 20) reallocate resources by using a criteria of equity and efficiency
with mechanisms for establishing budgets and allocating resources that include broad
social participation that lend transparency and credibility to the management of
resources and guarantee accountability; 21) develop university planning for the whole
institution.
Quality Programs in Ecuador
The following are some of the challenges and the recommendations given by Jameson
(1997), Twombly (1997, 2002), Kells, (1998), Conrad (2003), among others who have
visited and analyzed the Ecuadorian Higher Education System.
Kenneth P. Jameson, a visiting Advisor to Ecuador from the Economics Department at
the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented a paper titled ―Social vs. Economic
Reform: Higher Education in Ecuador‖ at the Latin American Studies Association
Meeting which took place in Guadalajara, Mexico on April 18, 1997. Dr. Jameson
wrote: ―I will examine recent efforts to reform the higher education system in Ecuador.
My underlying concern is why fundamental reform of the social sectors is proving to be
so much more difficult and whether there are strategies that might accelerate the
process. Let me first situate Ecuadorian higher education. With 208,000 students it fits
into Orozco‘s (1996) ‗mid-and large-sized moderately massive national systems,‘ along
with Chile and Cuba. Ecuador has moved more slowly than many countries in
reforming the ‗culture‘ of its universities.‖ Jameson (1997) noted significant reforms in
individual higher education institutions whose long-run effects will be quite significant.
At the same time, conscious and systemic reforms have been unsuccessful; this returns
us to the broader question of reform in Latin America. In Jameson words:
34

35. 35
Had reform programs been stimulated by conviction that improvements
in the social sectors were central to solving the macroeconomic problems
of the country, or that the social sector activities were central to the well-
being of Ecuador, the actual reform efforts would have had a different
character. They would have proceeded more rapidly and would have
been more successful.
Universities are unquestionably influenced by the society of which they are a part.
―Universities can only be as flexible, responsive, progressive, enlightened, and as vital
as the broader political traditions their societies allow.‖31 It is within this context of
economic crisis and political ineffectiveness that a few university leaders are proposing
a system of evaluation as a means of bringing universities to achieve high-quality
programs. High-quality programs need to be ―in line with the needs of a post industrial,
global economy‖ suggests, Twombly (1999). Universities in Ecuador are caught in the
transition between the traditional Napoleonic university that historically trained elites
for primary professional positions (law, medicine, and theology), and the post-modern
university whose role in the new global economy is to contribute to the ‗performativity‘
of the economic system by training technologically skilled workers." 32 To complicate
the transition, Ecuadorian public universities are still operating under a concept of
university-society relations and a definition of autonomy established in the Córdoba
Agreement of 1918.‖ Resulting from the misconceptions of university autonomy,
significant political influences have been affecting the Ecuadorian universities. In the
Ecuadorian Constitution, Article 28 specifies that the State ―recognizes and guarantees
the autonomy of universities and polytechnics and the inviolability of their territory,
giving them the rights of individuals‖ (in CONUEP 1994). Twombly emphasizes the
fact that, ―The Congress or government cannot do anything that affects in any way the
normal function of a university and especially anything that affects its liberty and
autonomy. This has resulted in a lack of overall coordination in the system‖ (Twombly,
1997).
Forces that Influence the Ecuadorian Higher Education System
31
Rothblatt (1995).
32
Lyotard in Bloland (1995).
35

36. 36
During May, 2003, Clifton F. Conrad,33 Professor of Higher Education at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, led a workshop in Quito, Ecuador. The topic was, ―Toward a
Template for Ensuring High-Quality 21st Century Ecuadorian Universities in Light of
Turbulent External and Internal Environments: Avoiding Pitfalls and Seizing
Opportunities in Light of Experiences of Universities in the United States.‖
Professor Conrad invited the audience to join him in discussing both the challenges and
opportunities Ecuadorian people are facing in their universities and, in turn, to suggest
specific courses of action for addressing both the challenges and opportunities they
identified. Among the audience of more than 100 individuals, were presidents of
Ecuadorian universities and senior higher education officials in Ecuador. I would like to
quote Professor Conrad‘s first message to the audience.
The purpose of my address is to invite everyone in the audience to
consider what you might do at your universities to ensure quality in the
light of our experiences and ongoing efforts in the United States to
maintain quality in the midst of significant external and internal
influences. To put it another way, my address will explore the major
forces influencing higher education in the United States and, in so doing,
invite educators in Ecuador to reflect on the major challenges and
opportunities in maintaining and enhancing quality in their universities in
the 21st century. My comments are divided into three major parts. First,
I begin by identifying and discussing the major external and internal
forces influencing higher education in the U.S. today and, I believe, to a
considerable extent in Ecuador as well. Second, I review and critique
four popular models that universities in the U.S. have variously adopted
to respond to these external and internal forces. In so doing, I explore
both the proclaimed benefits and potential pitfalls for each of these four
models. Third, I conclude by advancing a template for change and
innovation anchored in specific courses-of-action—from institution-wide
policies and practices to changes and innovations to enhance curriculum,
33
Professor Conrad‘s visit to Ecuador was sponsored by the Ecuadorian Higher Education Council
―CONESUP‖ [Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior] and Universidad Internacional del Ecuador.
36

37. 37
teaching, and learning—aimed at maintaining and enhancing quality.
Following my address, I invite you all to join with me in discussing both
the challenges and opportunities you are facing in your universities and,
in turn, to suggest specific courses of action for addressing both the
challenges and opportunities you identify.
Conrad focused on the following external and internal forces influencing
universities.
a. External forces
Demographic shifts in student clientele: more diversity, changing lifestyles (faster-
paced, technology-linked), and changing student expectations; changing expectations of
employer/corporate culture: demand for technical skills and general education and
continuing professional education; globalization: economic interdependence and need
for diversity (people, experiences, and multiculturalism); technology: implications for
workplace preparation and teaching and learning in the university; changing patterns in
educational financing: public to private funding, which leads to increased emphasis on
research and entrepreneurial activities; and public pressure for universities to advance
private and public good.
b. Internal Forces
Some of the internal forces identified by Conrad include the changing nature of
knowledge production and dissemination; the rise of the entrepreneurial spirit; academic
culture and socialization of new faculty and students; ―rugged individualists;‖ the
shortage of qualified faculty in some fields; university-wide pressure to reorganize and
downsize in light of budget deficits.
In addition, Conrad presented four popular models of change and innovation:
a. Virtual Degree Institutions/Programs
b. Corporate Training Institutions/Programs
c. Entrepreneurial Institutions/Programs
d. Service Station Institutions/Programs
37

38. 38
Drawing on his own research and the literature on program quality, Conrad presented a
template for ensuring quality: courses-of-action—from institution-wide polices and
practices to changes and innovations aimed at enhancing curriculum and teaching and
learning—for maintaining and enhancing quality.
 Know thyself: ―forge stronger institutional and programmatic
identities.‖ This category encompasses having a mission anchored in
history/tradition/character and retaining focus on traditional purposes
(scholarship, research, service) while preparing graduates with knowledge,
skills, and attitudes.
 Embrace changes and innovations in alignment with institutional
identity: being responsive to emerging pressures of the new century through
changes and innovations aligned with purposes of institution; encouraging
movement toward interdisciplinary initiatives and programs—including joint
positions—in programs and faculty hiring.
 Reconceptualize high-quality programs and related practices: quality
programs traditionally are measured in outputs, but should be measured in terms
of meaningful learning experiences that positively affect students‘ growth and
development.
 Incorporate assessment into program design. Document student learning
through: increasing demands to document value of college degrees and using
student assessment to enhance teaching; and adopting systematic approaches to
ongoing assessment with particular emphasis on student learning experiences
and outcomes, both to improve teaching and student outcomes (portfolios,
journals, observations, or involvement at third party levels such as through
employment experiences).
 Ensure a community both fiercely intellectual and sacred: combating the
loss of community and protect institutional and programmatic identities; having
a space in which a community of truth is practiced; encouraging inter-
disciplinary and cross-disciplinary perspectives; and developing a dimensionless
intellectual community.
 Rediscover and place more emphasis on the societal (non-pecuniary)
benefits of higher learning: placing increased emphasis on general and liberal
38

39. 39
education; and incorporating innovations such as service-learning into the
curriculum; this may include social justice component.
Four discussion questions that guided the workshop were:
1. What are the two major external and two major internal influences in
Ecuadorian universities today?
2. What are the major threats to quality and opportunities to strengthen quality
associated with each of these influences?
3. In light of the above, what major leadership initiatives do you think that
administrators should be taking to enhance and maintain the quality of their
universities?
4. What innovative models and approaches are you using to strengthen quality
in your respective universities?
Participants were organized into groups according to their academic program
orientation: arts and humanities, new technologies, business administration, computer
science, and technical programs. Table 3 shows their responses.
Table 3:
Ecuadorian Universities in Light of Turbulent External and Internal Environments
1. Internal & 2. Major Threats 3. Major Leadership 4. Innovative Models to
External Initiatives Improve Quality
Influences
Faculty
- Quality of faculty - Faculty are not trained - Pedagogical formation of - Center for Teaching
- Full-time faculty to be professors teachers and professors Excellence
- Faculty with - Need more full-time - More preparation of - Competence-based
graduate degrees faculty; most of them faculty in the scientific and programs
34
- Faculty are ―taxi professors‖ technology fields
engagement - Faculty evaluation
34
―Taxi professor‖ is a Latin American expression and a cultural one used to define those professors that
are not considered as full-time faculty because they have to work at multiple universities or institutions to
earn enough money to support their families. ―Taxi professors‖ only teach few hours and never have
office hours.
39

40. 40
Students - Many students are - More participative and - Hands on learning
-Under-prepared working people that active learning
students study, rather than
studying students
-Under-prepared
freshmen
Academic - Offering of programs - Philosophical conception - Competence-based
Programs that are not up-to-date of the human being: ―a programs
-New programs - Quality of programs person that needs to be - Credit and modular
don‘t answer the - Clarification of educated in an integral systems
society‘s needs institutional mission way, with ethics and - Active learning
(universities offer same virtues‖
programs as those - Competence-based
offered at technical programs according to the
schools) market demands
- New models for the
teaching and learning
process
- Curricula innovation
- Program evaluation
Financial resources - Bad salaries paid to - Self-funding projects - Relationships with
-Decrease on faculty productive sector
motivation - Decrease of quality through university‘s
-Decrease on services
quality
Strategic Plans - Need for a national - National higher - Strategic planning
mission development plan education policies - Evaluation processes
differential: provided by CONESUP - More leadership - ISSO
university vs. - Slow development of - Team work with a shared - More flexible and
technical education the country goal horizontal structure and
-Quality of systems administration
Campus facilities - Some campuses lack - Use of new technology The use of new
and technology adequate physical and - More innovation technology to improve
technological resources quality
- Technology transfer
centers
40

41. 41
- Academic services
with new technologies
Internal / External - Development of -Internationalization of the - Workshops with
Competitiveness network connections education current topics
and - Interinstitutional - Exchange students
Globalization alliances & agreements and faculty
- Competence
- Migration
- Change
resistance
At the end of the workshop, Professor Conrad (2003) made the following comments and
recommendations:
 Link K-12 and higher.
 Advance more collaboration among universities. ―Taxi professors‖ is not
collaboration. Working together and building bridges help in economic and
environmental contexts.
 Offer liberal arts programs. There is a tendency to develop technical programs
and leave out the liberal arts and sciences.
 Introduce courses on weekends. Courses that can be very effective for learning
especially for working adults. People are more engaged in intellectual vitality.
 Attract and retain highly-qualified faculty devoted to teaching and learning. In
terms of teaching and learning, ask yourselves: Am I doing more than I should?
Am I engaging people? How can I make this a better world?
Conclusion
From the literature review, it is clear that very little has been studied regarding attributes
of high-quality programs in Latin American countries, particularly in Ecuador. Previous
studies about program quality have only been advanced by U.S. and European
41

42. 42
universities. Those studies have helped inform my research, particularly the ―Theory of
Program Quality‖ posited by Haworth and Conrad (1997).
42