This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 28 October 2014, At: 14:21Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quality EngineeringPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lqen20

Use of Quality Circles to Enhance Classroom InstructionGeoff Willis aa Albers School of Business and Economics , Seattle University , Seattle, Washington,98122–4460Published online: 22 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Geoff Willis (1995) Use of Quality Circles to Enhance Classroom Instruction, Quality Engineering, 8:2,329-336, DOI: 10.1080/08982119508904631

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08982119508904631

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Quality Engineering. 8(2). 329-336 (1995-96)

USE OF QUALITY CIRCLES TO ENHANCE CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

Geoff Willis Albers School of Business and Economics

Seattle University Seattle. Washington 98122-4460

Key Words

Quality; Quality circle; Toral quality management; Qual- ity classroom: Instructor evaluation.

Introduction

The College of Business at Texas Tech University is an American Assembly of Collegiate School of Business ac- credited program that offers bachelor degrees in account- ing, finance, management, management information sys- tems, marketing, and petroleum land management. The undergraduate enrollment of approximately 2800 students is instructed by 60 permanent faculty members and 45 teaching assistants from the doctoral program.

Teaching assistants come from diverse backgrounds but typically share the commonality that although they have spent hundreds of hours in the classroom, the vast major- ity of these hours were spent in some capacity other than that of instructor. When assigned to a course rather than to a professor, the novice teaching assistant draws upon his personal well of experience along with the knowledge im- parted during a course entitled Practicum in Higher Edu- cation. This single-credit-hour course covers "the super- vised practice in teaching of business and administrative subjects." the legal aspects of classroom performance, and the details of syllabus preparation. Another source of di-

rection for all instructors is the instructor and course evalu- ation conducted at the completion of each semester.

Problems with Established System

One problem facing both the students and their novice instructors is the need to enhance the level of classroom instruction prior to the completion of a semester. Although some form of instructor evaluation is conducted every se- mester, the feedback is delayed for a minimum of I month after the semester's completion. Thus, the information is rendered obsolete as far as the customers who provided it are concerned. In addition, the instrument in use at many institutions, Texas Tech University included, is structured so that the information the instructor receives provides little direction. The evaluation form used at Texas Tech appears as Figure 1. Note that the numerical ratings of the instruc- tor and course deal only in generalities and are, therefore, of little help when policy and procedure decisions must be made for subsequent semesters. Although a comments sec- tion is provided, I typically receive as many comments about my hair as I receive regarding the class structure.

Figure 2 shows the summary of the instructor evalua- tions I received for my teaching efforts in the fall semes- ter of 19%. During this semester. I was responsible for the lecture and administration of lhe required production and operations management class. Although I enjoyed the in-

329

Copyright O1995 by Marcel Dekker. Inc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TEXAS TECH Student Evaluation of ClNlVERSlTY Course and lnstructo~

This globol evaluation will provide a briel end standard source of information about student percaptions of courses and instructors.

Student Information

My dassilication is:OFr. O S o . 0 Jr. 0 % . OGr. OOlher This course is: 0 Elective 0 Required This course is a part of my: 0 Major 0 Minor 0 Olher The grade I expect in thls course is: @ @ @ @

Course/lnstructor Evaluation Please respond to the three nems below by marking the approprlale bubble. The bubbles lorm a raUng scale of 1 (Poor) to S(Exmllent).

Poor Weak Averaae Good Excellent 1. The overall quality ol

this course was ........... @ @ @ @ @ 2. The ovorall effectiveness

ofthe instructor was .... @ @ @ @ @ 3. 1 would tell others lhal

the instructor was ......... @ @ @I @ @

Comments

Figure I . Student evaluation form

teraction with my students, I saw my inexperience. the college's lack of production and operations management major, and a class roster of 370 students as major obstacles to my effective delivery of the material.

The mean responses for each of the three questions on the instructor evaluations reflected these concerns. The course quality (question I) was seen as only slightly above average, although I received a rating of good as an instruc- tor. The gap between the mean responses to question 1 and questions 2 and 3 was approximately 25%. In previous semesters, the evaluation forms were structured differently. with 1 being the highest rating an instructor could receive and 5 being the lowest. In addition, the current period was compared with the historical means in each category for both the course and the instructor. This information is no longer available, leaving the instructor in the dark regard- ing his performance on anything but the pure 1-5 scale.

To summarize, the problems with the standard univer- sity practice of instructor evaluations as the sole source of feedback are that the suggestions provided by the students arrive too late and that the comments lack specificity. Reli- ance solely on instructor evaluations to address perceived deficiencies in the classroom relegates the instructor to a perpetual reactive mode, instead of the more desirable pro- active stance. Administration of the course evaluation forms earlier in the semester is not an option as far as the university is concerned, so a different method of collect- ing timely feedback must be employed. T o make the switch from reactive lo proactive mode, I decided to experiment with class quality circles in the spring 1993 semester.

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SUMMARY O F STUDENT EVALUATIONS O F COURSE 6 INSTRUCTOR-FALL 1 9 9 2

DEPARTMENT O F INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH INSTRUCTOR W I L L I S , P . GEOFFREY

COURSE SEC MEAN EXCL M O D AVG WEAK POOR I S Q S 3 3 4 4 0 0 1 RESPONSE # 1 3 . 1 2 5 1 9 3 8 1 9 0

RESPONSE # 2 3 . 8 4 1 9 3 9 1 6 8 0 RESPONSE # 3 3 . 9 9 2 6 3 5 1 5 6 0

I S Q S 3344 002 RESPONSE # 1 3 . 3 8 8 2 3 2 5 11 1 RESPONSE 112 4 . 2 7 3 1 2 9 5 1 2 RESPONSE # 3 4 . 3 1 3 3 2 7 5 2 1

* * * + + * * * * t" RESPONSE # I 3 . 2 4 1 3 42 6 3 3 0 1 RESPONSE #2 4 . 0 3 5 0 68 2 1 9 2 RESPONSE # 3 4 . 1 3 5 9 62 20 8 1

Figure 2. Fall 1992 instructor evaluations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

QUALITY CIRCLES IN THE CLASSROOM

Quality Circles

A quality circle is a small group of people united by the common goal of improving quality. Typically, these people share similar or integrated functions on the job, giving them a common frame of reference to address their prob- lems. The quality circle gives decision-making power to the worker, increasing their chances for success in problem solving, and enhancing their self-esteem. Excellent discus- sions of the history and disposition of quality circles in Japan and the United States are offered by Nonaka (I) and Hart (2).

The idea of quality circle implementation is in harmony with the total quality management (TQM) concept of people empowerment. By allowing those most closely in- volved with the work to have control over its performance. a quality circle can achieve dramatic gains in productivity and quality.

Implementation of Circles in Classroom

I decided to establish quality circles in my classroom in the spring 1993 semester to accomplish two objectives:

I . T o improve the classroom experience for my cur- rent students

2. T o provide a concrete example of some of the quality techniques we discuss in the introductory production and operations management class

I felt that the first goal could be achieved by judicious use of the immediate feedback that I hoped to receive from the students. If nothing else occurred, the observation of Ouchi (3) that "people who have real input will be better motivated to achieve excellence" might inspire the students to become more involved with the course.

The second goal would be achieved at the first occur- rence of such a meeting. The value of experiential learn- ing is borne out in the research of Light (4.5). who has shown that students benefit from the more active learning experiences that would be accrued by the quality circle technique. Merely by having a quality circle meeting I would be providing hands-on experiences for my students that would enhance their grasp and retention of this facet of production and operations management material. I also felt that the analysis of problems brought forth in the meet- ing could provide additional opportunities for hands-on experience with additional quality techniques and tools. Application of TQM techniques to the classroom is dis- cussed by Hansen (6) . who reports success with a Total

Quality lmprovement approach to the administration of a economics course. Hansen used a three-pronged implemen- tation procedure that featured the elements of customer focus, student involvement, and continuous improvement. The first element, customer focus, required the identifica- tion of core proficiencies for the course and economics majors in general. The second element, student involve- ment, required that student teams be formed for the pur- pose of completing and reporting on research projects. The third element, continuous improvement, uses instructor evaluations, also handled by a student team, to assess the course periodically. Finally, Hirshfield (7) documents the use of quality circles as an approach to teaching an intro- duction to non-Western civilizations history course. The use of circles in this setting served to determine course con- tent and introduce one aspect of Japanese culture.

I began the first lecture in the spring of 1993 with an overview of the quality circle concept and a few success stories. In an effort to get as many of that semester's 278 students as involved as possible. I circulated sign-up sheets during the first 2 weeks of class. Time constraints did not permit the meetings to be held during regularly scheduled class hours, so I proposed a wide variety of days and times for the meetings. Response was such that 14 quality circles of 12 members each were formed. These small groups enabled us to retain the intimacy that is essential for a pro- ductive quality circle while allowing everyone interested in participating to do so. There was some initial hesitancy by the students to voice their opinions freely with me present. I attempted to allay the students' fears of retribution by continually asking for more suggestions and by adopting a "recording secretary" stance. Typically, the discussion be- came lively after one or two coniments were made.

After the first round of meetings. held over a 3-day period early in the semester, 1 cataloged the complaints and suggestions offered by all of the groups. The printable problems identified appear as Table I , which was displayed at subsequent class and quality circle meetings in Pareto diagram form (see Fig. 3) illustrating yet another impor- tant quality tool. This Pareto diagram shows the number of different circles that indicated each problem existed. So, for example, 9 out of my 14 circles identified my rate of speech as a problem, and 8 of my 14 circles indicated they were unsure of the key points of the videotapes I was showing.

Meetings were held at intervals varying between I and 2 weeks throughout the semester. The meetings always began with an update on what action had been taken re- garding prior meetings' suggestions. The update would then be followed by a discussion of new concerns or pre-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

QUALITY CIRCLES IN THE CLASSROOM 333

Table 2. Instructor Evaluations Fall 1992-Summer 1994

FALL SPRING FALL SPRING SUMMER 1992 1993 1993 1994 1994

Course quality 3.24 3.89 3.87 4.05 3.89 Instructor effectiveness 4.03 4.48 4.37 4.37 4.28 Recommend instructor 4.13 4.52 4.43 4.39 4.34

to others

is worth noting that more in for ma ti or^ and examples could be provided with the packet of notes than without the pack- et. resulting in greater coverage of material. The sugges- tion that the course be split into two semesters (a sugges- tion that was far beyond my locus of control) due to overabundance of material proved to be 180' off-base.

The positive feedback I enjoyed from the spring 1993 semester led me to use quality circles for all subsequent semesters except summer 1994. 1 did not use circles dur- ing that summer session primarily because I was prepar- ing to leave the employ of Texas Tech University and the increased demands on my time permitted few extracurricu- lar activities. A contributing factor was the level of con- tentment that had been expressed by the recent participants. Continuous improvement is a personal goal, but the stu- dents understood my time constraints and were encouraged to present their ideas to me informally as they saw fit.

Measurable Outcomes

Measurable outcomes of quality circle execution in- cluded differences in instructor, evaluations, and class at- tendance. Instructor evaluations for the spring 1993. spring 1994, and fall 1993 semesters, during which quality circle meetings were regularly conducted, can be compared with instructor evaluations from fall 1992 and summer 1994, during which no meetings were held. Instructor evaluations are not normally conducted during summer sessions, so there is no data for summer 1993. I generated a form for instructor evaluations during the summer 1994 session to gauge student impressions of both my teaching and the course after I had more experience but was not using qual- ity circles. All of the instructor evaluation data appears in Table 2.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test resulted in a rejected null hypothesis of normality, so the Mann-Whitney (Wilcoxon) nonparametric procedure was employed to compare the results of the spring semester with the fall semester. The results of the Mann-Whitney procedure from the SAS package appears in Figure 5.

The first question on the instructor evaluation asks the student to rate the quality of the course. The null hypoth- esis of equality of the course rating for successive semes- ters is strongly rejected ( p < .0001). indicating that the course quality was perceived by the students to be much higher during the spring than in the fall.

The second question. "Rate the overall effectiveness of the instructor," also resulted in a strong rejection of the null hypothesis ( p < .0001). It can be safely concluded that the students perceived me to be a more effective in- structor during the spring than I was during the fall.

The third question asks the students how they would describe me to their colleagues. Again, the null hypothesis of equality of ratings is strongly rejected ( p < .0001). demonstrating a more positive assessment of my teaching ability during the spring semester than the fall. This ques- tion appears to be very closely tied to question 2, so any positive movement for the former should be evidenced in the latter as well.

Given the size of the classes, attendance was not taken and recorded each class meeting. Use of data on the in- structor evaluations represents a snapshot approach to charting class attendance, but it is representative of what happened during the semesters. It can be safely assumed that each completed evaluation represents the presence of one student. and evaluations were not completed on a day resewed for final exam review, so the number of evalua- tions is a reasonable estimate of the average class atten- dance.

Class enrollment and attendance during the evaluation class is shown in Table 3. The class attendance hypothesis is expressedas follows:

H,: There is no difference between class attendance when quality circles are used and class attendance when quality circles are not used.

H,: Class attendance is greater when quality circles are used compared with when quality circles are not used.

The attendance data can be represented as a 5 x2 con- tingency table with fixed row totals. A chi-square test for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Wilcoxon Scores (Rank Sums) for Variable: COURSE QUALITY

Sum of Expected Std Dev Mean QC N Scores Under HO Under HO Score

0 227 72443.500 91594.500 2756.97058 319.134361 1 519 252777.500 233626.500 2756.97058 436.575993

S= 72443.5 Z= -6.94621 Prob > l Zl = 0.0001 T-Test approx. Significance = 0.0001

Kruskal-Wallis Test (Chi-square Approximation) CHISQ= 48.252 DF= 1 Prob > CHISQ= 0.0001

Wilcoxon Scores (Rank Sums) for Variable: INSTRUCTOR EFFECTIVENESS

Sum of Expected Std Dev Mean QC N Scores Under HO Under HO score

S= 79752.5 Z= -4.56334 Prob > IZI = 0.0001 T-Test approx. Significance = 0.0001

Kruskal-Wallis Test (Chi-square Approximation) CHISQ= 20.826 DF= 1 Prob > CHISQ= 0.0001

Wilcoxon scores (Rank Sums) for Variable: RECOMMEND INSTRUCTORS TO OTHERS

Sum of Expected Std Dev Mean OC N Scores Under HO Under HO Score

S= 81859.5 Z= -3.78885 Prob > IZI = 0.0002 T-Test approx. Significance = 0.0002

Figure 5. SAS output of evaluafions comparison.

Table 3. Class Auendance Fall 1992-Summer 1994

SEMESTER PRESENT ABSENT ENROLLED - -

Fall 1992 1 50 220 370 Spring 1993 1 64 114 278 Fall 1993 234 140 374 Spring 1994 180 120 300 Summer 1994 78 32 110

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

QUALITY CIRCLES IN THE CLASSROOM

differences in probabilities results in a test statistic value of 5 5 , which exceeds by a considerable margin the p = ,001 value with four degrees of freedom of 18.47. It can safely be concluded that class attendance was significantly greater during semesters (hat quality circles were used. The attendance figures for the summer 1994 data are inconsis- tent with the alternative hypothesis. This may be due to the fact that summer semesters are experiences that are dis- tinctly different from long (fall and spring) semesters. The pace of the course is doubled in the summer, and those unable to sustain the pace drop the class during the first week. The remaining students attend class regularly out of a combination of personal commitment and as a means of survival.

Conclusions

It would appear that utilization of quality circles in a classroom can improve students' attitudes toward a course and instructor. This is borne out by the significant differ- ences between scores awarded the instructor and course from a semester when no quality circles were used and the scores awarded during a semester when quality circles were used. This is further evidenced by the significant increase in attendance during a semester when quality circles were used as compared with attendance when quality circles were not used.

I feel that the instructor evaluation improvement stems from two sources: the application of the circle technique to receive feedback and improve the course, and the percep- tion that I was concerned about improving the course. The quality literature is replete with instances of an organiza- tion "getting close to the customer," and by holding for- mal meetings with many of my students I succeeded in doing so. I would not have felt compelled to try many of the modifications had I heard suggestions from only one or two students during my office hours. At the other end of the spectrum, had I attempted to discuss some of the ideas during lecture. I would have been greeted by an incompre- hensible barrage of statements and reactions from those in attendance. I was swayed to make changes only by hear- ing the same suggestions from a great percentage of my class a few students at a time.

The perception issue is also a contributor to improved evaluations and was probably the sole influence at the end of my tenure at Texas Tech University. Although the first two semesters' circles had a number of problems to re- solve, subsequent semester's students were presented a course that was more palatable from the start of the semes- ter. Because most of the discrepancies had been removed from my presentation, the course mechanics were essen-

tially static from mid-fall 1993 (hrough summer 1994. With fewer problems in the course, the quality circles served primarily to demonstrate my concern for the customer. As formal means of receiving student input are rare at the undergraduate level, the novelty of having a voice in course matters may have been the overriding influence on course perceptions.

The only change I have effected at my current univer- sity is the adoption of the Hirschfield (7) approach of hav- ing quality circle members act as representatives of their classmates that are not in the circle. This "quality council" approach has been well received, as it eliminates the student's fear of retribution. This was not an issue when I was a teaching assistant because the gap between under- graduate and graduate standing evidently was not perceived to be significant. Now that I am a full-time faculty mem- ber, there is hesitancy on the part of my undergraduate and international students to voice their opinions freely. Under the quality council system, a circle member may introduce his concerns as those of another student, thus avoiding direct conflict with a professor.

The future for my continued use of quality circles ap- pears bright. Unlike my previous assignment, my current teaching responsibilities at Seattle University involve a number of different courses, each of which presents new and unique problems. The varied courses, coupled with my transition from a lecture to a case-based method of instmc- tion, have shifted the primary benefit of quality circles back from perception of concern to real problem solving. As my courses. their content, and my teaching style change. there always will be room for improvement, and quality circles have proven to be an excellent way of improving my teaching.

References

I. Nonaka, I.. The History of the Quality Circle, Quai. Prog.. 26(9). 81-83 (1993).

2. Hart. M. K.. Quality Control Training for Manufacturing. Prod. Invent.. Manog. 1 . 32(3). 35-40 (1991).

3. Ouchi, W.. 771eary 2: Haw American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Addison-Wesley. Reading. MA. 1981.

4. Light. R. J., 771e Hanard Assessnlenr Sermrm~rs. Firsr Repon. Harvard Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government. Cambridge. MA. 1990.

5. Light. R. 1.. 77re HansardAssessmenr Seminars. Second Re- port. Harvard Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government. Cambridge. MA. 1991.

6. Hansen, W. L.. Bringing Total Quality Improvement into [he College Classroom. Higher E d ~ c . . 25(4). 259-279 (1993).

7. Hirshfield. C.. Using Classroom Quality Circles to Combat lapanophobia, 77re Social Studies. 85(1). 11-15 (1994).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

About cite Author: Geoff Willis. Ph.D., is an assistant pro- terests include quality, synchronous manufacturing. and fessor of operations in the Albers School of Business and decision support systems. Economics at Seattle University. His current research in-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014