Influence of Teacher Efficacy on Transformative Quality in Private Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

Among the three major private higher education (HE) systems (China, India, USA), India has been recognized as the “big one”, holding a share of 21.9% of global private HE enrolments (Levy, 2018, p. 707). The global phenomenon of privatization and resulting ‘massification’ in Indian HE, eventually led to a spate of debates on inclusiveness-excellence and access-quality issues, thus making the existing quality measures in a post-massification dichotomous HE system questionable. The reason for this questionability is because the current quality measures signify a self-fulfilling process of selectivity, in which the private-unaided higher education institutions (HEIs) continue to rank at the bottom. This research redefines quality as Transformative Quality (TRFQ) in HE, and develops it as a measure which can transcend a dichotomous HE system. Since quality is a relative concept, it is imperative to define whose perspective. Therefore, this research uses front-line faculty perspectives for establishing TRFQ in HE. This endeavour addresses the Research Objective 1, that is, to define and develop a quality measure which can transcend a dichotomous HE system. Furthermore, since the dimensions of TRFQ are teachable, it is crucial to investigate the impact of Teacher Efficacy (TE) on TRFQ in HE, which forms Research Objective 2. The Research Objective 3 is to provide a policy framework for addressing quality issues plaguing the private-unaided HE sector based on the results of RO1 and RO2. Research Objective 1 is partially addressed through a thorough literature review of concepts on quality in HE, and its questionability in addressing quality issues in a dichotomous HE system. Thereafter, TRFQ measure is prepared based on valuable feedback from academia and industry. This process helped in ensuring comprehensiveness, clarity, readability and face validity of the survey instrument. Reliability analysis was conducted through Cronbach’s alpha values, which were above 0.7 and acceptable according to literature (Nunnally, 1978). The same procedural steps were followed for TE as well. Purposive sampling of faculty employed in thirteen AICTE-approved private-unaided HEIs was used for data collection. Data collection was conducted in two phases. After reliability analysis, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was done on Phase I data, to explore the factors. Factor loadings were grouped into a six-factor solution and a two-factor solution for TRFQ and TE respectively. The new factors were Critical Confidence, Approach-avoidance Problem Solving Skills, Overall Awareness, Overcoming Prejudices, Skillfulness, Emotionality; Instructional Engagement and Within-class Management. Thereafter, Phase II of data collection was carried out, and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the underlying factor structure. This resulted in the deletion of Emotionality factor, and the resulting five-factor solution for TRFQ completely addressed the Research Objective 1. Further, the remaining factors were hypothesized for investigating the relationship between TE and TRFQ in HE, through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). This exercise addressed the Research Objective 2. The results of the hypotheses provided clear insights about addressing specific quality issues plaguing the private-unaided HE sector, and giving a practical policy framework based on empirical analysis. The research’s findings revealed a significant impact of TE on TRFQ and its dimensions. It showed that TE can negatively impact critical confidence of students because of faculty perception. Thus, it draws attention of institutional management to recruit faculty members who are firm of their belief of student potential, rather than those who fall prey to prejudices and popular perceptions (Tsui, 2001). The removal of Emotionality post-CFA, despite being supported in various academic publications (Sanchez-Ruiz, Mavroveli, & Poullis, 2013) has important implications as well. One reason for non-inclusion of emotionality from faculty’s perspective could be the glaring exclusion of aspects of Social and Emotional learning (SEL) in the continuous professional development of teachers (Deccan Herald, 2019), which reflects in the poor loadings of emotionality dimension of TRFQ. Prior research has endorsed SEL, because these skills are teachable, and they can benefit students from all backgrounds (Cohen, 2006). The exclusion of Emotionality in the context of private-unaided HEIs is a crucial finding for policymakers to lay stress on the importance of SEL training for teachers, with the assistance of which they can further support and enhance emotional stability among their students, and thus contribute towards Transformative Quality of an institution. These insights can help not only existing HEIs, but also those intending to enter the private-unaided HE sector. The erstwhile access providers cannot be pushed into poverty at the cost of providing inclusiveness and access. To break free from the rigmarole of self-fulfilling ranking systems, the private-unaided HEIs must work towards enhancement and empowerment of their key stakeholder – the student. Since the front-line faculty has direct access to students, and closely interacts with them, their perspectives on quality become vital. Therefore, it is important for policymakers to take into account, the previously ignored class of stakeholders of HE sector, that is, the front-line faculty.