Impact of Non-academic Responsibilities of Teachers on Teaching Quality

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2454759/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Impact of Non-academic Responsibilities of Teachers on Teaching Quality

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2454759/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Teaching quality in an education system becomes the foundation and roadmap to the development of young people and country at large. If the quality of education declines the productivity of the country also declines. Whatever the type of education institutions running in the country must emphasize on improving the quality of education they are intended to provide. Nowadays it can be noticed that many education institutions are becoming commercial and mainly focusing on getting grades, certifications, rankings and recognitions. The purpose of presence study is to examine the impact of non-academic responsibilities on quality of teaching. For this purpose study adopted descriptive research design to analyse the collected data from the teachers teaching in higher education. This study observed that non-academic responsibilities are significantly influencing on teaching quality in India. Thus, the higher education institutions and regulators should work together to bring policies, strategies and methods to balance both academic and non-academic responsibilities without compromising with the teaching quality. If this will be the reality the competencies of the students for their survival will be enhanced and in turn the overall productivity of young people will also go up for the long run.

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Teaching

academic responsibility

non-academic responsibility

teaching quality

student’s competency

student’s survival

Teaching quality in an education system becomes the foundation and roadmap to the development of young people and country at large. If the quality of education declines the productivity of the country also declines. Whatever the type of education institutions running in the country must emphasize on improving the quality of education they are intended to provide. Nowadays it can be noticed that many education institutions are becoming commercial and mainly focusing on getting grades, certifications, rankings and recognitions. Less importance is observed towards the teaching quality and learning efficiency of students. Teaching quality is the key for developing the Competencies of students for their survival in the market. To ensure high quality teaching it is necessary to provide sufficient resources and build efficient teaching environment to teachers to the larger extent. But in the contrary today teachers are loaded with more non-academic responsibility than academic responsibility. This is the challenging aspect to be considered by the educational institutes and regulators of EIs (Educational Institutions) to create high quality teaching environment in India.

Concept and Need of Quality Education

Quality education is the competency of education system which makes learners capable of surviving in personal and their career life. Teaching quality cannot be measured by the qualification on credentials possessed by a teacher but it is actually measured in terms of his performance in the classroom environment (Heck,2007; IRDA). Teaching strategy adopted by teacher is the indicator of his quality and which can also be measured in terms of student’s achievement. Further the speed of a teacher can be measured by the speed of slowest learner in his classroom environment. Teacher quality and pedagogical strategy is playing very important role in higher education which helps the students to succeed in real life (Okecha et al; 2008).the teaching quality is described in three segments first one logical way through defining, demonstrating, modeling, explaining, correcting, psychological way through caring, motivating, punishing, planning, evaluating and moral way based on showing honesty, courage, tolerance, compassion, respect, fairness (Berliner; 2005).Teaching quality helps the students improve their performance by learning concepts by focusing on understanding and memorizing the course and content (Marton F. and Säljö R.; 1976).

Teaching quality makes teacher extraordinary, the way they teach and improve the educational experience provide the global platform for the students. (Taylor; 2003) lists thirteen abilities needed for Quality Teaching and learning. These abilities supports the traditional method of teaching and also helps to give subject knowledge and skill required to understand the global requirement and provides skills in leadership and management. quality culture of institution need to change teaching excellence time to time for improving understanding and teaching excellency( Skelton ;2005).

Quality teaching is needed for giving values for learners .to overcome communication barriers to clear the gap existence in classroom teaching due to pandemic situation quality education helps in overcoming lack of self-interest and self- motivation impact of social media and video games impact of bad habits, television programme.

By observing this aspect the present paper is a unique effort to examine the impact of non-academic responsibility on teaching quality in India by considering the perception of teachers who are in the higher education environment. The paper is organized as literature review, purpose, methodology, discussion and conclusion.

The purpose of this section to explain the various concepts relating to paper through earlier literatures and to present the summary of earlier research outcomes.

Literature on Factors Influencing on Quality Education

For studying the earlier researches and to derive the research gap in the context of factors influencing quality education literatures have been reviewed in three contexts they are depicted in the following chart.

It is the responsibility of all the institutions to provide adequate infrastructure to the students. The student’s expectation from the quality education is the adequate support to learn better (Chalmers, 2007). These services include:

Student financial support
Financial scholarships for underrepresented / disadvantaged groups of students
Student educational/academic support
Student social support, transition programs
specifically for minority students
Guidance/ counseling services
Staff development programs
The provision of advice and support for the interpretation of feedback/evaluation data

Quality teaching should aims at student centered while transferring knowledge to learners rather than teacher centered. Thus, attention should be given to each and every students based on the academic, social support, financial support and should provide counselling services to the students in need along with the pedagogical knowledge. The learning outcome will improve only when learning environment is satisfying the needs of students. Both the teacher and learner get satisfaction when there is a collaboration of knowledge by the teachers and students and it will help in building knowledge and helps in interaction in learning communities.

Institutional Perspective

The essential part played by the University and its administration in creating a quality culture is many. Quality Teaching initiatives are more likely to be successful in an environment in which quality is highly valued. The teamwork and continuous improvement in University’s organizational culture will result in overall success (Madu & Kuei; 1993). The main step to achieve quality culture in Universities is that the organisation must have well-defined mission and vision statement (Yorke; 2000) (Argyris; 1990). Developing vision and mission statement and strategy to achieve quality culture in organisation need to know the necessity of the quality culture in organisation. Creating team for empowering the team for developments and generate new ideas (Burnes; 1992) (Kotter; 1996). To achieve some early success just to sustain the enthusiasm to work on ultimate success (Beatty and Ulrich,; 1991).

The managerial leadership and Quality Teaching in higher education can only be achieved if the Universities respect these three steps: 1) Communicate a clear statement of mission 2) Successfully implement core processes with the help of empowered staff by timely data, resources, information, intelligence and knowledge of best practices 3) Take into account the educational environment and its transformations (Osseo‐Asare, A. E., Longbottom, D., & Chourides, P; 2005). Quality teaching correlates with the mission statement of institutions. The institution should focus on the quality education provided through the lessons clarity, interest in learning and the environment of classroom teaching (Webbstock; 1999) (Hativa et al.; 2001). If the accurate student ratio is not maintained in universities individual attention to the students cannot be achieved through which slow learners remains as slow learner and fast learner won’t get opportunity to explore more (Roy, S. T. ;2016). University class timings also very important in achieving the cent percent performance of students. If available time is not sufficient for class and explaining concept as expectation. The quality of institutions can have direct effects on education quality. The literature points out that corruption, which is one of the dimensions of institutional quality, reduces the value of diplomas from the education system considered corrupt. Its effect can be seen in the production and distribution of textbooks, the organization of examinations, the recruitment of teachers, and the awarding of scholarships. The first channel concerns public spending on education. In fact, public spending on education plays an important role in the quality and quantity of education by promoting the supply of educational inputs, i.e., the construction of schools, the recruitment and training of teachers, and the provision of teaching and learning materials to schools (Henard, F., & Leprince-Ringuet, S. ;2008). However, the volume and productivity of this public spending on education can be affected by institutional quality.

Although the authors agree that a good quality of education is essential for a country’s development, there is not yet a general on the definition and measurement of education quality ( Fomba, B. K., Talla, D. N. D. F., & Ningaye, P. ;2022). The quality dimension is much more than education quality, the students’ performance in traditional terms of curriculum and standards will reflect the education quality (Coombs; 1985). Education quality also depends on the relevance of what is taught and learned and how this meets the current and future needs of the students concerned, taking into account their particular circumstances and perspectives. It also refers to significant changes in the education system itself, the nature of its inputs (students, teachers, infrastructure, equipment and materials), its objectives, educational and curriculum technologies; and its socio-economic, cultural and political environment.” Education quality is as difficult to define as it is to measure (Mwende, L. D.; 2014). An adequate definition must take into account the results obtained by students. These include a satisfactory level of student achievement in relation to learning goals, low disparities in student achievement, and high completion rates. An education system is of good quality when the students in it have relatively high scores on standardized acquisition tests (Samof; 2007). Quality depends on the importance of the financial and human resources mobilized based on the well-trained teachers, limited class sizes, abundance of appropriate equipment and materials, etc. In other words, the higher the resources, the higher the quality of the education system (Belmonte et al.; 2020).

Teachers Perspective

The teacher must fulfil the requirement to be the best to provide quality education which includes the teacher sensitivity to class level and progress, course requirement clarity, respect and encouragement for the student’s independent thought (Feldman ;1976).teacher must fulfil the complete subject knowledge and command on the subject matter which will enhance the students learning ability and also gives the standard for teachers (Shulman ;1987).teacher can provide quality teaching when they are allotted with the appropriate workload so that they clearly explain the concept with deep understanding with the complete preparation on it (Marsh ;1987). the teaching experience and the qualification of a teacher are significantly correlated to better student achievement (Chalmers ;2007) the method of teaching and involvement of teachers in classroom teaching, eye contact, physical movement, tone of lecture delivery, increased motivation, encouragement in self-development also have the great impact on the student learning (Perry and Penner ;1990). Teachers in higher education must give the time for the development of individual students one to one and also make them think independently. Critical thinking helps the students to apply the previous knowledge to solve the new problems in new situations and to take decisions based on the critical evaluation (Tehseen, S., & Hadi, N. U.; 2015).

We define critical thinking as the degree to which students report applying previous knowledge to new situations to solve problems, reach decisions, or make critical evaluations with respect to standards of excellence (McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, Smith, & Sharma,; 1990) ( Pintrich, Smith, Garcia. & McKeachle; 1991). Classic learning issues such as transfer of knowledge and application of problem-solving skills to unique situations is also influenced by critical thinking (Halpern, 1989; Nickcrson, Perkins, & Smith; 1985). This research has shown that students' goals are related to their degree of cognitive engagement. Engaging in a task for reasons such as interest, mastery, challenge -- having an intrinsic goal orientation -- is related to "deeper" processing, whereas engaging in a task for reasons such as demonstrating one's ability, getting a good grade, or besting others -- having an extrinsic goal orientation - is related to shallower levels of information processing(Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. ;1992). This line of research has demonstrated the importance of motivation in students' cognitive engagement; accordingly, our model includes intrinsic goal orientation as a factor that may positively influence critical thinking. Previous studies have examined the links between motivation and learning strategies, but there has been little research on the links between motivation and critical thinking.

Teacher must have a high qualification, critical thinking, updating knowledge and motivating skill to encourage students being role model. Young minds receive which is showcased to them so it’s the requirement of teacher to have Excellency in the field of education.

To enhance the quality education encouraging student engagement and learning communities. The students should be actively involved in the group learnings will have an greater impact on their learning skill, Universities and teachers must involve students in engagement activities which help them grow in global level. it is the responsibility of the Universities and teachers to help learners by creating a successful environment were quality education is improving the learning outcome(Thomas; 2002). Successful learning environment and strategic teaching enables the students to thing in multi-level and helps in gaining deeper understanding of the subjects. The benchmark on the quality education should be made to practice best learning in higher education by comparing with other institutions best practices.

The quality culture in the Universities administration enhance the quality teaching, quality culture is achieved when departments and teachers work together in a University. (Gibbs; 1995). The University should set a goal to achieve quality education by having a core goal and mission (Patrick & Lines; 2004).

Students Perspective

The family environment and the socio-economic environment also have an impact on the student’s educational performance. Their family’s annual income, culture, customs, literacy level of parents, and other factors have an impact on the quality education (Davis-Kean, 2005; Ferreira et al.; 2011).Students social environment and family background should be self- sufficient to fulfil the requirement of learners. This is very important in present as money decides the quality education of learners. The student has to be goal oriented to grab the opportunity in fast moving world(Patrick & Lines; 2004).

Impact of Teaching Efficiency on Quality Education

Pandemic situation brought more challenge in teaching methods. Usage of ICT and improving the skill is the need for teachers. Technology is taken away all the traditional method of teaching and motivating teachers to focus on self-improvement by having knowledge in different aspects. Quality education focus on the students requirement so there is need to give attention on employing local teachers who are familiarity with local languages. A pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) of under 30:1 will be ensured at the level of each school; areas having large numbers of socio-economically disadvantaged students will aim for a PTR of under 25:1,” lays down the policy. The efficiency in education will help the economic development (Hanushek et al; 2015).

Challenges Faced by Teachers in Delivery of Quality Education

In the technological era use of technology in classroom teaching makes the study more interesting and provide more quality knowledge to the learner. To have the hold on technology the teacher must know to use the technology effectively in her course and make her students get the wide range of knowledge. (Subramani & Iyappan;2018). Additional responsibilities such as admission, administrative work are causing more stress in faculties which will have an impact on delivering quality teaching (Shull, 1972). The occupational stress will affect the quality time of the teacher and will negatively impact on the quality teaching.

Non-academic Responsibilities and Teaching Quality

At present teachers are not only having a single role of knowledge facilitator but they also plays different roles in higher education. Administrative work, admission and many other duties and responsibilities are imposed on teachers (Subramani & Iyappan; 2018).

Teacher has to perform other responsibilities apart from delivering and demonstrating lectures but also include the other responsibilities of preparing test papers, project orientation to students, seminar and presentation guidance, attendance report submission, updating syllabus, examination committee responsibility, updating knowledge by joining certificate courses and research on the area of specialization.

Research points out that quality teaching is necessarily student-centred; its aim is most and for all student learning. Thus, attention should be given not simply to the teacher’s pedagogical skills, but also to the learning environment that must address the students’ personal needs: students should know why they are working, should be able to relate to other students and to receive help if needed. Adequate support to staff and students (financial support, social and academic support, support to minority students, counselling services, etc.,) also improves learning outcomes. Learning communities – groups of students and/or teachers who learn collaboratively and build knowledge through intellectual interaction – are judged to enhance student learning by increasing students’ and teachers’ satisfaction.

The earlier literatures showed that there are lot of efforts made by researchers to study the teaching quality on various dimensions and no study made an attempt to evaluate and analyse the impact of non-academic responsibility on teaching quality. Therefore, the present paper is intended to analyse the “impact of non-academic / additional responsibility on teaching quality in Indian context”.

Based on the literature survey and study of various aspects influencing on teaching quality following research questions have been framed:

What are the responsibilities bearing by teachers today?
How the responsibilities of teachers influencing on teaching quality?

The present research is aimed at analysing the perception of teachers regarding to non-academic responsibility of teachers and its impact on teaching quality.

The paper adopts descriptive method of research involved in analysing the perception of teachers regarding to non-academic responsibility of teachers and its impact on teaching quality through using various statistical measurements and tools such as mean, percentage, standard deviation and t-statistics.

The data is the base for the outcome of any research and both primary and secondary source of information is employed for the paper. Teachers are the main respondents to the current research. Therefore, primary data is gathered from college teachers who are working in Mangalore University region. The structured questionnaire is distributed to 583 teachers’ randomly through google-form and 255 filled and completed responses were received and all the received responses are used for the further analysis to achieve the objective of the study.

The secondary sources of information is gathered through published research articles, newspapers, academic reports.

This part of the paper deals with the analysis and interpretation of gathered data from the teachers so as to achieve the objective of the study. The detailed description and summary of outcome of the study is presented as follows:

Personal Profile

Personal details like gender, age, marital status, annual income and residential area were asked with respondents in order to know the demographic background of the college teachers and tabulated in Table No.1.

Table No.1: Personal Profile

Demographic Parameter	Category	Frequency	Percentage
	Male	64	40.5
Gender	Female	94	59.5
	Total	158	100
Age	25-30	84	53.2
	31-35	26	16.5
	36-40	30	19
	41 & above	18	11.4
	Total	158	100
Marital Status	Married	90	57
	Single	66	41.8
	Widowed	2	1.3
	Total	158	100
Annual Income	Less Than 2,00,000	60	38
	2,00,001 - 4,00,000	58	36.7
	4,00,001 - 6,00,000	20	12.7
	Above & 6,00,000	20	12.7
	Total	158	100
Residential Area	Rural	44	27.8
	Semi-Urban	40	25.3
	Urban	74	46.8
	Total	158	100

Table No.1 exhibits personal profile of the college teachers in higher education and showed that 59.5% of the teachers are female and 40.5% of the college teachers are male. The table indicates that majority of the respondents (53.2%) are age group between 25-30 and 57% of the college teachers are married. Further, it also showed that 38% of the college teachers have less than 200000 annual income and 46.8% of the of the residing in urban areas.

Employment Status

Employment details like Field of Teaching, Job Type, Designation, and Workload per week, Number of Subject handling and Teaching experience were asked with respondents in order to know the employment background of the college teachers and tabulated in Table No.2.

Table No.2: Employment Status

Employment Status Parameter	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Field of Teaching	Commerce and Management	72	45.60
	Humanities	60	37.97
	Science	26	16.43
	Total	158	100
Job Type	Full Time	142	89.9
	Part Time	16	10.1
	Total	158	100
Designation	Professor	72	45.6
	Associate – Professor	10	6.3
	Assistant – Professor	10	6.3
	Guest Faculty	62	39.2
	Other	4	2.5
	Total	158	100
Workload per week	Less than 5	10	6.3
	Between 6-10	32	20.3
	Between 11-16	76	48.1
	17 & Above	40	25.3
	Total	158	100
Number of Subjects Handling	1	4	2.5
	2	48	30.4
	3	50	31.6
	4 and Above	56	35.4
	Total	158	100
Teaching Experience	Less than 10	114	72.2
	11-20	30	19
	21-30	10	6.3
	31 and above	4	2.5
	Total	158	100

Table No.2 shows the employment status of the college teachers in the higher education and it indicates that 45.60% of the college teachers from commerce and management field of Teaching. It also showed that 89.9% of the college teachers are having full time job and majority (45.6%) of the professor participated. 48.1% of the college teachers have workload of 11-16 hours per week. Further, it showed that 35.4% of the college teachers handling 4 and above subjects and 72.2% of the college teachers have less than 10 years of teaching experience.

Academic Responsibilities

Researcher asked the college teachers to state the academic responsibilities assigned to them and the results tabulated in Table No.3.

Table No.3: Academic Responsibilities

Academic Responsibilities		Responses		Percent of Cases
Academic Responsibilities		N	Percent	Percent of Cases
	Project guide	76	14.1%	48.1%
	NAAC work	86	16.0%	54.4%
	UGC documentation work	44	8.2%	27.8%
	Attendance maintenance and reporting	116	21.6%	73.4%
	Research	74	13.8%	46.8%
	Valuation of papers	118	21.9%	74.7%
	Others	24	4.5%	15.2%
Total		538	100.0%	340.5%
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Table No.3 shows the academic responsibilities assigned to the college teachers and it reflected with multiple responses for each option. The table showed that 14.1% of the college teachers assigned Project guide and 16% of the college Teachers are assigned NAAC work. Further, around 22% of the college teachers assigned with attendance maintenance and reporting work and valuation of papers. The Multiple Response Rate is 3.40 (538/158), which explains that college teachers assigned 3 to 4 additional academic responsibilities.

Additional Responsibilities

Researcher asked the college teachers to state the Additional responsibilities assigned to them and the results tabulated in Table No.4.

Table No.4: Additional Responsibilities

Additional Responsibilities		Responses		Percent of Cases
Additional Responsibilities		N	Percent	Percent of Cases
	Class co-ordinator/ Advisor	62	24.31%	39.24%
	NSS	30	11.76%	18.98%
	NCC	17	6.67%	10.76%
	Admission	43	16.86%	27.22%
	Cultural	20	7.84%	12.65%
	Administrative	25	9.80%	15.82%
	Sports	10	3.92%	6.33%
	Extra – curricular	16	6.27%	10.13%
	Special officer (lecturer+ vice- principal)	10	3.92%	6.33%
	Organizing conference/workshop/ seminar	14	5.49%	8.86%
	Other	8	3.13%	5.06%
Total		255	100.0%	161.38%
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Table No.4 shows the additional responsibilities assigned to the college teachers and it reflected with multiple responses for each option. The table showed that 39.24% of the college teachers assigned as Class co-ordinator/ Advisor and 16.86% of the college Teachers are assigned with Admission work. Further, 11.76% of the college teachers assigned with NSS work and 7.84% of the teachers assigned with cultural duties. The Multiple Response Rate is 1.61 (161.38/158), which explains that college teachers assigned 1 to 2 additional responsibilities.

Impact on Teaching Quality

Researcher tried to identify the impact of additional responsibilities on the teaching quality and opinions of the college teachers are tabulated in Table No.5.

Table No.5: Impact on Teaching Quality

	N	Mean	S.D	S.E	t	Sig.
Not getting time to prepare PPT for Subject	158	3.71	1.096	.087	8.129	.000
Not able to bring innovative or creative teaching techniques	158	3.71	1.073	.085	8.308	.000
Not able to give enough time to students who continuously performs poorly in his/her exams	158	3.63	1.131	.090	7.036	.000
Reduced interaction time with students other than subject matter	158	3.67	1.043	.083	8.083	.000
Additional responsibilities improved my communication skills	158	3.99	1.016	.081	12.219	.000
Additional responsibilities improved my interpersonal skills	158	4.04	.909	.072	14.351	.000
I am able to show the positive attitude in the classroom after my additional responsibilities	158	3.89	.971	.077	11.473	.000
Sometime i carry on off work emotions to the work	158	3.42	1.078	.086	4.871	.000
I will be more liberal to the students who helped me in my additional responsibilities	158	2.87	1.087	.086	-1.464	.145
Additional responsibilities made me to attend the class late	158	3.18	1.254	.100	1.776	.078
Due to additional responsibilities some time i have to skip the class	158	3.25	1.111	.088	2.864	.005
I am losing passion about teaching profession	158	2.92	1.203	.096	-.794	.429
I feel depressed after additional responsibilities	158	3.13	1.230	.098	1.294	.198
I always collect feedback about my teaching	158	3.61	1.002	.080	7.621	.000
I am not able to keep honesty towards work	158	2.94	1.240	.099	-.642	.522
Additional responsibility affects on self-improvement	158	3.43	1.233	.098	4.387	.000
Overall	158	3.46	1.105	.088	4.861	.000

Table No.5 shows the opinions of college teachers on impact of additional responsibilities on Teaching Quality and their asked in five-point Likert scale. If mean values less than 2, then it means college teachers strongly disagree with statement , if mean value is 2.1 to 3 which means Disagree with statement, if mean value is between 3.1 to 4 which means college teachers agree with statement and if mean value is greater 4 which means college teachers strongly agree with statement Table shows that college teachers agree that they are not getting time to prepare PPT for subject and not able to bring innovative or creative teaching techniques (M=3.71) an due to additional responsibility and also agree that additional responsibilities reduced interaction time with students other than subject matter (M=3.667) and not able to give enough time to students who continuously performs poorly in his/ her exams. It also showed that college teachers strongly agree that additional responsibilities improved their interpersonal skills (M=4.04) and agreed that sometimes they carry on off work emotions to the work (M=3.42) and attend class in late time (M=3.25). Further, it showed that college teachers disagree that they are more liberal to the students who helped them in their additional responsibilities (M=2.87), losing passion about teaching profession (M=2.92) and not able to keep honesty towards work (M=2.94). The overall mean and standard deviation is 3.46±1.105, which means that college teachers agree that additional responsibilities on Teaching Quality. One-Sample t test conducted to check the significance of the opinion given by college teachers and since p value less than 0.01, which means based on the perceived opinions of college teachers it can be infer that additional responsibilities have significant impact on the teaching quality.

General Impact

Researcher tried to identify the impact of additional responsibilities on the general aspects of the college teachers’ life and opinions of the college teachers are tabulated in Table No.6.

Table No.6: General Impact

	N	Mean	S.D	S.E	t	Sig.
Concentration is badly impacted	158	3.34	1.127	.090	3.811	.000
lack of time leads to argument or quarrelling	158	3.33	1.137	.090	3.639	.000
Additional work load leads to misunderstanding with colleagues	158	3.48	1.138	.091	5.311	.000
Difficult to manage personal and work life	158	3.72	1.105	.088	8.207	.000
Additional work result in occupational burnout	158	3.48	1.138	.091	5.311	.000
Occupational burnout is the cause of various health issues	158	3.81	.985	.078	10.339	.000
Recreation activities are affected	158	3.66	.982	.078	8.421	.000
lack of recognition to the additional responsibilities	158	3.66	1.081	.086	7.652	.000
Brings gap between senior faculties and Junior faculties	158	3.65	1.083	.086	7.493	.000
Brings conflicts among colleagues	158	3.52	1.138	.091	5.731	.000
Overall		3.565	1.091	0.0869	6.5915	.000

Table No.6 shows the opinions of college teachers on impact of additional responsibilities on General aspects of college teachers’ life and their asked in five-point Likert scale. If mean values less than 2, then it means college teachers strongly disagree with statement, if mean value is 2.1 to 3 which means Disagree with statement, if mean value is between 3.1 to 4 which means college teachers agree with statement and if mean value is greater 4 which means college teachers strongly agree with statement. Table showed that college teachers agreed that concentration is badly affected due to additional responsibility (M=3.34) and agreed that lack of time leads to argument or quarrelling (M=3.33), misunderstanding with colleagues (M=3.48), Difficult to manage personal and work life (M=3.72) and Occupational burnout is the cause of various health issues (M=3.81). Further, it showed that college teachers agreed that Occupational burnout is the cause of various health issues (M=3.81) , due to additional responsibilities recreational activities are affected (M=3.66) and it brings gap between senior faculties and junior faculties (M=3.65). The overall mean and standard deviation is 3.56±1.109, which means that college teachers agree that additional responsibilities impact on general aspects of college teachers’ life. One-Sample t test conducted to check the significance of the opinion given by college teachers and since p value less than 0.01, which means based on the perceived opinions of college teachers it can be infer that additional responsibilities have significant impact on the general aspects of the college teachers.

The teaching quality in Indian higher education institution is largely influenced by non-academic responsibilities possessed by teachers than that of academic responsibilities. From the present study it is found that the teachers are not getting sufficient time for preparing the contents to reach students as per lesson plan. Further, they are facing difficulties in balancing both teaching and non-teaching responsibilities at a time. They are also in difficulty to manage their personal life too. It is also observed that the non-academic responsibilities is causing for occupational burnout and which in turn becoming the reasons for various stress related health issues faced by the teachers today. Further, the additional responsibilities are not giving any recognition in their career and creating gap between senior and junior faculties. It is evidently observed that non-academic responsibilities are significantly influencing on teaching quality in India.

Thus, the higher education institutions and regulators should work together to bring policies, strategies and methods to balance both academic and non-academic responsibilities without compromising with the teaching quality. If this will be the reality the competencies of the students for their survival will be enhanced and in turn the overall productivity of young people will also go up for the long run.

This study mainly focused on non-academic responsibilities and its impact on teaching quality and not focused on other aspects of education such as teachers’ role other than teaching in an educational institutions and ways to improve the teaching quality without eliminating non-academic responsibility. These areas are potential for future research.

Heck, R. H. “Examining the Relationship Between Teacher Quality as an Organizational Property of Schools and Students’ Achievement and Growth Rates,” Educational Administration Quarterly (2007) 43 (4), 399-342.

Okoye, N.S., and S.O. Momoh, D.O. Aigbomian, R.E. Okecha. “Teachers’ Quality, Instructional Strategies and Students’ Performance in Secondary School Science,” Journal of Instructional Psychology (2008) 34 (4), 204-211.

Tehseen, S., & Hadi, N. U. (2015). Factors influencing teachers’ performance and retention. Mediterranean journal of social sciences, 6(1), 233.

Henard, F., & Leprince-Ringuet, S. (2008). The path to quality teaching in higher education. París: OCDE. Recuperado de https://www1. oecd. org/edu/imhe/44150246. pdf.

Berliner, D.C. “The Near Impossibility of Testing For Teacher Quality,” Journal of Teacher Education (2005) 56 (3), 205-213.

Fomba, B. K., Talla, D. N. D. F., & Ningaye, P. (2022). Institutional quality and education quality in developing countries: Effects and transmission channels. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-30.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1992). Critical Thinking and Its Relationship to Motivation, Learning Strategies, and Classroom Experience.

Mwende, L. D. (2014). School Based Factors Influencing Quality of Education in Public Secondary Schools in Kitui County, Kenya. MED Project, University of Nairobi.

Roy, S. T. (2016). Quality teaching: It’s Importance in Higher Education. A Conceptual View. International Research Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(11), 91-102.

Marton F. and Säljö R. (1976), “On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 46, pp.4-11

Taylor, M. (2003), “Teaching capabilities and professional development and qualifications framework project: stage one”, unpublished report, Melbourne: RMIT University

Skelton Alan ; 2006; Understanding Teaching Excellence in Higher Education - Towards a Critical Approach Copyright Year 2006 ISBN 9780415333283 Published October 20, 2005 by Routledge; 208 Pages

Chalmers, D. (2007) A review of Australian and international quality systems and indicators of learning and teaching, August

Osseo‐Asare, A. E., Longbottom, D., & Chourides, P. (2007). Managerial leadership for total quality improvement in UK higher education. The TQM Magazine.

Madu, C.N. & Kuei. C. (1993), “Dimension of Quality Teaching in higher institutions”, Total Quality Management, Vol.4 , No.3

Yorke, M. (2000), “Developing a quality culture in Higher Education”, Tertiary Education management, Vol.6, No.1, pp.19-36

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Allyn & Bacon

Burnes, B. (1992), Managing change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Development, Pitman, London

Kotter, J. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

Beatty, R.W. & Ulrich, D.O. (1991), “Re-energizing the Mature Organization”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.20, pp.16-30

Osseo-Asare, A., Longbottom, D., and Murphy, W. (2005), Leadership best practices for sustaining quality in UK higher education from the perspective of the EFQM Excellence Model, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol.13.

Webbstock, D. (1999), “An evaluative look at the model used in the assessment of teaching quality at the University of Natal, South Africa: reflections rewards and reconsiderations”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.24 , No.2

Hativa, N., Barak, R. and Simhi E. (2001), “Exemplary University Teachers: Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Effective Teaching Dimension and Strategies”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol.72 , pp.699-729

Coombs, P. H. (1985). The World Crisis in Education: The View from the Eighties. Oxford University Press Inc.

Samof, J. (2007). Education quality: The disabilities of aid. International Review of Education, 53(5/6), 485–507

Belmonte, A., Bove, V., D’Inverno, G., & Modica, M. (2020). School infrastructure spending and educational outcomes: Evidence from the 2012 earthquake in Northern Italy. Economics of Education Review, 75, 101951.

Feldman, K.A. (1976), “Grades and college students’ evaluations of their courses and teachers”, Research in Higher Education, Vol.4

Shulman, L.S. (1987); “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol.57, pp. 1-22

Marsh, H.W. (1987), “Students’ evaluation of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues and directions for future research”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol.11, pp.255- 378

Perry, R. P., & Penner, K. S. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in college students through attributional retraining and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 262–271.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y. G., Smith, D. A. F., & Sharma, R. (1990). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Halpern D. (1989). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Nickerson, RS., Perkins, D.N., & rith. E.E. (1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus. Journal of education policy, 17(4), 423-442.

Gibbs, G. (1995), “The Relationship between Quality in Research and Quality in Teaching”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol.1, No.2

Patrick, K. and Lines, R. (2004) Assuring and improving teaching quality, in Education Development and leadership in Higher Education, Kim Fraser (ed), 2004

Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The infuence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The Indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294–304.

Ferreira, M., Cardoso, A. P., & Abrantes, J. L. (2011). Motivation and relationship of the student with the school as factors involved in the perceived learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1707–1714.

Hanushek, E. A., Schwerdt, G., Wiederhold, S., & Woessmann, L. (2015). Returns to skills around the world: Evidence from PIAAC. European Economic Review, 73, 103-130.

Subramani, P. N., & Iyappan, V. (2018). Innovative methods of teaching and learning. Journal of applied and advanced research, 3(1), 20.

Shull Jr, F. A. (1972). Professorial stress as a variable in structuring faculty roles. Educational Administration Quarterly, 8(3), 49-66.

Statement of Ethics Approval: In the data collection process a statement of consent was included in the questionnaire if they agreed to fill the questionnaire then they are allowed to fill the questionnaire. This method is approved by the Research Committee of Srinivas University, Mangalore, India. further, all ethical aspects are followed during the present research.

Statement of Competing Interests: There are no competing interests among the authors.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Impact of Non-academic Responsibilities of Teachers on Teaching Quality

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Earlier Literatures And Literature Gap

3. Research Questions

4. Research Purpose

5. Methodology

6. Discussion And Analysis

7. Findings And Conclusion

8. Scope For Further Research

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1