sparkes--quality in higher education

7/28/2019 Sparkes--Quality in Higher Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sparkes-quality-in-higher-education 1/6

Quality in highereducationby John J. Sparkes

Quality in higher education can be de_finedas a i,lzattevo f kpecfying worthwhile learning goals and enablingstudents to achieve them’. W it h thisas theiv aim, i’t is jvs t necessary b v teachers to distinguish between dflerent

kinds o f learning and to know what to d o to h dp students achievc. theiv learninggoals and, secondly,todistinguish between students’dgerent pefewed ledvning styles and to accommodate them. This paper explains

and’illustvateshow these things can be done.

Introduction

n April 1992 Rog er Roxby’ published an article inthis journal entitled ‘Quality in education’. It was ;inoverview by an industrialist of what engineeringIducation should be like. It distinguished between

four aspects of the process, namely ‘administrativefunctions, deliverables, delivery and deliverers (the3Ds). Having been in the electronics industry for 30years myself, I can recognise this kind of analysis, buthaving also been in university teaching for many yearsI can now recognise it as too simplistic. For example,the whole article is about what teachers should do :morder to tu rn out a ‘product’ which needs little furthcrtraining in industry I t is true that he ak o says’ that onecan ‘consider delivery in terms of a learning processinstead of a teaching process and understand hawstudents, individually and as a group, best learn asubject rather than how afaculty can best teach it’, buthe does not pursue thisimportant idea. This paperfocuses quite specifically on‘how students learn’ and onthe implications of thisknowledge on the meaningof ‘quality’ in highereducation, with particularreference to engineeringeducation.

Before analysing thenature of quality and ho w toachieve it, it is important tobe clear about the subjectmatter to be taught and

learned, particularly where engineering is concerned.In design, which is one of the key activities ofengineers, it is necessary, if quality s to be achieved, notonly to bring technological principles (such asfeedback, quality and production methods) to bear onthe process, but also to apply other disciplines such asscience, mathematics and value judgments as indicatedin Fig. 1. A similar breadth of subject matter does notusually have to be included on courses in these othersubjects.

Qu ality versus quality assurance

It is often said that it is not possible to define quality ineducation, but that one can recognise it when one seesit. This is not really true. Defining quality is actuallyquite easy; achieving it is the problem! Quality isnowadays generally regarded as ‘fitness for purpose’

which can be translated in the

Fig. 1 Venn d iagram i l lust ra t ing the re la t ionsh ipbetvveen engineering (or technology) and o ther

f ie lds of s t u d y

field of higher education as amatter of:

‘specifying worthwhilelearning goals and ena-bling students to achieve

them’,

where

‘specifiing worthwhilelearning goals’ involvespaying attention toacademic standards, to theexpectations of society, tostudents’ aspirations, to the

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND E DUCATION JOUR NAL DECEMBER 1993

253



demands of employers, to the requiiemeiits of inethods of teaching I t is not so much a matter ofprofessional institutions, to the fundamental distinguishing beme en different subjects, because allprinciples of the subject, etc These are not all subjects include most kinds of leaining, it is more acompatible, so there can be man) Talid inteipieta- matter of differentiating between different kinds oftions of ‘worthwhile’ It is necessarv theiefoie to be leaining Bloom’s famous taxonomy“ is inadequatecleai about the intended ainis (Roxb) ’s search for because it distinguishes between different educational‘the customer’ is simplistic even in his 0x7 n ‘ObjeCtiVeS‘, athei than between the different kinds ofenviroiiment, wlieie products are matched to the learning 11 hich enable people to achieve theseneeds of different kinds of customers ) ‘objectives’ For example, although students’ ‘under-

0 ‘enabling students to achieve’ these goals involxes standing’ can give rise to a variety of outcomes, theniaking u\e of research into how students learn and converse is not true That is , once the expectedbuilding on successful teaching experience outcomes have been specified, it is usually possible for

students to meet these objectives without having‘Qualiw’ is not , however, to be confuscd \+ith ‘qualit\ undcrstood Lciy much For cxamplc thcy can oficnassurance’ (ay Roxb y does) Th e puipose of qualin ansner exam questions intended to test their under-ascurance (QA) is to ensure that people standing by ‘recalling’ a model answer tocontinue to do what they believe thev a similar question, or by using a well-should do, as best they can, week in and practised intellectual ‘skdl’week ou t, and to introduce improve- Th e simple, commonly-used tax-nients wherever they can Q A therefore onomy in the cognitive do ma n,consists of procedures which can be comprisin g ‘knowledge’, ‘skills’ andapplied equally well to doing the wrong ‘understanding’, is satisfactory providedthings as to doing the right ones Edwards each term is well defined, and provided aDemng’, the guru of quality assurance in fourth kind of learning, usually referredindustry, sumnied up the situation with to as ‘know-how’, is added Unfor-the words tunately these terms are normally used

very imprecisely and tend to causeconfusion rather than clarification No tethat when scientists were faced with asirmlar problem, they solved it by givingeveiyday words such as ‘work’, ‘energy’,

Ensuiiiig that everyone does their best is ‘force’ and ‘inertia’ precise meanings forthe busiiiess of q i d t y assuiance, everyone use in a scientific context but retainingknowing, or better still understanding, ‘what to do’ is their everydav meaning in normal discourse. The same

necessary ifgood q u a l i f yis to be achieved But in oidei stiategy is being adopted here as regards learn ing termsto ‘understand what to do’ it is essential that teacheis used in an educational context Th e followingdistinguirh between the different kinds of learn ing definitions of ‘kinds of learning’, together withexpected of students, so that they can match their indications of the appropriate teaching strategies, areteaching and assessment methods to whatever goals are here proposedspecified Th e point is that different kinds of learningrequire different teaching and assessment metho ds Leai~iniy ri the cognitive dornazn

Regarding education as something which is‘delivered’ to students, as Roxby does, is unsatisfactorybecause education s too complex a matter simply to bedeliveied Th e best definition o f good teaching is ‘thecreation of educational environnients in \T hich available, in a motivating way)students can effectively achieve their learning goals’This is much nioie th an ‘delivery’ (e g in the form of A . c k d is defined as’ ‘a complex sequence o f actionslectures) since it can also involve various kinds of nThich has become so routinised through practice

inteiaction with teachers, colleagues or computers, and experience that it is pedormed almost auto-activity in laboratoriec, projects and so on Professional matically’ Examples include walking and playingteachers should be able to match the educational tennis, communication and interpersonal s u s ,eiivironiiients the) create to the learn ing they expect to using a computer, touch-typing, designing, applying5ee taking place mathematics, etc Skills, unlike knowledge, cannot

be learned instantaneously however interested theDifferent kinds of learning learner5 might be Note that skills such as ‘designing’

may also involve the use of ‘understanding’,Th e first task, therefore, wh en ainiing for quality in any ‘knowledge’ or ‘know-how’, it is the process itselfgiven field, 15 to distinguish between different kindc of which , like walking, can become a skill (Skills arelean ing in such a way that they map well on to different taught by instruction and demonstration and are

I

‘Everyone doing their best is not theanswer They must first know w hat todo’

K n o t i h l g e is ‘information that has been memorisedand can be iecalled in answer to a question’. (I t istaught b\ presenting information, or making it

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL DECEMBER 1995

254



learnt through practice with er ror correction whenneeded.)

Undevstanding is ‘th e capacity to use explanatoiyconcepts creatively in problem-solving’: for

example, in explanations of new phenomena, innew designs, in correcting unfamiliar errors andfaults, in asking searching questions, in argument anddiscussion, and so on . I t is the key to ‘thinking’ andto the ability to tackle new and unfamiliar problenissuccessfully. Acquiring understanding consists oft woparts:

(a ) becoming familiar with the re1ev.int explanatoryconcepts (e.g. energy, magnetism, productivity)

seeing how to apply them. So a rich learning environ-ment must include teachers (or books) introducing andexplaining the new concepts, putting th em in contextand illustrating how they can often predict outcomesbetter than common sense; and then ensuring that

students read and write about them, discuss and argueabout them, apply them in problem-solving exercises,explain them to fellow students, and so on. Whilst it istrue that ‘information’ can be ‘delivered’ o students, asRoxby suggests, the concepts on wh ich new forms ofunderstanding depend, cannot be transferred so simply.The best that teachers can do is to help studentsinternalise them, which is no different in principlefrom t h r early learning in childhood when thecommon sense concepts of ‘table’, ‘red’, ‘friendliness’,

upon which understanding depends(b ) learning to apply them to tasks such

as those listed in the definition.

(Understanding is taught by providinga ‘rich educational environment’, asexplained in more detail in a moment.)

Know-how is ‘a problem-solvingcapability, acquired through experi-ence’ rather than through gainingfamiliarity with explanatory conceptsand their application (cf. under-standmg). Thus problem-solutionswhich depend on ‘know-how’ areextrapolations from previous solutions,whereas problem-solutions whichdepend on ‘understanding’ are though t-

out from first principles and can be quite new. Th eintuitive and experiential elements i.n ‘know-how’,replace the analytical and theoretical elementscharacteristic of ‘understanding’. (Know-how islearnt through experience of successful problem-solving, such as that provided in apprenticeships.)

Hence, by specifying learning goals in terms of whatshould be ‘known’, what ‘skills’ should be acquired,what principles should be ‘understood’ and what kindsof ‘experiences’ are relevant, it is possible to provide‘good quality teaching’ in the sense that the methodsadopted match the intended learning goals.

In engineering a particularly impor tan t skill is that of‘integrative hinking’. Although this is a natural humancapability, since we use it all the time in the condu ct of

our everyday lives, it is easy to let it lapse when scientificrather than common sense concepts are being used. A sWolpert6 has pointed out, scientific concepts are not‘natural’, and conflict with com mon sense, so practicein integrating them with other considerations isneeded, as it is with any other skill.

The ‘rich learning environment’ referred to inconnection with developing understanding is neededto achieve the difficult jo b of internalising newconcepts-such as ‘force’, ‘inertia’, ‘magnetic flux’,‘entropy’ and ‘feedback’-in students’ minds and

etc. are acquired through guidedexperience in a rich learning environ-ment. The difference is that the new‘unnatural’ concepts, which students ofconceptually-rich subjects like sciencehave to internalise, do not emerge fromexperience as do common-sense ones;they were only identified in the last fewhundred years by geniuses, so they areunlikely to be recreated by studentswithout help. These new concepts have,so to speak, to be laid alongside common -sense ones, only to be used whenappropriate. Too much adherence toscientific concepts when common senseis more appropriate is one of thetemptations of academia!

The importance of understanding inengineering can be illustrated by considering theprocess of innovation.

First note that innovation is more than creativity (inengineering at any rate). Having a new idea is beingcreative, whereas innovation is the disciplined businessof converting the idea into a successful product orsystem. The British have always, it seems, been verycreative, but have all too often found that theircompetitors are better a t innovation.

There are three main ways of being innovative:

(a ) One can implement the idea in what seems like agood way, and evaluate the o utcome (e.g. byfeedback or ‘reflection’). This is innovation by trial-and-error and if one is lucky one can succeed; butin practice it wastes time, energy and money and

the erroii part can damage people for life.(b ) On e can extrapolate from experience, which is stilla bit chancy, but can be satisfactory as a means ofinnovation within current practice.

(c ) One can implement the idea by understandingboth the: problem and the capabilities of differentforms of implementation and by thinking out asolution. This is the only reliable forni ofinnovation beyond current practice, and has to beused to design new artefacts such as new typer ofintegrated circuits and space stations or systems such

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL DECEMBEK 1995

255

http://re1ev.int/

http://re1ev.int/



as Internet. So, for those heading for the top of theirprofession, ‘understanding’ is crucial.

. Note particularly that problem-based learning’ on itsown, wh ich has become very popular of late, does notusually lead to ‘understan ding’; it develops ‘knoxv-how’. Moct students cannot be expected to inducecuccessful explanatory concepts from experience, asNewton or Faraday did. So problems which requirescientific or technological solutions must be precededby an introduction and explication of the appropriateconcepts, and the problems must be chosen to bringout the need for these new concepts. The experienceof discovering, for example, that filling balloons withhot air can cause them to rise is the limit of validity ofproblem-based learning about hot-air balloons.Attempts to understand what is happening can just aswell lead to the 17th century idea of negative-massphlogiston being given off by the burner and Ming

the balloon, as to the current more complicatedexplanation in terms ofArchimedes’ principle. Equally,the everyday experience o f time passing slowly whenon e ic bored and quickly wh en o ne is absorbed doesnot naturally lead to the scientific idea of the stead)-passage of time!

h a r n i q in the ajective domainLearning in the ‘affective domain’ is also important.

Indeed the motivation to learn is crucial for all kinds oflearning, so steps must be taken to rekindle students’natural desire to learn if it has been allowed to lapse.Also, in designing, attitudesand values play as important apart as aspects of the cognitive

domain.The terms which dis-

tinguish elements of theaffective doniain do not,however, need special defini-tions, since n o new counter-intuitive concepts have beenintroduced to complicatematters, as has happened inscience and technology.

to gain approval of their work by their teachers,n-hilst others are motivated by the future oppor-tunities that learning seems to offer, and so on .

Experience, however, indcates that the naturalprocess of problem-solving motivates most learners,and develops many valuable transferable skills. Butit does not necessarily lead to any other kinds oflearning in the cognitive domain.

Artirirde can be defined’ as ‘the way a person viewssomething or behaves towards it, often in anevaluative way’. I t includes many personal qualitiessuch as diligence, obstinacy, willingness to co-operate, friendliness, etc.

Again it is not clear how to stimulate desirableattitudes or inhibit less desirable ones, although theexample of others, especially of parents, teachers andpeers, usually has a significant influence.

Mliie can be defined8 as ‘worth, merit, orimportance’. Values include moral values, socialvalues as well as aesthetic values.

To those motivated to learn, values can be taughtsimply by instruction; but the success of suchteaching depends far more on the attitudes of thelearners than does learning in th e cognitive domain.Th e example of others is, of course, again important.

The above elements of the proposed Taxonomy ofLearning are summarised in Fig. 2. The maindifference between cognitive concepts and affective

A Taxonomy of Learning

/ \Cog n t’be dom ain Affect ivebomain

0 knowledgeskills

understanding(includingconceptualdevelopment)

0 know-how

0 motivationattitudes(includingpersonalqualities)values

Fig. 2 The elements o f t h e p ro p o se d Ta x o n o myof Learn ing

Motivation is variously defined in dictionaries as ‘thedesire to do’ 01- ‘the drive to achieve’ or, moreprecisely‘, ‘the internal proc es that arouses, sustains

There are no clear methods by which student

in principle, attitudes andcriminals) can be changed.

and regulates human and animal behaviour’. Types of learners

concepts is that theaffective ones seem to lieeven ‘deeper’ in the

mind than the cognitiveones, and are con-sequently much moredifficult to influence. It isdificult enough tofamiliarise students withsuch concepts as rela-tivity o r entropy, thoug hit is well understoodhow it can be done, butit is not clear how, even

values (e.g. of hardened

motivation can reliably be achieved since peoplediffer very much in what it is that ‘turns them on’.Some teachers manage to motivate most of theirctudents simply by their personality and manner andenthusiasm, but they can equally well fail to motivatethe others. Similarly, he challenge of certain mbjectsis enough to motivate some students but todemotivate others. O r again, some students aremotivated priinarily by the desire to do well inexams and o ther forms of assessment, or by the desire

Research has shown that, where the development ofknowledge and understanding is involved, studentsdiffer as to their preferred learning styles.

0 Some are ‘doers’ and like to be active in theirlearning; some are ‘visualisers’ and find visual imageshelpful in making information memorable and insupporting the internalisation of new concepts;others are verbalisers and prefer to read or discuss orlisten.


256



0 Some students are ‘holist’ earners and like to beginwith an overview of a subject, whereas others are‘serialist’ learners and prefer step-by-stepdevelopment“. Books, which are naturally serialist incharacter, need therefore to include summaries,

signposts, redundancy (as regards explanations of keyconcepts), explanatory figure captions, etc., so thatholist students can easily read th em in their preferredmanner. On the other hand projects are holist incharacter so serialists may well need help with theirapproach to them.

0 Essential for th e development o f understanding, ariddesirable for al kinds of learning, is the need I:O

ensure that students adopt the ‘deep approach’ I:O

learning (i.e. the intention to understand andchallenge new statements) rather than the ‘sudaceapproach’, which is the intention simply 1x0

memorise the information given and practisespecified skills withou t question*’. Overloadedcourses often force students to adopt the surface

approach even when acquiring understanding is thegoal; and such students often do well since mc’sttypical exams, including those designed to testunderstanding, can usually be dealt wi th successfullywith the aid of a good memory! Better assessmentmethods are needed if understanding is to be testedproperly. On the other hand, lightly loaded coursesin which students fail to adopt a deep approach, aridwhich are examined in conventional ways, are tooeasy for young people with good memories. So thetendency is to overload courses rather than improvethe quality.

So if developing understanding is the aim, specialefforts must be made (a ) to stimulate the decpapproach, (b ) to teach appropriately and (c) to assessappropriately. Problem-based learning can be goadfor stimulating the deep approach., but it is notsufficient on its own to teach understanding.

Note, however, that overtly ‘active learning’ hasbecome the latest panacea for effective education, butlike all generalisations t claims too much(!). t is absurdto suggest that ‘passive’ activities, such as reading aridattending lectures, cannot contribute to the develop-ment of understanding; but it is important to appreciatethat they will only do so if the learners have ‘activeminds’ and are already adopting a deep approach. So

problem-based learning has a role to play, but it is hyno means the complete answer.

Designing courses

The first step in designing courses, therefore, is todetermine, in consultation with ‘stakeholders’ (as theyare now called), he kinds of courses needed. Since it isnot always easy for people to grasp the carefully defincdconcepts of knowledge, skills, understanding ar.dknow-how (rather than the common-sense and muchvaguer interpretations of these terms), a useful half-waystage is to describe well-known kinds of courses in

terms of these concepts. For example:

0 tvaining courses are mostly concerned withdeveloping specialised skills or know-how, but withlittle further conceptual development

general intevest courses are mostly concerned withknowledgebased on everyday levels of understanding,as well as with values

0 updating courses are mostly concerned with recentadvances in specialised knowledge-the relevantspecialised unders tanding being assumed

0 awareness courses are concerned with knowledgeand undeistanding a t a fairly superficial level (but noskills)

.first degree courses are concerned with knowledge, skills,understanding, know-how and values in varyingproportions depending on the subject. Sciencedegrees, for exaniple, are mainly concerned withdeveloping knowledgeand undevstandig. Arts degreesare mostly concerned with knowledge, literary skills

and valnejudgements.Medicine is strongly dependenton know-how,since the workings of the human bodyare still largely mysterious. Engineering requires twokinds of degrees: one which emphasises understandingand integrative skills for those who have to innovatesuccessfully beyond current practice; and on e whichemphasises know-howfor those who can be expectedto innovate within current practice. Both kinds ofdegrees are, of course, also concerned with values aswell as transferable skills such as communication andinterpersonal skills.

0 upgrading courses develop more advanced knowledge,skills and/or undeitstanding,usually for the purpose ofgaining a further qualification

0 capability courses are similar to upgrading coursesbut concentrate more on know-how and are usuallyvocationally oriented .

So, as a first step towards achieving quality, as definedearlier, (especially n engineering) it is helpful to decideon the kind of course that is needed. I t is then possibleto sort out the kinds of learning needed, and hence themix of teaching methods to use in order to optimisethe chances, of achieving the intended learning goals.

Teaching methods

The range of teaching methods available in highereducation tends to be limited in practice to thetraditional ones of lecturing, tutoring, peer tutoring,laboratory activities, computer-based learning of on ekind or another, ‘corrected’ assignments, problem-based learning (and ‘apprenticeships’) and projects. Buteach of these inethods can be adapted to maximise oneor other kind of learning, or a mixture of them. Forexample, tutorials” can be run as :

0 iwnedial tutorials, in which students’ problems aredealt with by the tutor, and their errors corrected.This is good for developing knowledge and skills.

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND E DUCATION JOURNAL DECEMBER 1995

25 7



0 Quality in higher education me ans ‘specifyingworthwhile learning goals and enabling students toachieve them.’

-There are many factors to be taken into account in

determining what is ‘worthwhile’.-‘Enabling students to achieve their learning goals’involves distinguishing betw een different kinds oflearning and between d ifferent kinds of learners.

0 To achieve quality, ‘Everyone doing their best is notthe answer; they m ust first kno w what to do.’

-Knowing what to do involves teachers and studentsknowing how to match their teaching and learningto the stated goals.

-Only then are quality assurance procedures neededto ensure that everyone continues to do their best.

Fig. 3educat ion

The basic strateg y for achiev ing qual i ty in higher

0 tcac l i iq tiitorials, in which t he focus is on the tutor,who explains and describes what is to be learned butensures continuous participation by the students-iiiuch as in a good lesson in school. They can beadapted to any kind of learning except kn ov -ho xdepending on the degree to which the tutordominates the activityp x ~ pooikiny in which the tutor is only a facilitatorand stimulates students to explain things to eachother and to sort out their own misunderstandings.For example, it is more important for the develop-ment of understanding for th e students to explain toeach other what they think they understand than tolisten again to the tutor explaining what they thinkthey don’t understand! Remedial tutorials can

become Group working if students are required toexplain to each oth er in pairs how they dealt with theset problems. To stimulate discussion and argumentit is usually necessary to present students (e.g. a t thebeginning of the tutorial) with an immediatecommon experience which challenges their under-standing.

Similarly, practical activities, whether in a laboratory ornot, can be designed to:

0 confirm statements made in a lecturediscover facts

0 develop measurenient skillsexercise exper imental design skills

0

improve understandingdevelop know-how0 iniprove communication skills0 improve interpersonal skills, and so on.

These differences in aim can be reflected in the designsof the activities.

In much the same way, al l the other methods ofteaching can, to some extent, be adapted to optimisethe development of different kinds of learning orcombinations of them, though some are more limited

than others . But to analyse each in turn is beyond thescope of this paper.

Conclusion

Th e ofi-expressed idea that quality in education cannotbe defined but that you can recognise it when you seeit is essentially a conservative strategy, ihdapted todealing Tyith change. It is the basis of ‘peer review’which is widely used at present to assess quality Thekey ideas behind a more objective way to achievequality in hig her education are shown in Fig. 3.

The proposed Taxonomy of Learning breaks dow nthe complex process of learning into distinguishableelements to which different teaching methods can bematched.

Thus the specification of a course or programnie-of-study must not only refer to the subject rnattep and topicsto be covered and the intend ed level and standavds aimeda t, but also to th e kinds oflearning involved. It is againstsuch a specification, plus the success rate of thestudents, that the quality of the teaching and assessmentin the education provided should be evaluated. Theevaluation of quality assurance procedures is also animportant matter, but a quite distinct one.

References

1 ROXBY. R . : ‘Quality in education’, Eng. Sci. 6 d. J ,

2 IDin‘.,p.813 DEMING. W E. : Ou t of crisis’ (Cambridge University

Press. 1986)4 BLOOM. B. S. (Ed.) : ‘Taxononiy ofeducational objectives.

Handbook 1 Cognitive domain’ (Loiiginan Green, New

York. 1956)5 ERAUT, M. : ‘Developing the knowledge base: a process

perspective on professional education’ in BARNET, R.(Ed.) : Learning o effect’ (Society for Research into HigherEducation & the Open University Press, Buckingham,UK), p. 109

6 BOUD, D., and FELETTI, G. (Eds.): ‘The challenge ofproblem-based education ’ (Kogan Page, London, 1991)

7 WOLPERT. L. : ‘Th e unnatural nature of science’ (Faberand Faber. 1992)

8 See. for example, ‘Collins English dictionary’ (Collins,1986. 2nd edn.)

9 PASK. G.: ‘Style4 and strategies of learning’, Bv. J Educ.Pqdidogy. 1976, 4 6 , pp.128-148. But see also DANIEL, J. :‘The \York of Gordon Pask’ in ENTWISTLE, N. J., andHOUNSELL, D. (Eds.): ‘How students learn’ (Universityof Lancaster, U K , 1976)

10 MARTON, F., and SALJO, R.: ‘O n the qualitativedifferences in learning: outcomes and processes’, B I : J Educ.

11 ABER CROM BIE, M. L.J.: ‘Aims and techniques of groupteaching’ (Society for Research into Higher Education,University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, 1979)

April 1992. 1, 2 ) ,pp.80-84

P s ~ K / z o / o ~ ) / ,976, 46, pp.4-11

0 EE: 1995

Professor Sparkes may be contacted at 40 Sheethanger Lane,Hemel Henipstead, Herts. HP3 OBQ, UK. He is an IEEMember.


258

sparkes--quality in higher education

Documents