University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology

(USC Thesis Other)

Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 1
TEACHING QUALITY IN ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
by
Yuanmeng Xu
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2019
Copyright 2019 Yuanmeng Xu
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my father as the role model of striving for
excellence through my whole life. The completion of a Doctor of Education is partially fulfilling
his expectation of me as well. I also thank my mum and my daughter for their unconditional
love and encouragement during the 25-month journey.
Deepest appreciation would go to my dissertation chair and committee, Dr. Jenifer
Crawford, Dr. Tracy Tambascia, and Dr. Heidi Harju. The completion of my dissertation would
not have been possible without their endless feedback and guidance. I would also like to extend
my deepest gratitude to Dr. Mark Robinson and Dr. Sabrina Chong, as well as all faculty
members in the Rossier School of Education, for the extraordinary design and instruction of this
Global Executive EdD program.
Special thanks goes to Dr. Ziyue Xu of Zhejiang University of Technology, who has
provided me invaluable access to data collection and Dr. Brenda Marshall of William Paterson
University, who has provided academic guidance and proofreading support. Special thanks
should also go to Dr. Haiyang Chen of Western Carolina University, who has been my mentor
guiding me through many life crossroads.
Last but not the least, to my amazing Cohort 6 classmates, especially our Sushi Co.
members, I will remember all the wonderful moments we shared together, and look forward to
the bright future we will FIGHT ON!

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 9
Importance of Addressing the Problem 11
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Organizational Goal 13
Description of Stakeholder Groups 14
Stakeholder’s Performance Goals 16
Stakeholder Group for the Study 17
Purpose of the Project and Questions 18
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 19
Organization of the Project 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Global View of Quality of Higher Education 20
Definition of Quality of Higher Education 20
Accountability in Higher Education 22
Quality Assurance of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23
Teaching Quality/Effective Teaching of Higher Education 25
Chinese View of Quality Assurance and Teaching Quality 27
The Chinese Top-down System 27
Teaching Quality Evaluation in National Undergraduate Chinese Programs 29
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 31
Knowledge and Skills 33
Motivation 37
Organizational Needs 40
Chapter Three: Methods 42
Participating Stakeholders 43
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 43
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale 44
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 44
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale 45
Data Collection and Instrumentation 45
Surveys 46
Interviews 47
Data Analysis 48
Credibility and Trustworthiness 49
Validity and Reliability 50
Ethics 51
Chapter Four: Results 53
Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs 54
Assumed Factual Knowledge Need 56
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 4

Assumed Conceptual Knowledge Need 57
Assumed Procedural Knowledge 59
Metacognitive Knowledge 61
Synthesis of Knowledge Findings 63
Results and Findings for Motivation Needs 64
Assumed Intrinsic Value Needs 66
Assumed Extrinsic Value Needs 67
Assumed Cost Value Needs 68
Assumed Self-Efficacy Needs 69
Synthesis of Motivation Findings 70
Results and Findings for Organization Needs 71
Culture Model 72
Culture Setting 73
Interview Findings 75
Synthesis of Organization Findings 77
Summary of Validated KMO Needs 77
Chapter Five: Solution, Implementation and Evaluation 80
Identified Gaps Selection and Rationale 82
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 83
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in American Universities 84
Teaching-Track Faculty Evaluation and Promotion in USC 86
Transferrable Experience to ZJUT 87
Proposed Solution to ZJUT 90
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 95
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 96
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 97
Level 3: Behavior 97
Level 2 and Level 1: Learning and Reaction 97
Implementation Plan 98
Summary 100
Limitations and Delimitations 100
Future Research 101
Conclusion 102
References 105
Appendix A: Survey Items 116
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 121
Appendix C: University of Southern California 123
Appendix D: Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 125
Appendix E: Demographics of Survey Respondents 128

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 5

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stakeholder’s Performance Goals 17
Table 2: Components of Effective University Teaching 26
Table 3: Assumed Knowledge Needs 36
Table 4: Assumed Motivation Needs 40
Table 5: Assumed Organizational Needs 41
Table 6: Assumed Knowledge Needs 55
Table 7: Assumed Motivation Needs 65
Table 8: Enjoyment of Change 67
Table 9: Importance of Change 67
Table 10: Competency of Change 70
Table 11: Assumed Organizational Influences 71
Table 12: Gaps in Assumed KMO Needs 78
Table 13: Gaps in Assumed KMO Needs with Priority 82
Table 14: Key Principles in the New Criteria Plan 95
Table 15: Evaluation Indicators 98
Table 16: Key Implementation Action Steps 99

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 6

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008). 32
Figure 2: I know the three major changes in teaching required by the University’s 2011–2020
medium and long-term development plan. 56
Figure 3: It is worthwhile for me to spend time making changes to my instruction, even if it
takes away from my research responsibilities. 68
Figure 4: I believe the university cares about the quality of my teaching. 73
Figure 5: The teaching evaluation criteria, utilized in the current faculty promotion system,
does not assure the expected standards of teaching. 74
Figure 6: The current faculty promotion system, as a whole, has effectively ensured the
expected standards of teaching. 75

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 7

ABSTRACT
Chinese higher education has witnessed huge expansion in numbers of students and
institutions in the past 20 years. The first National Report on Chinese Higher Education Quality
in 2016 (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2018b) identified the increasing number of college
students was from 117,000 in 1949 to 37 million in 2015. The report also highlighted the
problem of struggling teaching quality in the massification process. This mix methods study
chose Zhejiang University of Technology (ZJUT) as the organization for an evaluation research
on its teaching quality. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model was the conceptual
framework used to identify the knowledge (K), motivation (M) and organizational (O) influences
needed by ZJUT young faculty to achieve their goal. Their goal was to implement three major
changes in teaching: knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy
to a hybrid pedagogy of both teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and classroom-
centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning by 2020 (ZJUT, 2011). Two hundred
and ninety five faculty completed an online survey and eight participated follow-up face-to-face
interviews to reveal their knowledge and motivation on improving teaching quality.
Organizational influences on their teaching quality were also analyzed. Findings demonstrated
gaps in all K, M and O areas but root cause was more in the organizational influences. The
overarching solution was to develop and implement new evidence-based criteria for evaluating
and promoting teaching-track faculty in ZJUT. Successful experience in American universities
were introduced and integrated in the initial action plan proposal.

Keywords: Teaching Quality, Teacher Evaluation and Promotion, Non-Tenure-Track Faculty,
Chinese Higher Education, Gap Analysis
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 8

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The expanding access and massification of Chinese higher education, occurring since
1999, has raised questions about teaching quality by many stakeholders (Li, Li, & Sun, 2013;
Yin, Wang, & Han, 2015; Zou, Du, & Rasmussen, 2012). The Chinese MOE issued the first
National Report on Chinese Higher Education Quality (NRCHEQ) in 2016 (MOE, 2018b). This
national report identified the chief strength in Chinese higher education was the increasing
number of students, which had increased from 117,000 in 1949 to 37 million in 2015. This was
accomplished by increasing the admission rate from 0.26% in 1949 to 40% in 2015. The
NRCHEQ report also highlighted that Chinese higher education still struggled with problems of
quality in teaching. This included faculty weak in pedagogy, institutions weak on quality
requirements, and a system of evaluation that focuses on research rather than teaching (MOE,
2018b).
Even prior to the NRCHEQ publication, universities have showcased teaching quality
through listing teaching-related awards and internal quality assurance documents, such as
students winning awards in discipline contests and rigid regulation of thesis-related work (Zou et
al., 2012). Zou and colleagues (2012) criticized the universities’ self-reporting contents as
distorting the evaluation of education quality because teaching and learning had not been the
main focus and it was just cherry picking of favorable facts. In addition, exhausted faculty, with
subsequent job burnout, report that the heavy evaluative focus is on their research initiatives
rather than teaching (Li et al., 2013). Therefore, teaching quality is sacrificed to allocate more
time and efforts to meet research workload (Lai, Du, & Li, 2014). Meanwhile, student
dissatisfaction with traditional teacher-centered pedagogy has been identified as problematic in
many studies (Yin et al., 2015; Yin, Lu, & Wang, 2014). The focus of this dissertation is to
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 9

conduct a gap analysis on the teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology in
Hangzhou, China.
Background of the Problem
Students have their perception of good teaching and have evaluated teachers for as long
as individuals have claimed to be teachers (Marsh, 1984). In the early 1980s, researchers created
new instruments to measure effective teaching from the students’ point of view. In the United
Kingdom, Marsh (1984) developed the Student Evaluation of Education Quality (SEEQ)
instrument to capture students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness in higher education. Later,
Ramsden (1991) designed the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) instrument in Australia.
CEQ has been widely used in studies of student learning and teaching effectiveness evaluation in
many countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland and China (Ying &
Wang, 2014).
Faculty report that teaching continues to be held in much lower esteem than research in
universities (Wahlen, 2002). Many studies have shown that faculty advancement and promotion
are strongly linked to their research profile. Boyer, Altbach, and Whitelaw (1994) examined the
results of an international study of approximately 1,000 faculty in 14 countries around the world,
including the United States, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, Korea, and Australia.
In almost all countries, successful research output had led to faculty advancement. Faculty who
devote more time and efforts to teaching would have less time to do research; therefore, the
chances of qualifying themselves for higher academic position and better salaries would be less
(Wahlen, 2002). As a result, more faculty will choose to focus on research quality instead of
teaching quality (Lai et al., 2014).
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 10

In addition to the two major participants in learning and teaching, students and faculty,
outside organizations can influence teaching quality by implementing quality assurance
mechanisms. Burke (2005) described four basic methods of quality assurance. Accreditation,
developed in the United States, focuses on institutional improvement through self-study and peer
review. Audit, which was developed in the UK, focuses more on the process of quality
assurance and improvement. Assessment aims to evaluate the student learning outcome.
External examination relies on experts reviewing evidence of student performance, degree
programs or the entire institution (Burke, 2005). Different countries apply different methods to
their higher education quality assurance. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council
for England (HEFCE) applied the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) model, and European
countries used the European Foundation’s Quality Management (EFQM) model (Brown, 2004).
HEFCE invested in a number of projects designed to explore its QAA model and compare the
efficacy and specificity to EFQM model (Brown, 2004). This kind of comparison gave rise to
the need to define effective teaching. The evaluation of the HEFCE’s first national award of
National Teaching Fellowship Scheme, which looked at criteria for higher education teaching
excellence, concluded that the definition of effective teaching needed to exist within a changing
social, economic, and political context (Skelton, 2004).
China adopted the concept of quality assurance later than Western countries. The
Chinese government, since 1999, enacted policies to increase university enrollment rates, leading
to a higher education system expansion. The gross enrollment rate increased from 9.8% in 1998
to 40% in 2015 and the number of students in higher education institutions expanded from 7.8
million in 1998 to 37 million in 2015 (MOE, 2016). The concern over teaching quality is a
direct result of this rapid expansion. Limited educational resources, deteriorating teaching
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 11

conditions, sharp variations in teaching quality among universities (Lee, Huang, & Zhong,
2012), and inequality between the Eastern and Western provinces (Liu, 2012) are all barriers to
higher education quality in China.
Teaching quality evaluation in China at the institutional level is similar to the practice of
institutional audit carried out by the QAA in UK (Li, 2010). In 2002, the Chinese MOE initiated
an Evaluation of University Baccalaureate Programs Project (EUBPP). The Chinese MOE
issued the “2003–2007 Education Revitalization Action Plan” in 2003, which officially started
the first round of teaching quality evaluation. In 2004, the Higher Education Evaluation Center
(HEEC) of the MOE was established to institutionalize the evaluation process (HEEC, 2018).
Between 2003 and 2007, 589 out of over 2,500 Chinese higher education institutions underwent
this evaluation (Huang, Adamson, & Lee, 2014; Li, 2010). Despite the excellent passing rate,
which was as high as 72%, many researchers questioned this government-led top-down quality
evaluation for its unfair indicator system, bureaucracy and ineffectiveness to truly improve
teaching quality (Liu, 2007; Liu & Rosa, 2008; Mok, 2005).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Faculty teaching quality directly impacts students’ learning outcomes. Hattie (2015)
synthesized over 1200 meta-analyses relating to influences on student achievement and used the
data to analyze teaching and learning in higher education. He concluded teachers would
influence 20% to 25% of the total learning variance while what students bring to the classroom
was about 50%. Based on 65,000 studies involving quarter billion students all over the world,
Hattie (2015) identified eight mind-frames teachers need to embrace, arguing that the first and
most critical factor is “know thy impact.” The other seven mind-frames are “I am a change
agent; I explicitly inform students what successful impact looks like from the outset; I see
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 12

assessment as providing feedback about my impact; I work with other teachers to develop
common conceptions for progress; I engage in dialogue not monologue; I strive for challenge
and not ‘doing your best;’ I use the language of learning; and I see errors as opportunities for
learning” (Hattie, 2015, p.89).
The Chinese MOE has identified improving education quality as the theme of the 13th 5-
year plan for the national education development (MOE, 2018c). Over 4.26% of China’s 2015
gross domestic product was spent on education, reaching over 37 million students in higher
education institutions (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2018). The significance of
undergraduate teaching quality is also emphasized in the Development Plan Outline for Medium-
and Long-Term Education Reform and Development (2010–2020) issued by the Chinese central
government in 2010 (Mohrman, Wang, & Li, 2011). According to the development plan,
teaching quality should be considered as priority in the faculty evaluation and higher education
teaching reform should be strengthened. Teaching quality is vital to preparing human capital to
fulfill China’s national development strategy and high-quality talent is the most important
element to succeed in globalization and the current 21st century knowledge economy (The
Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, 2018).
Organizational Context and Mission
Zhejiang University of Technology (ZJUT) is a public comprehensive university
established in 1953 in Zhejiang, China. It enrolled 19,159 undergraduate students, 8,883
graduate students, 780 doctoral students, 15,600 continuing education students, and 1,706
international students at the end of 2017 (ZJUT, 2018). It is the second largest university in
Zhejiang Province after the prestigious Zhejiang University. In 2017, ZJUT was ranked 76th out
of the top 500 universities in China, and was ranked second in Zhejiang Province (Academic
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 13

Ranking of World Universities, 2018b). ZJUT has 27 colleges, and 2,118 faculty members,
including 487 professors and 946 associate professors (ZJUT, 2018).
The mission of ZJUT is the cultivation of students with high-quality talents
demonstrating social responsibility, innovative spirit, and engagement of practical skills for
Zhejiang Province and the whole of China (ZJUT, 2016). ZJUT is located in Hangzhou city,
Zhejiang Province, where has the largest number of entrepreneurs and private small-medium
companies within China. Even though ZJUT is not ranked as one of the Ivy League type
Chinese universities, it still attracts high-quality students. The reason might be that many local
students would rather stay in Hangzhou city, the capital of Zhejiang, than go to other provinces.
Organizational Goal
A goal in ZJUT’s Outline of the Medium and Long-Term Development Plan (2011–2020)
as well as the current 13th Five-Year Strategic Plan (2016–2020) is to improve teaching quality.
The number of teaching-related programs awarded as national undergraduate teaching projects
will be increased from 46 in 2015 to 100 in 2020. The undergraduate teaching project is an
ongoing national campaign initiated by the Chinese MOE in 2007. The Chinese Ministry of
Education issued Opinions on Implementing Undergraduate Teaching Quality and Teaching
Reform Project in Higher Education Institutions in 2007 and restated it in 2011 (MOE, 2018a).
It is referred as undergraduate teaching project (Benke Jiaoxue Gongcheng), for short. The
Opinions outlined five categories for contents of the undergraduate teaching project: quality
standard systems, restructuring of majors, national high-quality open course production and
sharing, cultivation of student innovation, and improving faculty teaching ability (MOE, 2018a).
For example, if a university can develop many national-level high-quality open courses, it is
considered as a good demonstration of high teaching quality (Long & Håklev, 2012). Therefore,
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 14

ZJUT has set its goal to almost double the number of their teaching programs which will be
awarded as national undergraduate teaching project by 2020. All faculty are required to
implement the three major changes in teaching, which are 1) knowledge transmission to
knowledge inquiry, 2) teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy with both teacher and
student-centered learning experiences, and 3) classroom-centered learning to classroom-
extracurricular learning.
The importance of evaluating the teaching quality lies in the recruitment of future
students. The number of students participating in the GaoKao, the Chinese national entrance
exam for universities and colleges, reached the peak of over 10 million in 2008, then gradually
decreased in the following years (Education Online, 2018). The rapid expansion of higher
education and declining number of high school graduates have increased enrollment competition
among universities in different Chinese cities (Gu, 2012). High teaching quality is a strong
attraction to potential applicants; therefore, ZJUT needs to improve teaching quality to remain
competitive in the national market. Besides four tier-one cities, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen,
and Guangzhou, 15 promising tier-two cities are competing with Hangzhou to attract high-
quality high school graduates for their universities. If the local university’s teaching quality is
not satisfying, students will have more choices to go out of province even out of country.
Another reason to evaluate the organization’s performance is to enable stakeholders to gather
formative data that can be used to assess how university policies have impacted faculty teaching
and student progress.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three stakeholder groups in ZJUT are contributing to the achievement of the
performance goal. They are students, faculty, and administrators. In the teaching and learning
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 15

process, student engagement makes up 50% of the variance in outcomes (Hattie, 2015). This is
due to the diversity of previous experiences, prior knowledge acquisition, and multiple study
factors. In addition to that, various motivation and perceived purposes of learning also affect
engagement. There were 19,159 undergraduate students studying in 27 colleges of ZJUT at the
end of 2017 (ZJUT, 2018). In 2017, ZJUT admitted 4,585 freshmen, including 1,400 students
from other provinces (ZJUT, 2018). Two-thirds of students are from Zhejiang Province, which
complies with ZJUT’s mission of cultivating high-quality talents for Zhejiang Province and the
whole of China. Slightly over 25% of graduates continued to pursue postgraduate studies with
the majority choosing to enter job market in 2015 (ZJUT, 2016).
The faculty in China are facing a different academic environment now than in the mid-
1990s. Prior to the early 1990s, the vast majority of Chinese higher education institutions
followed the former Soviet Union model, in which faculty members devoted most time and
efforts to teaching activities (Huang, 2015). Research activities were mainly undertaken in
research institutions outside of university, such as the Chinese Academy of Science or Social
Sciences. Since the central government’s new strategy of forming world-class research
universities in China in the mid-1990s, faculty are more and more evaluated by research output
(Huang, 2015). The shifting focus, from teaching to research, has affected the teaching learning
outcome. The impact of faculty on teaching and learning variance, according to Hattie (2015), is
20% to 25%. Teachers’ expectation of students, evaluation of educational intervention,
collective teacher efficacy, and teachers’ feedback are all highly influential factors in the
teaching and learning process (Hattie, 2015). ZJUT has 2,118 full-time faculty members,
including 487 full professors and 946 associate professors. Faculty can choose from three
advancement tracks: teaching-track, research-track, and teaching-research-combined track.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 16

Regardless of the track chosen by the faculty member, evaluation is heavily weighted on
research paper publication (ZJUT, 2014). Teaching evaluation focuses on completed teaching
hours and winning national awards on textbooks, quality online open courses, or discipline-
related student competition. According to the human resources department of ZJUT, less than
10% of faculty would choose the teaching-track because the advancement criteria is even more
unpredictable and time-consuming than publishing research papers.
The administrative units involved in teaching quality at ZJUT are the office of academic
affairs and the human resources department. The academic affairs office supervises curriculum,
degree requirements, and teaching evaluation. The human resources department issues policies
regarding faculty evaluation and promotion. They are the major offices in charge of developing
policy and practice to support, evaluate and promote teaching activities.
Stakeholder’s Performance Goals
ZJUT has listed quantified goals for its talent cultivation mission in the 13th Five-year
Strategic Plan (2016–2020) as follows:

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 17

Table 1
Stakeholder’s Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of ZJUT is the cultivation of students with high-quality talents demonstrating
social responsibility, innovative spirit, and engagement of practical skills for Zhejiang
Province and the whole China.
Organizational Performance Goal
By 2020, ZJUT will increase the number of teaching-related programs awarded as national
undergraduate teaching project from 46 in 2015 to 100.
Students
By 2020, 30% of graduates
will pursue postgraduate
studies.

Faculty
By 2020, all faculty will be
implementing three major
changes in teaching: knowledge
transmission to knowledge
inquiry, teacher-centered
pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy
with both teacher and student-
centered learning experiences,
and classroom-centered learning
to classroom-extracurricular
learning.
Administrators
By 2020, ZJUT will
increased the number of
faculty to 3,000 with 100
young and middle-aged
outstanding teaching faculty.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Faculty is the chosen stakeholder group for this study. By 2020, all faculty will be
implementing three major changes in teaching: knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry,
teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy of both teacher and student-centered learning
experiences, and classroom-centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning (ZJUT,
2011). This is in line with ZJUT’s goal to increase the number of teaching programs awarded as
national undergraduate teaching project/program from 46 in 2015 to 100 in 2020 (ZJUT, 2016).
It is important to evaluate where the ZJUT faculty members are currently with regard to their
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 18

performance goal, especially young faculty’s performance goal related to teaching. According to
the human resources department of ZJUT, young faculty members have taken the majority of
teaching workload in educating undergraduate students. The term young faculty refers to
Chinese faculty who are younger than 45 years (Li et al., 2013).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which ZJUT is achieving its
performance goal as increasing the number of teaching-related programs awarded as national
undergraduate teaching project from 46 in 2015 to 100 in 2020. The analysis will focus on
faculty’s knowledge, motivation and organizational needs related to achieving the organizational
goals. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is young faculty.
As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. To what extent are ZJUT’s young faculty achieving the three major changes in teaching:
knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid
pedagogy with both teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and classroom-
centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning?
2. What is young faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to achieving this goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and young faculty’s
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 19

Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational needs, will be
adapted to evaluation model and implemented as the conceptual framework. The
methodological framework is a gap analysis by using a mixed methods study involving
quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational
needs of ZJUT young faculty that impact ZJUT’s organizational goal achievement will be
generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These needs will be assessed
through literature review, survey and interviews. Research-based solutions will be
recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provides with the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about teaching quality or effective
teaching in higher education. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the
framework for the project are introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of effective teaching, teaching quality, student-
evaluation-of-teaching, quality assessment, and quality assurance in higher education are
addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation and organizational needs to be
examined as well as methodology when it comes to the choice of participants, data collection and
analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides
solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 20

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter begins with a discussion about the construct of quality of higher education.
Definitions, both traditional and current, are explored. Aspects of quality of higher education,
such as major stakeholders’ accountability, as well as the quality assurance system are
investigated. Following the general examination of the construct, a further review of teaching
quality or effective teaching in higher education is presented. Then, a discussion about the
Chinese view and practice on the quality assurance and teaching quality is introduced. The
conclusion of the literature review discusses gap analysis model as well as specific knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors which could have an impact on faculty teaching
effectiveness.
Global View of Quality of Higher Education
In this study, the quality of higher education is investigated through the lens of a global
perspective. The definitions of quality of higher education, accountability, and quality assurance
are often embedded in the discussions of quality. These discussions are dissected in the
following paragraphs to allow each of these terms to be fully reviewed.
Definition of Quality of Higher Education
Ball (1985) was quoted by numerous scholars as being the first to ask, “what the hell is
quality?” (Ball, 1985; Harvey & Green, 1993; Prisacariu & Shah, 2016; Schindler, Puls-Elvidge,
Welzant, & Crawford, 2015). Despite many efforts to define quality of higher education over the
past 30 years, no consensus has been reached. Both traditional and current views on the quality
of higher education will be reviewed.
Traditional views on quality of higher education. Harvey and Green (1993)
conceptualized quality of higher education into five categories. This seminal article by Harvey
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 21

and Green (1993) is one of the most cited on this topic, establishing the traditional view of
quality of higher education (Kemenade, Pupius, & Hardjono, 2008; Krause, 2012; Olaskoaga-
Larrauri, González-Laskibar, & Barrenetxea-Ayesta, 2015). Quality is a relative concept.
Different stakeholders may interpret the concept of quality from different perspectives. Faculty,
as an example, may think about higher education quality as academic freedom. The university
administrators, on the other hand, may care about funding and student graduation rate as
demonstration of quality.
Harvey and Green (1993) grouped five discrete and interrelated ways of conceptualizing
quality: quality as exceptional, quality as perfection or consistency, quality as fitness for purpose,
quality as value for money, and quality as transformation. Higher education used to be an
exclusive elite group where quality was exceptional in its distinctiveness and inaccessibility.
When quality is viewed as perfection and consistency, the focus is on setting and meeting
specifications with perfection. Quality as fitness for purpose shifts the concentration towards
checking if a university fulfills its own stated mission and vision. The popularity of neoliberal
economic theory demonstrates that people tend to view higher education as a product, leading to
the natural desire to have better quality product at economical prices. Quality, as value for
money, is embraced by government, thereby linking funding to university performance. Various
performance indicators, such as staff-student ratio, ratio of public to private funds and
employment rate, are developed to measure university’s efficiency and effectiveness. Quality as
transformation means education is not just a product but an ongoing process of impacting the
development of the participants. A quality education will enhance students’ knowledge, abilities
and skills as well as empower the students to be better citizens (Harvey & Green, 1993).
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 22

Current trends in defining quality of higher education. Scholars have tried to update
the quality definition to align with changing context in value systems, ideology, political and
socio-professional determinants, ethics and moral values as well as online education (Filippakou,
2011; Kemenade et al., 2008; Olaskoaga-Larrauri et al., 2015; Prisacariu & Shah, 2016).
Kemenade and colleagues (2008) defined education quality in four value systems: control,
continuous improvement, commitment, and breakthrough. The control system cares about the
extent to which an object fits to standards. The continuous improvement model focuses on the
extent to which the expectations of the customers are exceeded. The commitment system attends
to the degree that the goals of all stakeholders are fulfilled, taking into account here and now,
past and future. The breakthrough system concentrates on the extent to which the goals of all
stakeholders will be fulfilled in the future. Additionally, political culture and ideological
characters are added in the active engagement of defining quality of higher education because of
the anticipation that the discourses of quality would shift with changing political governmental
powers (Filippakou, 2011; Olaskoaga-Larrauri et al., 2015). More recently, ethics and moral
values have become increasingly important in defining quality of higher education. This
occurred in the face of institutional failures in corporate and academic governances, student
recruitment, the decreasing assessment standards and the ethics around research conduct
(Prisacariu & Shah, 2016). In addition to never-ending discussion on the definition of quality of
higher education, accountability is another popular topic closely related to the quality (Stensaker
& Harvey, 2011).
Accountability in Higher Education
Definition of accountability. Burke (2005) defined six models of accountability in
higher education, including bureaucratic, professional, political, managerial, market, and
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 23

managed market. Each model has its own drivers, actors, and goals. In the United States,
accountability goals have shifted from autonomy and self-regulation, to bureaucratic rules and
stipulations, to performance indicators and goals, to policy initiatives, and finally, to private
markets and government incentives. In reaction, each accountability model is suited in different
conditions. Burke (2005) explained the following:
The bureaucratic model demands stability, the professional requires autonomy, and the
political necessitates consensus or at least majority consent. The managerial model works
well in dynamic periods of considerable change. Both market models adjust capacity to
demand, with government incentives shaping supply and demand to suit public priorities
in managed markets. (p. 11)
As indicated in the discussion above, accountability is very stakeholder specific. The key is to
find a good balance between conflicting demands and expectations from various stakeholders.
Major stakeholders. Many constructed definitions of quality in higher education are
stakeholder-driven, focusing on accountability to external or internal groups (Schindler et al. ,
2015). Providers, such as funding bodies, taxpayers, and outside employers, make up the
external groups who are concerned with ongoing accountability. Internal groups including
students, administrators, faculty and staff are also important stakeholders. Each stakeholder
group, however, has a different perspective on accountability (Schindler et al., 2015).
Quality Assurance of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
Definition of quality assurance. Quality assurance is a complex topic dealing with
varying issues at the state and university levels, as well as different contexts in global countries.
This makes an agreement on the definition of quality assurance elusive if not impossible (Ryan,
2015; Steinhardt, Schneijderberg, Götze, Baumann, & Krücken, 2017). Some researchers
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 24

believe the global system of quality assurance resembling the Bologna Declaration is the solution
to ensure the teaching and learning (Damme, 2011; Marginson, 2004). The 1999 Bologna
Declaration established guidelines ensuring equivalent quality among European universities,
allowing for credits transfer, degree recognition and similar curricular design. However, other
researchers mention their doubt on an international unified quality assurance system since the
system will be mainly developed by the west countries and may not be suitable for developing
countries (Vedder, 1994).
Quality assurance related to government and university. There are four kinds of
quality assurance systems as accreditation, audit, assessment, and external examination (Burke,
2005). Accreditation, developed in the United States, focuses on institutional improvement
through self-study and peer review. Audit, which was developed in the United Kingdom,
focuses more on the process of quality assurance and improvement. Assessment aims to
evaluate the student learning outcome. External examination relies on experts reviewing
evidence of student performance, degree programs or the entire institution (Burke, 2005).
Different countries choose different quality assurance systems. In the United States, the quality
assurance system is organized by voluntary accreditation organizations and is a shared
responsibility of the 50 states, the federal government, as well as the universities and colleges
themselves (Mohrman et al., 2011). In the UK, the QAA develops and maintains the UK Quality
Code for higher education and performs institutional audit to ensure quality (Ryan, 2015).
Quality assurance related to faculty: tension between teaching and research.
Faculty, as a major stakeholder group, has a negative view on the audit quality assurance system
(Cheng, 2010; Liu & Rosa, 2008). A survey conducted on faculty in seven institutions in
England revealed that two-thirds of the respondents felt the quality audit was bureaucratic
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 25

(Cheng, 2010). Faculty felt the university established the quality assurance mechanism only for
the purpose of meeting requirement set up by QAA (Cheng, 2010). The faculty felt the tension
between teaching and research under the current quality assurance system, which was focusing
more on research than teaching quality. Ramsden and Moses (1992), in a large-scale Australian
study, concluded that heavy involvement in research and publication would take time and effort
away from teaching undergraduates.
The definitions of quality, accountability, and quality assurance refer to the general topic
of quality of education. Teaching quality, however, is a more precise topic geared to ensure the
specific characteristics of education like teaching and learning.
Teaching Quality/Effective Teaching of Higher Education
Defining Teaching Quality/Effective Teaching of Higher Education
For this dissertation, and according to the model being used, teaching quality and
effective teaching will be interchangeable. The definition of effective teaching, emanating from
the faculty point of view, should include (a) faculty roles and expectations, (b) understanding
teachers and teaching contexts, (c) multiple demands on teaching evaluation, (d) need for better
use of evaluation in faculty development (Johnson & Ryan, 2000). Vulcano (2007) defined
effective teaching, from the student point of view, as something with an equal emphasis on
teaching technique and the student-teacher relationship. Even though there was no universally
accepted definition of effective teaching in higher education, Devlin and Samarawickrema
(2010) concluded that two broadly accepted components of effective university teaching were (a)
appropriate teaching skills and practices, as well as (b) meeting the requirements of the context.
Appropriate teaching skills. There is great diversity in the number of dimensions or
factors of effective teaching skills and practices (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010; Hativa,
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 26

Barak, & Simhi, 2001; Kember & McNaught, 2007; Young & Shaw, 1999). Hativa and
colleagues (2001) proposed four dimensions of teaching effectiveness: interest, clarity,
organization, and a positive classroom climate. Young and Shaw (1999) proposed six dimension
criteria, including value for the subject, motivating students, a comfortable learning atmosphere,
organization of the subject, effective communication, and concern for student learning. More
recently, Kember and McNaught (2007) proposed a more complicated framework with 10
principles of effective teaching and added a new criterion that teaching design should meet
students’ future needs. Nevertheless, Marsh’s nine-dimensional SEEQ instrument gained more
validity across multiple cultures, disciplines and other contexts (Devlin & Samarawickrema,
2010). The Australian Learning and Teaching Council criteria for effective teaching has shown
a strong relationship to Marsh’s SEEQ dimensions (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010).
Table 2
Components of Effective University Teaching
Two broadly accepted components of effective university teaching

Appropriate teaching skills and practices Meeting the requirements of the context

• Four dimension criteria • societal, political, and economic
impact
• Six dimension criteria • disciplinary, department, faculty and
institution context
• Nine dimension criteria: SEEQ
instrument

• Ten dimension criteria

According to Devlin and Samarawickrema (2010), besides the teaching skills, the other
broadly accepted components of effective university teaching is meeting the requirements of the
context.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 27

Meeting the requirements of the context. The other broadly accepted components of
effective university teaching is meeting the requirements of the context (Devlin &
Samarawickrema, 2010). The context refers to, as suggested by Young and Shaw (1999),
disciplinary, faculty, department, and institution difference. An individual department and
institution will have specific contextual definition on teachers’ effective teaching. More broadly,
societal, political, and economic impact will influence the perspective on effective teaching.
Decreasing in government funding and increasing in user-pay, demographic changes in student
population, higher expectation from employers and technological development are all contextual
forces shaping what effective teaching is (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010).
Chinese View of Quality Assurance and Teaching Quality
After reviewing quality, accountability, quality assurance and teaching quality in the
global perspective, this section will explore the Chinese views and practice on quality assurance
system and teaching quality evaluation.
The Chinese Top-down System
China has adopted the model of audit to ensure quality of higher education, which
focuses more on the process of quality assurance and improvement. (Li, 2010; Mohrman et al.,
2011). According to Burke (2005), the audit method of quality assurance was developed in
United Kingdom and used by multiple universities in European Union. Many followed the same
procedures of self-evaluation, site visits by experts and external evaluation report (Mohrman et
al., 2011). The Chinese higher education quality assurance system follows similar procedures
but is very centralized and controlled by the MOE. The MOE is mainly responsible to establish
official agencies for evaluation, develop relevant policies and promote research. The MOE and
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 28

the local government also link universities’ funding levels and enrollment quotas to their quality
evaluation results.
Official Agency: Higher Education Evaluation Center. The Chinese MOE established
HEEC in 2004 as the official governance agency to oversee teaching assessment in higher
education (Li, 2010; Mohrman et al., 2011). The main responsibility of HEEC is to organize and
implement the evaluation of baccalaureate degree programs and associate degree programs
offered in HEEC (2018).
Policies related to quality assurance. The MOE formulated the quality assurance
system through a series of policies since 1990s (HEEC, 2018; Mohrman et al., 2011). In 1990,
Draft Regulation of Higher Education Institution Evaluation was issued by the then State
Ministry Commission, which was the first regulation on higher education evaluation. In 1995,
separate types of university evaluation standards were issued for the evaluation of six different
categories of institutions with three kinds of assessment: qualification assessment, random
assessment, and excellence assessment. All new baccalaureate degree-granting colleges were
required to undergo the evaluation, with three evaluation outcomes: Accepted, Accepted with
Conditions and Not Accepted. In 2001, the MOE issued Suggestions on Strengthening the
Teaching of Undergraduate Education and Improving Instructional Quality in Higher Education
Institutions to unify three assessment into one as EUBPP. In 2003, the MOE issued
Announcement on Arrangement of the Instructional Assessment of Undergraduate Education in
Regular Higher Education Institutions which started the five-year circle of evaluation from 2003
to 2007. Universities evaluated in the assessment were put into categories: Excellent, Good,
Accepted, and Not Accepted. In 2007, the MOE and the Ministry of Finance co-issued Opinions
on Implementing Undergraduate Teaching Quality and Teaching Reform Project in Higher
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 29

Education Institutions and restated it in 2011. In 2010, the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China and the State Council issued the Development Plan Outline for Medium- and
Long-Term Education Reform and Development (2010–2020).
Funding difference to top quality Chinese universities. China conducted Project 985
and Project 211 to fund a group of national elite universities to be world-class research
universities as exemplar of high quality. “Project 211” was launched in 1995 and aimed to
establish 100 key universities in China for the 21
st
century. A total of 112 universities were
selected by Project 211 and received investment of 2.75 billion RMB in phase I (1996–2000), 6
billion RMB in phase II (2001–2006), and 10 billion RMB in phase III (2007–2011; Li, 2010; Li
et al., 2013; Liu, 2012). Project 985 was first announced by former Chinese President Jiang
Zemin at the centenary of Peking University on May 5, 1998. Project 985 selected 39
universities to receive large amounts of funding from both central and provincial governments
intended to develop them into world-class research universities. From 1999 to 2008, 33.3 billion
RMB was funded for Project 985 universities (Huang, 2005). The number of Chinese
universities that entered into the top 500 world-class universities increased from nine in 2003, to
30 in 2010, then to 45 in 2017 (Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2018a). Project 985
and Project 211 are mainly focused on increasing top Chinese universities’ research abilities in
the world rather than concentrating on teaching quality (Huang, 2015).
Teaching Quality Evaluation in National Undergraduate Chinese Programs
First phase 2003–2007. The Chinese MOE, in 2003, initiated the EUBPP which focused
on teaching quality at the institutional level (Huang et al., 2014; Mohrman et al., 2011; Ying &
Wang, 2014). The evaluation criteria included eight major indicators: guiding principles and
vision of the institution; faculty; learning conditions and facilities; subjects and teaching;
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 30

teaching management; academic culture; learning outcomes; other special characteristics. These
eight indicators were further explained as 19 sub-standards and 44 points. The evaluation process
included self-evaluation report by the university, site visit by an external expert panel, and
follow-up modifications. Each university was ranked as excellent, good, pass or unqualified.
Between 2003 and 2007, 589 out of over 2500 Chinese higher education institutions underwent
this evaluation and 424 universities or 72% were evaluated as excellent (Huang et al., 2014; Li,
2010). Even the excellent rate published by MOE was optimistic, many researchers questioned
this government-led top-down evaluation (Liu, 2007; Liu & Rosa, 2008; Mok, 2005). Some
researchers criticized the one unified indicator system required by the MOE stating that it was
interference in higher education’s autonomy and unfair to different kinds of institutions (Mok,
2005; Liu, 2007; Liu, 2010). The evaluation process was seen as bureaucratic, and a burden to
university faculty and staff since they were required to prepare and rehearse for site visits rather
than actually improve teaching and learning in a daily routine (Liu & Rosa, 2008). Universities
devoted large resources and energy to meet assessment indicators listed by the MOE since the
quality evaluation result was linked to government funding and enrollment quota, but caring for
improving teaching and learning based on each university’s own features and advantages was
largely ignored (Mohrman et al., 2011; Zou et al., 2012). In response to many discussions and
much advice, the MOE made changes in the quality assurance indicator system and criteria in
2004 and 2006, setting up a new evaluation system in 2011. The MOE issued Opinions on
Quality Evaluation of Regular Higher Education Institutions in October 2011, which put forward
a “five-in-one” evaluation system. This system included self-evaluation of HEIs, institutional
evaluation from the MOE, program accreditation and evaluation, regular monitoring of
educational status data, and international evaluation (MOE, 2018d).
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 31

Second phase 2010–2020. In addition to institutional level quality assurance evaluation,
the Chinese MOE conducted national reform on the undergraduate teaching. MOE issued
Opinions on Implementing Undergraduate Teaching Quality and Teaching Reform Project in
Higher Education Institutions in 2007 and restated it in 2011 (MOE, 2018a). It is referred to as
undergraduate teaching project (Benke Jiaoxue Gongcheng) for short. The Opinions outlined
five categories for the content in the undergraduate teaching project: quality standard systems,
restructuring of majors, national high-quality open course production and sharing, cultivation of
student innovation, and improving faculty teaching ability (MOE, 2018a). A university can
develop many national-level high-quality open courses, which would demonstrate their high
teaching quality (Long & Håklev, 2012). The Chinese government issued the Development Plan
Outline for Medium- and Long-Term Education Reform and Development (2010–2020) in which
it announced that strengthening instructional quality and teaching reform in higher education will
continue to be implemented (MOE, 2018c). Based on this plan, many universities continue to
reform and strengthen their teaching and set their goals to increase the number of teaching
projects rewarded national undergraduate teaching project.
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model is good at clarifying organizational goals and
identifying the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences of stakeholder groups.
This framework begins with the identification of an organizational goal and a performance goal
of one specific stakeholder group. Current progress and the goal will be compared to examine
gaps by looking at the causes for any discrepancies between the two. Once the underlying
causes for the gaps are analyzed and identified, solution plan can be taken to close the KMO
gaps. Then the outcome will be evaluated accordingly. This process provides a framework to
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 32

identify the root causes of a performance problem and develop evidence-based solutions to the
problem (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Three key causes, knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organization (O), are analyzed
within this gap analysis framework. The knowledge cause is to check whether the stakeholder
group has adequate knowledge and skills to perform the task. Knowledge is further
operationalized in four categorizes as factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Motivation is researched as intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, cost value and self-efficacy to examine whether the stakeholder group is
properly motivated to accomplish the goal. Culture model and culture settings are the two
constructs in organizational influences gap analysis. They aim to analyze whether the
organization has barriers to hinder the goal completion. In this study, ZJUT young faculty’s
assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational needs in implementing three pedagogical
changes were explored.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 33

Knowledge and Skills
Based on ZJUT’s Outline of the Medium and Long-Term Development Plan (2011–
2020), there is a level of knowledge that faculty need to have in order to realize three major
changes in teaching. This includes knowledge of how to move teaching practices from a model
of transmitting knowledge to a model of students gaining knowledge via inquiry, from teacher-
centered pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy with components of both teacher and student-centered
learning experiences, and from classroom-centered learning to learning that involves both
classroom and extracurricular experience. The conceptual framework of Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) will be used to explore knowledge-related needs that are pertinent to faculty’s
ability to implement the three major changes in instruction discussed above. Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) suggest that the following four types of knowledge to be understood in order
to determine whether the stakeholder will be successful in their expected level of performance:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is isolated elements of
information including terminology and specific details. Conceptual knowledge is organized and
complex information including categories, principles, and structures. Procedural knowledge
explains how to do things, such as skills, techniques and procedures. Metacognitive knowledge
is knowing the cognition itself, such as self-awareness and goal-monitoring. Factual and
conceptual knowledge are declarative knowledge dealing with “what,” while procedural
knowledge is associated with “how.” Metacognitive knowledge is the highest level of
knowledge required to monitor, reflect and control one’s own progress towards achieving goals.
The key stakeholder group, young faculty’s conceptual, procedural and metacognitive
knowledge will be examined in this section.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 34

ZJUT faculty’s conceptual knowledge. According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001),
conceptual knowledge includes theories and models, which can describe, explain and predict
phenomena. People can conceptualize and organize subject matter into schemas with conceptual
knowledge. In order to implement changes in teaching, ZJUT faculty are required to understand
the concepts of knowledge inquiry, the theory of the hybrid pedagogy with both teacher and
student-centered learning experiences, and the principle of classroom-extracurricular learning.
Knowledge about research-based learning. In order to succeed in achieving this
standard, ZJUT faculty need to know that knowledge inquiry teaching is grounded in research-
based learning. The mission of ZJUT is to cultivate students’ innovative spirit, and research-
based learning is one way to stimulate students’ curiosity about academic world.
Knowledge about teacher-centered and student-centered pedagogies. The effectiveness
of teacher-centered and student-centered pedagogies are respectively supported by empirical
studies, quasi-experimental research and meta-analyses. Cid (2014), however, proposes a hybrid
model combing both teacher and student-centered pedagogy. This model allows teachers to
choose which pedagogical approach will be employed in order to better attain the lesson’s
objective. Understanding the difference and effectiveness of both pedagogies, as well as when to
implement either, is imperative for ZJUT faculty to reaching the teaching improvement goal.
Knowledge about extracurricular activities learning. Marton and Säljö (1976) identify
two learning processes: surface level learning and deep learning. Surface learning emphasizes
rote learning and reproduction of knowledge with little attempt to integrate information. Deep
learning strives for enhanced understanding through using and comparing concepts and ideas.
Students with a high level of involvement in extracurricular activity are more likely to use the
deep level learning (Chan, 2016), and deep learning is often associated with academically higher
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 35

performers (Fenollar, Román, & Cuestas, 2007). Since extracurricular activities will promote
deep learning and deep learning will produce higher academic performance, faculty need to
consider combining classroom teaching with some related extracurricular activities and through
that, cultivate deep learning.
ZJUT faculty’s procedural knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) identifies
procedural knowledge as knowing how to perform tasks. In addition to having the conceptual
understanding, procedural knowledge is necessary to implement the three changes in teaching.
Inquiry-based teaching is profoundly different from the traditional lecture and examination
model. Specific instructional strategies such as incorporating more collaborative research efforts
into syllabi is recommended by the Boyer Commission (Boyer Commission on Education
Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998). To correctly implement hybrid pedagogy,
ZJUT faculty will need to know when it is best to employ teacher-centered, rather than student-
centered, pedagogies, and further, specific instructional strategies such as direct instruction, and
cognitively guided instruction. They will also require procedural understanding as to when it is
best to place students in groups rather than having them work individually, or when it is best to
direct rather than guide students’ learning (Cid, 2014). For the combination of classroom
learning and extracurricular activities, ZJUT faculty need to know specific approaches
recommended by research. For example, hands-on projects, experiential learning or internship
can be included in the core curriculum (Chan, 2016).
ZJUT faculty’s metacognitive knowledge. In addition to having the conceptual and
procedural knowledge, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) point to the need to have the strategic
knowledge and self-knowledge as critical aspects in optimal performance. The capacity of ZJUT
faculty to use general strategies for teaching as well as deciding when and why to use different
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 36

strategies is needed, along with their self-knowledge of strengths and weaknesses. For example,
the assessment format is critical factor to impact how students approach their study. If the
teacher changes his or her instruction from knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, the
assessment may be changed from multiple choice to research project. Faculty should be able to
reflect on, and monitor, their teaching effectiveness in the classroom. Table 3 presents the
assumed knowledge needs of ZJUT faculty.
Table 3
Assumed Knowledge Needs
Assumed Knowledge Needs Knowledge Type

Teachers need to understand the key reasons and
facts of changing instruction from simple knowledge
transmission to building knowledge via inquiry.

Teachers need to understand the difference and
benefits of changing from teacher-centered pedagogy
to a hybrid model of instruction that employs both
teacher and student-centered pedagogical
approaches.

Teachers need to understand the importance of
changing instruction from classroom-centered
learning to learning that involves both classroom and
extracurricular experiences.

Conceptual

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 37

Table 3, continued
Assumed Knowledge Needs Knowledge Type

Teachers need to be able to facilitate building
knowledge via inquiry.

Teachers need to be able to implement the hybrid
model of instruction that employs both teacher and
student-centered pedagogical approaches.

Teachers need to be able to facilitate learning that
involves both classroom and extracurricular
experiences.

Procedural

Teachers need to know how to reflect on and
monitor their strength and weakness in the classroom
in the context of building knowledge via inquiry,
facilitating a hybrid teaching model of both teacher
and student-centered, and facilitating learning that
involves both classroom and extracurricular
experiences.

Metacognitive

Motivation
Motivation is “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained”
(Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008, p. 4). According to Clark and Estes (2008), up to 50% of
performance problem can be a result of lack of motivation rather than knowledge deficits.
Motivation is a key influence on performance enabling individuals to start and continue working.
It even has been attributed to determining how much effort to expend on work tasks (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Active choice, persistence and mental effort are the three commonly agreed upon
motivational indexes. A motivated person will choose to start the task, try best to persist at it,
and invest adequate amount of mental effort to succeed (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, when
ZJUT young faculty are motivated to improve their instruction, they will start to apply new
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 38

pedagogical approaches, as well as actively monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of these
approaches.
There are also various sub theories explaining what influences the motivational indexes.
In this study, Eccles’ (1998) expectancy value theory will be used to explain why ZJUT young
faculty would choose to implement major changes in their teaching. For persistence and mental
effort, Bandura’s (1982) self-efficacy theory will be explored.
Expectancy value theory. Eccles and colleagues developed a comprehensive theoretical
framework called expectancy value model to explain motivation (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele,
1998). The theory states that motivation is largely due to one’s task-related value and success
expectancy. Eccles and others indicated that the value construct has four dimensions: intrinsic
value, attainment value, utility value, and cost value. Intrinsic value of a task is whether the
person feels enjoyment in pursuing the task. Utility or extrinsic value is determined by how well
a task fits into an individual’s or organization’s goals and plans. Cost value can be viewed as
trade-off in giving up other tasks (Eccles et al., 1998). In this study, faculty’s intrinsic value,
extrinsic value, and cost value of teaching will be explored through survey questions.
Faculty value for teaching. Chinese faculty, as demonstrated by research, felt their
teaching expertise was not appreciated in the promotion system, and that their teaching quality
was based on their own internal, self-initiated efforts rather than driven by extrinsic motivation
(Lai et al., 2014). Lai and colleagues (2014) conducted a mixed methods research on nine
Chinese universities with 1770 surveys and 60 follow-up interviews. Their research revealed that
most faculty believed that teaching quality was sacrificed to allocate more time and effort to
meet research workload. This present study will explore whether the cost value of teaching plays
major role in young faculty’s choice of focusing on teaching or research. My hypothesis is that,
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 39

if the ZJUT young faculty do not feel implementing changes in teaching is valuable to achieve
the goal of increasing teaching projects to be rewarded as national undergraduate teaching
project, they probably will not choose to start, persist in or spend mental efforts in the task,
according to expectancy value theory.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is one’s belief in his or her ability to complete a task
successfully. Bandura (1982) developed the self-efficacy theory to explain thought patterns,
actions, and emotional arousal and ultimately, performance at a task. Bandura found that the
high the level of self-efficacy an individual has, the better performance the person will
accomplish (Bandura, 1982) as self-efficacy predicts engagement with the task, persistence at it
and the degree to which individuals invest mental effort to succeed at the task.
Faculty self-efficacy for teaching. The three major changes in teaching, required by
ZJUT, involves large-scale changes in the young faculty’s daily instruction. In order to fully
engage in this effort, the faculty needs to believe they are capable of accomplishing this task. If
they have low self-efficacy about teaching, they may not engage in the process of making the
changes. Even if they start to change their way of teaching, they may return to the old pedagogy
when facing challenges in the process of reform. Table 4 presents the assumed knowledge needs
of ZJUT faculty.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 40

Table 4
Assumed Motivation Needs
Motivation Construct Assumed Motivation Needs
Expectancy value

Intrinsic Value – Young faculty enjoy applying three
major changes to improve their teaching quality.

Extrinsic Value – Faculty need to feel that implementing
three changes in teaching is critical to increase teaching
projects to be awarded as national undergraduate
teaching project.

Cost Value – Faculty need to see spending time in
changing the instruction as valuable even if it takes time
away from research workload.

Self-Efficacy

Young faculty need to believe they are capable of
effectively applying three changes in their instruction.

Organizational Needs
In addition to knowledge and motivation, organizational influences are very important to
determine performance. Clark and Estes (2008) identify one major cause of performance gap as
the lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes. If an institution needs to
improve performance, the organizational culture must be considered in terms of whether it will
support the change. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) operationalized the concept of
organizational culture into two key ideas: cultural models and cultural settings. This section will
explore the theory of cultural models and cultural settings as well as in relation to the application
to the ZJUT young faculty.
Cultural models and settings. According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), cultural
models and cultural settings are two key ideas to practically explore culture in educational
research and in general. Cultural models mean “shared mental schema or normative
understanding of how the world works, or ought to work” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 41

47). Cultural models in an organization are the values, beliefs, and attitudes developed over
time. In terms of daily practice, they often become unnoticed by people who work within the
organization. Cultural settings are public policies and procedures which can be observed and
manifested those culture models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
ZJUT culture in teaching. ZJUT has 2,118 faculty members, including 487 professors
and 946 associate professors (ZJUT, 2018). Faculty can choose from three advancement tracks:
teaching-track, research-track, and teaching-research-combined-track. Currently, less than 10%
of faculty choose the teaching-track and most choose teaching-research-combined-track.
Because promotion criteria are largely based on research publications, faculty is likely to put
more effort into research rather than teaching. It is the current practice that as long as the faculty
complete the required teaching hours, the university will not place pressure on the faculty for the
quality of their teaching. This study will probe for the degree to which young faculty currently
perceive that the university cares about improving teaching quality. Faculty’s view on current
teaching accountability policies will also be explored.
Table 5 presents the assumed organizational needs with which ZJUT faculty will improve
their teaching.
Table 5
Assumed Organizational Needs
Organizational Influence Category Assumed Organizational Needs

Cultural Model Influence

The university needs to cultivate a culture of caring for
teaching quality.

Cultural Setting Influence One

The university needs to have effective teaching
evaluation to assure the expected standards of teaching.

Cultural Setting Influence Two

The university needs to have an effective promotion
system for teaching-track faculty.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 42

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which ZJUT was achieving its
goal of increasing the number of teaching-related programs awarded as national undergraduate
teaching project from 46 in 2015 to 100 in 2020. Through a gap analysis framework, the study
explored young faculty’s knowledge, motivation and organizational needs related to
implementing three major changes in teaching. This included knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs of how to move teaching practices from a model of transmitting knowledge
to a model of students gaining knowledge via inquiry, from teacher-centered pedagogy to a
hybrid pedagogy with components of both teacher and student-centered learning experiences,
and from classroom-centered learning to learning that involves both classroom and
extracurricular experience. As such, the questions that guide this study were the following:
1. To what extent are ZJUT’s young faculty achieving the three major changes in teaching:
knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid
pedagogy with both teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and classroom-
centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning?
2. What is young faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to achieving this goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and young faculty’s
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
This chapter introduced participating stakeholders and recruitment strategies. The
approaches to data collection were explained, including sampling strategy, instrument
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 43

application, as well as data analysis strategy. There was also a discussion of how to ensure
credibility and trustworthiness as well as ethical practice.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population for this study was young faculty. The term young faculty
referred to faculty who were younger than 45 years (Li et al., 2013). Young faculty were
suitable to be studied about teaching quality because they were the group who took the most
teaching workload and faced enormous pressure to advance in the academic ranking. They were
more trapped in the dilemma of focusing on teaching or research in the early stage of their career
development. ZJUT has 2,118 faculty members, including 487 professors and 946 associate
professors (ZJUT, 2018). According to the statistics from ZJUT department of human resources,
there were around 1200 young faculty eligible for my study. Academic ranking in ZJUT starts at
instructor, and progresses through assistant professor, associate professor to full professor.
Faculty can choose from three advancement tracks: teaching-track, research-track, and teaching-
research-combined-track. All faculty are required to teach classes, but young faculty share the
most teaching workload since they are newer to the workforce in the university.
I used a mixed methods approach and collected data with surveys and interviews to
explore young faculty’s knowledge, motivation and organizational influences about teaching
goals.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The first step of the study was to establish the exact number of faculty under the age of
45. With the help from ZJUT human resources department, this number was certified to 1217.
A request for a survey to be sent to this group was submitted to the human resources department.
After ZJUT approved, I asked the human resources department to send the survey to all young
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 44

faculty in ZJUT on my behalf. Johnson and Christensen (2010) listed the ideal sample size for a
population of 1200 was about 291. I received the complete responses of my survey as 295,
which met the requirement of ideal sample size.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Must be full-time faculty of ZJUT. Some administrative staff may be part-
time faculty in ZJUT but these part-time faculty are not evaluated by their teaching. Full-time
faculty were all required to be involved in teaching, therefore, part-time employees were
excluded from my study.
Criterion 2. Must be 45 years and younger. In China, faculty of 45 years and younger
are considered as young faculty for three reasons: (a) retirement age is set by government at 60
for males and 55 for females; (b) no university students or graduates from 1967 to 1980 (Chinese
Cultural Revolution) lead to an age gap in the Chinese faculty population; and (c) faculty
graduated after the cultural revolution are in their 40s or younger (Li et al., 2013).
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007) provided a sampling framework for mixed methods
studies based on time orientation criterion and sample relationship criterion. In a sequential
sampling design, data obtained from the sample during the first phase would be used to structure
the sample selection of the next phase of study. A nested sample relation means that participants
selected for one phase of study is a subset of the participants in the other phase (Onwuegbuzie &
Collins, 2007). A nested sequential sampling design was applied in my mixed study. The
sample for the second phase of interviews was identified through responses of willingness to be
interviewed, which was included in the survey. A sample of eight professors were identified,
stratifying their responses by academic rankings and years of employment. Purposeful sampling
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 45

is suitable to discover and gain in-depth understanding of a population (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Identifying volunteers of young faculty from various academic rank and employment
length can uncover different perceptions of their job and variations in teaching reflective of
different pressures experienced in their pursuit for promotion. This was an important aspect to
examine as Lai and colleagues (2014) identified the fact that Chinese faculty felt teaching was
not appreciated in promotion system. Some faculty, who give up further promotion, will focus
on teaching quality purely based on their own internal self-initiated efforts (Lai et al., 2014).
Eight young faculty were individually interviewed face-to-face. The final number of eight was
decided because the saturation was reached and repetitive data emerged (Johnson & Christensen,
2010).
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Must be a member of the survey sample group who has volunteered to
participate in the follow-up interview. This ensured that interviewees were willing to share more
in-depth information related to survey topics.
Criterion 2. Must represent different academic ranks and employment length in the
university. A purposeful mix of various academic ranks and employment length was used to
gain broad range of perspectives among young faculty in their knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs related to teaching.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study employed mixed methods to collect data through a survey and one-on-one
interviews. Surveys can be used in evaluating programs and describing people’s perceptions and
values (Fink, 2013). I constructed a survey, establishing face validity, identifying the young
faculty’s motivation and organizational needs related to achieving their teaching goal. The
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 46

interview can provide participants opportunities to explain in-depth how they interpret their
perceptions (Weiss, 1994). I used the interview approach to mainly collect young faculty’s
knowledge that influences their teaching.
Surveys
The survey was created in Qualtrics and emailed to all young faculty members who were
45 years old and younger. The department of human resources of ZJUT generated the email list
and emailed the surveys to all faculty who met criteria. The survey was conducted in early
October 2018 after the Chinese national holiday. The initial response window for the survey was
two weeks. The ideal response rate was not reached after the first two weeks, so the department
of human resources sent out a reminder email to all young faculty again. The ideal number of
respondents reached 295 at the end of second round by November 2018.
Survey questions were designed to mainly explore the key constructs of motivation and
organizational influences, including value, self-efficacy, cultural model and cultural setting.
Likert-type scale questions were used in the survey. Respondents identified how closely they
agreed or disagreed with a statement. A Likert-type scale is an ordinal scale so the responses can
be collected as ordinal data and analyzed by median, mode and frequency (Fink, 2013). This
kind of survey question was useful to explore young faculty’s major perceptions and values
about motivation and organizational influence related to teaching.
The survey was translated into Chinese and both English and Chinese versions were kept
on the same sheet for assisting non-English-speaking faculty’s understanding. I translated the
survey and used a “back translation” strategy to ensure my translation accuracy. Back
translation is a strategy to check on translation with a second bilingual person translating the
translated contents back into the original language (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 47

At the end of the survey, there was a question that participants could choose the answer
as either Yes or No to sign up for an interview and put in contact emails. Respondents who
volunteered to participate in the interview were purposefully selected to the second phase of this
mix methods study. The complete survey instrument is included in Appendix A.
Interviews
Eight one-time face-to-face interviews were conducted by me as interviewer with young
faculty purposefully selected based on their academic ranking and employment length in ZJUT.
Each interview lasted 45 minutes to one hour. No supervisor of the interviewees was present or
notified of the interview. The interviews were held in a place that kept the person’s identity
protected. The in-depth interview was conducted on ZJUT campus venues where the
interviewees felt comfortable. A private meeting room in the building of college of business was
reserved and used in the event that the interviewee did not have a suitable place for a private
interview. All meetings were scheduled within one-week period in the late November 2018
when I traveled to ZJUT and lived on campus.
Patton (2002) suggested three basic approaches to conduct qualitative open-ended
interviews: informal conversation, interview guides, and standardized open-ended interview.
The informal conversation interview is the most unstructured and open-ended with maximum
flexibility. The interview guide lists topics within which the interviewed is free to ask questions
that will generate useful information during conversation. In the standardized open-ended
interview, questions will be fully structured with least flexibility. I used the standardized open-
ended interview, which required carefully and fully wording questions before the actual
interview. An interview protocol with 10 standardized questions was provided to IRB of the
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 48

University of Southern California for approval before the data collection processed. The
interview protocol can be found in Appendix B.
Interview questions were used to explore young faculty’s knowledge about making three
major changes in their teaching. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) suggest four types of
knowledge as factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Ten standardized open-ended
interview questions probed young faculty’s conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge
of three major changes in teaching which were required in the university’s strategic plan. The
three teaching changes are moving teaching practices from a model of transmitting knowledge to
a model of students gaining knowledge via inquiry, from teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid
pedagogy with components of both teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and from
classroom-centered learning to learning that involves both classroom and extracurricular
experience.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), typically two strategies can be employed when
interviews are done in another language. One is to translate the transcript into English and
conduct data analysis in English. The other is to work in the original language for data analysis
and translate the findings and supporting evidence into English. My interviews were conducted
in Chinese. I recorded each interview and asked a professional third-party agent to transcribe all
interview records in Chinese. I completed data analysis in Chinese and use forward and
backward translation to present the findings and relevant evidence in English.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making meaning through consolidating and interpreting
data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For the survey, demographics (age, rank, time of employment,
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 49

gender) were presented in aggregated frequencies. The survey utilized a Likert scale, and
frequencies and relationships between the survey responses were explored and reported.
For interviews, data analysis began during data collection process. Analytic memos were
written after each interview. Any thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data were
noted, and associations relating to the conceptual framework and research questions were
explained. Interviews were transcribed and coded. Open coding was used in the first phase of
analysis. This allowed me to look for empirical codes and applied a priori codes from the
conceptual framework. A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and prior
codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis I was able to
identify pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and
study questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
All research is concerned with the reliability and validity of the results to assure the
believability of the conclusions. Qualitative research establishes its reliability and validity
through demonstrating its credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell
(2013) identified bias and reactivity as two specific threats for qualitative research. When data is
selected so that it will be a good fit and support the researcher’s existing theory or goal, it is
called researcher bias. Reactivity means there has been influence from the researcher on the
interviewees or setting, bringing into questions the reliability and validity of the data (Maxwell,
2013).
The theory I used for this study was based upon a hypothesis that the faculty’s low
teaching quality was the result of motivation problems. Articles demonstrating this same view
were identified during the literature review. This pre-existing assumption may influence the
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 50

research design, data collection and analysis, and ultimately decreased the credibility of the
research. The interview process might also be influenced, resulting in biased question
development that could direct answers towards my hypothesis. Maxwell (2013) proposed
several strategies to increase credibility of qualitative research conclusions including rich data,
respondent validation, searching for discrepant evidence, and triangulation. In the interview
process, I used the strategy of rich data, transcribing verbatim transcripts of all interviews. Once
the main points of each interview were generated, feedback was solicited from the interviewee to
establish accuracy, ruling out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of participant
responses. In the interview sampling stage, utilizing demographic data, the discrepant evidence,
or outliers, was identified. The mixed methods design leaned itself to triangulation, as I was
collecting both qualitative and quantitative data and looking to identify if their conclusions
supported each other. This methodology for triangulation was supported in the literature
(Maxwell, 2013).
Validity and Reliability
Survey quality is determined by its reliability and validity. A survey is considered as
reliable if it consistently yields the same results when it is used to measure the same object.
Several pilot surveys were sent out to ZJUT faculty to test the reliability. Changes were made
based on the comments and suggestions from the pilot study. ZJUT human resources department
checked the final version of survey before they sent it out to all faculty who were 45 years or
younger.
Validity means the data the survey collects provides accurate information reflecting of
the respondents understanding of the question (Fink, 2013). The survey in my research had
content validity since it was based on the gap analysis framework of Clark and Estes (2008).
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 51

“Content validity is usually established by referring to theories about personality, emotions, and
behavior” (Fink, 2013, p.78). Validity is the most important feature for a survey and a valid
survey is always a reliable one (Fink, 2013). All questions and statements in the survey were
generated from research-based motivational and organizational influences related to young
faculty’s teaching. Participants chose how closely they agreed or disagreed with a statement
using a Likert-type scale. The group of interest was young faculty. I asked the department of
human resources to send out surveys to all faculty under 45 years old to assure that the surveys
only reflected the views of the young faculty.
Ethics
Glesne (2011) identifies some of the researcher’s responsibilities when human subjects
are involved in the study. These are “informed consent, avoidance of harm, and confidentiality”
(Glesne, 2011, p. 162). I attached the informed consent statement in the beginning of the survey
to all participating young faculty as well as at the beginning of the interviews. The possible
participants were made aware “(1) that participation is voluntary, (2) of any aspects of the
research that might affect their well-being, and (3) they may freely choose to stop participation at
any point in the study” (Glesne, 2011, p. 166). For confidentiality, as suggested by Glesne
(2011), I used fictitious names and changed descriptive characteristics of participants. I also
assured them that their identities and anything they share with me during the interview would be
kept confidential. During the interview process, permission for recording was requested from
the interviewees before the recording started. All survey data and interview transcript were
stored in a separate flash drive kept in a locked cabinet for security.
Zhejiang University of Technology (ZJUT) is a sister university of an American
university where I have been working for over 10 years. I have cooperated with many
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 52

administrators and faculty members of ZJUT for student and scholar exchange programs since
2007. This longtime working relationship with ZJUT put me in a beneficial position to conduct
my research about young faculty. According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), the shared social
network will enable the interviewer to gain trust from the interviewees easier than a pure
outsider. It also served to establish faster rapport. My role in this research fell between that of
an insider and outsider. As an insider with large network within ZJUT, it was easier for me to
gain trust during the interview and interviewees would reveal more details to me. I could
maintain neutrality related to the data collection and analysis process as I was not an employee. I
did not supervise anyone at the university, nor was I supervised by anyone in the university.
Despite the benefits of my relationship with this university and its various stakeholders, I
needed to consciously avoid becoming an intervener or reformer during the research. “As a
result of conducting research, researchers may attempt to right what they judge to be wrong, to
change what they condemn as unjust” (Glesne, 2011, p. 168). I had the assumptions that
faculty’s teaching quality was low because they were not properly incentivized or motivated to
teach. I wished to change this dissatisfying situation for teachers through my research which
included survey and interview findings to share with administrators. However, I needed to
suspend my assumptions during the research and identify the real problem as if it exists in ZJUT.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 53

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Zhejiang University of Technology had a goal of increasing the number of awarded
teaching-related programs as recognized by the national undergraduate teaching project. The
increase sought was from 46 programs awarded in 2015 to 100 by 2020. This study was to
evaluate the current status of ZJUT young faculty as the major stakeholder in achieving the three
major teaching changes in order to realize the increased number of undergraduate teaching
project. A group of assumed needs were generated, based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework, as theoretical constructs to be evaluated. These constructs included
assumed knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational (O) needs with which ZJUT young
faculty would be able to implement changes in teaching practices. Improving teaching ability is
listed as one of the five qualified categories in the Benke Jiaoxue Gongcheng, also known as the
national undergraduate teaching project (MOE, 2018a). ZJUT required three major pedagogical
changes in its medium and long-term development plan to meet those standards (ZJUT, 2011).
The first change was from a model of simply transmitting knowledge to a model of students
gaining knowledge via inquiry. The second change was from teacher-centered pedagogy to a
hybrid pedagogy with components of both teacher and student-centered learning experiences.
The third change was from classroom-centered learning to learning involving classroom and
extracurricular experiences.
This chapter presents findings from a mixed methods study which included an online
survey and follow-up face-to-face interviews. Surveys were distributed to over 1200 ZJUT
faculty. Three hundred faculty members responded with 295 completing all questionnaires.
This represented a completion rate of 24.5%, which met the ideal response rate. In addition to
the full sample (n=295) eight faculty members were chosen as a demographically representative
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 54

sample of ZJUT young faculty from a sample of 73 volunteers to participate in an interview. A
chart of the demographics of this sample can be found in Appendix E. Data were analyzed and
triangulated to understand the gaps and needs in knowledge, motivation and organization during
the time in which young faculty were implementing the three changes in teaching. The objective
of data analysis was to identify whether a gap existed in each assumed need. Assumed needs
were considered to have no gap when at least half the survey respondents agreed or disagreed
with the statement related to specific assumed need, or when over a quarter of the interviewees
provided clarification to that need (Harding, 2018). New findings were also discussed and
presented. The following research questions guided this evaluation study:
1. To what extent are ZJUT young faculty achieving the three major changes in teaching:
knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid
pedagogy with both teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and classroom-
centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning?
2. What is young faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to achieving this goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and young faculty’s
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs
This study used Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) four types of knowledge to understand
how ZJUT young faculty knew the three changes in teaching. Two hundred ninety five ZJUT
faculty members completed a survey that included questions establishing the respondents’
factual knowledge of the three requested changes in teaching. Eight faculty members
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 55

participated the follow-up interview providing detailed answers reflecting the faculty’s
understanding of conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge related to pedagogical
changes. There were eight assumed knowledge needs identified for ZJUT young faculty to be
able to perform the three changes in teaching. Table 6 provides the data indicating gaps were
identified in three needs out of eight.
Table 6
Assumed Knowledge Needs
Knowledge
Type
Assumed Knowledge Needs Gap No Gap
Factual

Faculty need to know the facts of the three changes in
teaching.

X
Conceptual

Conceptual

Conceptual

Faculty need to understand the key reasons and facts of
changing instruction from simple knowledge transmission to
building knowledge via inquiry.

Faculty need to understand the difference and benefits of
changing from teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid model
of instruction that employs both teacher and student-centered
pedagogical approaches.

Faculty need to understand the importance of changing
instruction from classroom-centered learning to learning that
involves both classroom and extracurricular experiences.

X
X

X

Procedural

Procedural

Procedural

Faculty need to be able to facilitate building knowledge via
inquiry.

Faculty need to be able to implement the hybrid model of
instruction that employs both teacher and student-centered
pedagogical approaches.

Faculty need to be able to facilitate learning that involves
both classroom and extracurricular experiences.

X

X

X

Metacognitive

Faculty need to know how to reflect on and monitor their
strength and weakness in the classroom about building
knowledge via inquiry, facilitating a hybrid teaching model of
both teacher and student-centered, and facilitating learning
that involves both classroom and extracurricular experiences.

X

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 56

Assumed Factual Knowledge Need
A survey was used to assess the assumed factual knowledge need. Two questions were
designed to examine whether ZJUT young faculty knew the basic facts of the three changes in
teaching. One question, posed at the beginning of the survey, indicated whether the young
faculty knew that the university required the three changes in teaching. The second question was
presented at the end of the survey. It asked the faculty to pick the correct contents of the three
required changes.

Figure 2. I know the three major changes in teaching required by the University’s 2011–2020
medium and long-term development plan.

Seventy four percent of the faculty sample (n= 222) knew the university requirement of
three major changes in teaching that was required in the 2011–2020 medium and long-term
development plan. Seventy percent (n=207) of the faculty chose the correct answer identifying
the three changes. These findings indicate a majority of ZJUT young faculty have knowledge of
the basic facts of the three changes in teaching, therefore there is no gap in the assumed factual
knowledge need.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 57

Assumed Conceptual Knowledge Need
Follow-up interviews were conducted with a purposive volunteer sample of eight young
faculty members. These faculty members were chosen based on their academic rank, subject
department, and length of employment at ZJUT. Three of ten interview questions were related to
scrutinizing the assumed conceptual knowledge needs of implementing the three teaching
changes:
• Change 1: from a model of simply transmitting knowledge to a model of students gaining
knowledge via inquiry;
• Change 2: from teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy with components of
both teacher and student-centered learning experiences;
• Change 3: from classroom-centered learning to learning involving classroom and
extracurricular experiences.
Three of the eight faculty interviewed knew the key reasons for change 1. These faculty
members expressed that it was a necessity to “adapt to the new era” in which students could
easily access “way much more convenient and broader information and knowledge than our
generation.” Professor A acknowledged, “This decides the way we are teaching, should be
different from previous time.”
Five faculty members knew the difference between teacher-centered and student-centered
pedagogy in change 2. Teacher-centered pedagogy meant “to teach based on the teacher’s
understanding” and student-centered pedagogy was “to concentrate on students’ response.” The
difference was “knowledge transmission is fixed or with very little variation” in teacher-centered
way while “interaction between teaching and learning” was more focused in student-centered
practice. Concepts of both teaching pedagogy were clear to interviewed faculty members. Some
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 58

professors further identified the obstacle in change 2, reflecting that very few students liked
participating in group discussion. Professor B explained,
For example I have 50–60 students in my class, only 10 students would like to raise up
hands and express their ideas, which is large percentage of participation already. In the
Chinese classroom, we are used to listening to teacher’s lecture from elementary school. I
think in order to apply both teacher-centered and student-centered pedagogy, we need to
refresh students’ minds when they get into the university and let them know college
classroom is different.
None of the faculty realized the importance of change 3, which was combining
extracurricular experience with classroom-centered learning. Instead, the faculty focused on
discussing the difficulties involving in adding extracurricular activities. The identified
difficulties came from the university policies, for example, “supervising group who will check
whether the class is taken in the classroom,” which would hinder teachers to take students out for
visit during classes. Five faculty members thought adding extracurricular activities depended on
the major and class subject. They indicated, “For the theory-intensive class, how to combine the
extracurricular activities, is little bit difficult.” Other classes might be easier to add “experiment
or internship.” It’s impossible to “combine classroom and extracurricular experience in each
individual class.”
These quotes indicate that ZJUT young faculty had demonstrated knowledge and
awareness in change 1 and change 2. More than a quarter of faculty could explain the concepts
and reasons to change, therefore there was no gap in these two assumed needs. Only change 3,
the assumed need to ensure faculty know the importance of changing instruction from
classroom-centered learning to learning that involves both classroom and extracurricular
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 59

experiences, met the criteria for gap, because none of the faculty realized the importance of
change 3 and most of them were complaining the difficulties for implementation of this change.
Assumed Procedural Knowledge
ZJUT young faculty, in addition to articulating concepts of the three pedagogical
changes, also needed to know the correct practice for change implementation. Three questions in
the interview instrument were designed to evaluate whether faculty had awareness of research-
based practice. The assumed procedural knowledge needs included:
• Facilitate building knowledge via inquiry (practice 1)
• Implement the hybrid model of instruction that employs both teacher and student-
centered pedagogical approaches (practice 2)
• Facilitate learning involves both classroom and extracurricular experiences (practice 3)
Practice 1. Boyer (1998) suggested universities should provide students with
opportunities to learn through inquiry. Knowledge inquiry can be realized through research-
based learning guided by faculty (Boyer Commission on Education Undergraduates in the
Research University, 1998). Three ZJUT young faculty cited research projects and literature
review as their practice of moving towards knowledge inquiry teaching. Professor A explained,
I will assign them some literature in English language, and give a research topic to them,
and hope they can complete. In the process, difference among students will emerge.
Some student with interest and competency will do the research project pretty good, but a
large number of them cannot complete it well.
Other two professors gave similar examples of helping student conduct research to
facilitate their learning. However, five of the eight faculty members incorrectly thought
“discussion,” “group projects” and “presentations” reflected the method of changing their
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 60

teaching from knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry. Three faculty, representing
scientific majors, assumed experimental reconstruction, or developing new science experiments
should be included as part of knowledge inquiry. Therefore, based on the findings, more faculty
members did not know how to facilitate building knowledge via inquiry.
Practice 2. Fifty percent of the interviewed faculty had knowledge of the hybrid model
of combined teacher and student-center pedagogy. In this model, the content of the class
instructs the use of either teacher or student-centered pedagogy (Cid, 2014). Faculty need to
know when it is best to employ direct instruction and cognitively guided instruction, or when it is
best to place students in groups rather than having them work individually. Professor A applied
“hybrid model in my classroom” by requiring students to “learn the contents” then to “speak out
in discussion.” Professor C described the process in more details,
I have 16 sessions of class in one semester, I will teach the early classes and arrange
students to talk at the last one or two sessions. Normally, we will set up one topic.
Previously, the way of small group work didn’t work out well, so nowadays I require
everyone to make a presentation then other students will ask questions. This has better
effects.
Half of the ZJUT faculty members demonstrated the procedural knowledge of this
pedagogical change during interviews. In addition, three professors pointed out the difficulty in
motivating student to participate in class as Professor A said, “generally speaking, there is large
difference compared to foreign universities, very few students participate in class discussion or
other activities. The participation percentage may differ in various majors, for example, in our
college, roughly 10–20% students have strong motivation to involve.” Therefore, half of
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 61

interviewed had the procedural knowledge of how and when to apply teacher-centered or
student-centered pedagogy, which meant there was no gap in this assumed procedural need.
Practice 3. The most common practice engaged by the faculty to add extracurricular
activities was inviting guest speakers to the classroom. Three out of eight faculty mentioned this
practice, for instance, “invite some outside professionals to speak in my class once or twice.”
Instead of citing examples of extracurricular activities, faculty complained the difficulty of
adding extracurricular contents. “How to organize students,” “transporting them back to forth,”
“large number students in a class” and “no flexibility to arrange class time” were common
reasons that made faculty give up extracurricular activities. It was clear that ZJUT faculty
members still lacked procedural knowledge to involve more extracurricular activities into
teaching practice.
Based on these interview findings, gaps in practice 1 and 3 needs were identified because
fewer faculty had articulated the correct research-based pedagogical practice. Five out of eight
faculty members had false conception about knowledge inquiry and only three faculty
implemented the research-based practice. Half of the faculty pointed the difficulties in applying
extracurricular activities to classroom and only three faculty tried one form of the practice.
Faculty demonstrated evidence relating to knowledge of utilizing teacher-centered and student-
centered pedagogy, therefore there was no gap in the assumed conceptual need of practice 2.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) defined metacognitive knowledge as the highest level of
knowledge required to monitor, reflect and control one’s own progress towards achieving goals.
ZJUT young faculty were asked to reflect on their strength in implementing the three changes in
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 62

teaching. They were also requested to identify any perceived areas where they needed assistance
in order to achieve those changes.
Strength. Faculty areas of strength in teaching differed according to their subject
majors. Two faculty were “relatively good at combining teacher-centered and student-centered
pedagogy” since they had longtime experience of “practicing this.” Another two faculty
reflected strength in mixing classroom with extracurricular activities as saying “it’s quite easy
for me to add extracurricular activities for students.” This demonstrated faculty members’
confidence on these two teaching changes. However, no one reflected on strength in research-
based learning or in building knowledge via inquiry (Change 1). This finding also aligned with
their weakness in procedure knowledge of Change 1. Reasons of lacking research-based
learning may not just come from the faculty side, as one faculty member explained that only a
few students “maybe only 10% would be willing to participate in research projects.” According
to Professor A, “this 10% of students were normally the group who would continue to pursue
graduate degree later.”
Assistance. There were four kinds of assistance identified by the ZJUT young faculty in
the process of implementing pedagogical changes. These were (a) university policy, (b) student
participation, (c) teacher learning communities and (d) faculty exchange opportunities. Almost
everyone (n=7) mentioned the need for institutional support from the university. Pedagogical
changes needed “related policy and mechanism” and “supportive policies for the reform” to
realize, especially the culture of “balance between teaching and research.” Two faculty urged
students’ “perception of study” to change from “writing down notes” and “reading textbooks” to
“joining the class discussion” and “expressing ideas in the classroom.” Two faculty members
also mentioned the importance of forming teacher learning communities as well as exchanging
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 63

good teaching practice with other top universities in China and abroad. The following two
quotes are representative of these discussions about teacher learning community and faculty
exchange,
How to improve (teaching quality), first is the team. Nominally, ZJUT organized many
teaching teams about different subjects, but it’s weak in learning exchange and
improvement within the team. … We need concentrate on developing teacher learning
community and build up the subject teaching team.
(We) need to go out, any courses, we should not just limit within our university. For
example, compared to top domestic universities, how is your (teaching) level, compared
to international prestigious university as well? Now we just take the textbook and follow
our own way of teaching respectively. It is insufficient in our vision.
ZJUT young faculty members covered broad aspects of reflection on the implementation
of the three pedagogical changes in these discussions. Their responses involved reflecting on
their strengths and weaknesses in teaching. They also identified the assistance needed from
various stakeholders including the university, students and faculty to achieve these changes.
Based upon these discussion, there was no gap identified in the assumed metacognitive
knowledge need.
Synthesis of Knowledge Findings
Key Finding #1. Triangulation of survey and interview results related to ZJUT young
faculty’s knowledge about the three teaching changes revealed some interesting findings.
Faculty thought they perceived knowledge of the three teaching changes, but through further
questioning it became apparent that they did not have adequate knowledge. Over 70% of 295
young faculty in the survey answered they knew what the three changes in teaching were,
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 64

however in the more nuanced interviews questions, only a small number out of eight faculty
could actually articulate the correct concepts and procedures of these pedagogical changes.
Key Finding #2. One pedagogical change was identified as being more difficult than the
other two. The change from classroom-centered learning to classroom and extracurricular
experience combined learning, was the one requiring most help for faculty. The majority of
faculty neglected the importance of involving extracurricular activities in learning and lacked
effective policy and procedures to implement this pedagogical change. Faculty did not need
more guidance on the change of teacher-centered or student-centered pedagogy since the
majority of them could articulate the concept clearly and implement the change. The assumed
need for changing from knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry had kind of gap, because
the faculty knew the concept but misunderstood the practice.
Key Finding #3. New finding related to students’ motivation emerged during the
interviews. A barrier for faculty who tried to implement research-based learning and student-
centered pedagogy was identified as low student participation. Some faculty hoped the students
could change their mind of learning in high school and adapt to college study environment when
they entered the university.
Results and Findings for Motivation Needs
Clark and Estes (2008) consider motivation as the factor that “gets us going, keeps us
moving, and tells us how much effort to spend on work tasks” (p. 80). In this study, motivation
had been operationalized into 10 assumed needs as constructs based on Eccles’ (1998)
expectancy value theory and Bandura’s (1982) self-efficacy theory. This was designed to
examine whether ZJUT young faculty had motivation in the process of implementing the three
pedagogical changes. Ten survey questions were structured to assess these 10 assumed
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 65

motivation needs. They were Likert-type questions asking respondents how agreeable they were
to certain statement. One interview question was structured to probe for the root cause of low
motivation in teaching. This resulted in identifying gaps in two of the 10 assumed motivation
needs (Table 7).
Table 7
Assumed Motivation Needs
Motivation
Construct
Assumed Motivation Needs Gap No Gap
Intrinsic
Value

Intrinsic
Value

Intrinsic
Value

Faculty enjoy changing the instruction methods from knowledge
transmission to building knowledge via inquiry.

Faculty enjoy applying the change from a teacher-centered
pedagogy to a teacher and student-centered pedagogy.

Faculty enjoy making changes in the instruction from classroom
learning alone to a mixture of classroom and extracurricular
experience.

X

X

X
Extrinsic
Value

Extrinsic
Value

Extrinsic
Value

Faculty need to feel that implementing the change in teaching from
knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry is critical to the
university.

Faculty need to feel that changing pedagogy from teacher-centered
to a hybrid model is important to the university.

Faculty need to feel their implementation of changing from
classroom-centered learning to classroom-extracurricular
combined learning is important to the university.

X

X

X
Cost
Value
Faculty need to see spending time in changing the instruction as
valuable even if it takes time away from research workload.

X

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 66

Table 7, continued
Self-
Efficacy

Self-
Efficacy

Self-
Efficacy

Faculty need to believe they are capable of changing the
instruction methods from knowledge transmission to building
knowledge via inquiry.

Faculty need to believe they are capable of applying the change
from a teacher-centered pedagogy to a teacher and student-
centered pedagogy.

Faculty need to believe they are capable of making changes in the
instruction from classroom learning alone to a mixture of
classroom and extracurricular experience.

X

X

X

Assumed Intrinsic Value Needs
Faculty were asked to respond to three questions, one on each of the changes, using a 6-
item Likert scale questions. These questions were designed to assess the level of faculty
enjoyment regarding implementing the three changes in teaching. Respondents were given six
choices to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement from “Strongly agree,” “Agree,”
“Somewhat agree,” “Somewhat disagree,” “Disagree,” to “Strongly disagree.” The change from
knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry (Change 1) revealed that 15% (n= 47) of the
faculty strongly agreed the enjoyment, 42% (n=125) faculty agreed the enjoyment, and 11%
(n=34) faculty somewhat agreed the enjoyment. Based on these statistical findings, 70% of the
faculty possessed the intrinsic value to improve their teaching. This trend was also noted in
change 2 with 75% finding enjoyment in and 93% for change 3. The mean of the assumed need
on intrinsic value was 79% enjoyment, therefore there was no gap identified in this assumed
need (Table 8).

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 67

Table 8
Enjoyment of Change

Strong Enjoyment
% n

Enjoyment
% n
Somewhat
Enjoyment
% n

Total
% n
Change1 16%
47 42%
125
12%
34
70%
206
Change2 23%
68 43%
127
9%
27
75%
222
Change3 28%
82 52%
155
13%
38
93%
275
Mean Value

79%

Assumed Extrinsic Value Needs
Three questions were designed to assess the importance of each change in faculty
members’ perspective. Fourteen percent (n=43) of the faculty strongly agreed the importance of
the change from knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry (Change 1), 38% (n=111) agreed
the importance, and 22% (n=64) somewhat agreed the importance. The total percentage of
faculty who thought Change 1 was importance accumulated to 74%. A similar pattern was
identified in Change 2 with 93% importance and Change 3 with 89% importance.
Based on the data in Table 9 (Importance of implementing change) the majority (85%) of
ZJUT young faculty believed improving their teaching quality was important to the university, so
there was no gap identified in the assumed extrinsic value need.
Table 9
Importance of Change

Strong Important
% n

Important
% n
Somewhat Important
% n

Total
% n
Change1 14%
43 38%
111
22%
64
74%
218
Change2 24%
72 54%
158
15%
45
93%
275
Change3 24%
70 49%
146
16%
47
89%
263
Mean Value

85%

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 68

Assumed Cost Value Needs
Sixteen percent (n=47) of faculty members strongly agreed it is worthwhile to spend time
making changes to the instruction, even if it takes time away from the research responsibilities.
Forty six percent (n=137) of the faculty members agreed and 23 % (n=67) somewhat agreed.
Eighty-five percent (n=251) of the faculty registered on the agreeable scale (Figure 3).

Figure 3. It is worthwhile for me to spend time making changes to my instruction, even if it takes
away from my research responsibilities.

Even though 85% of the faculty in the survey acclaimed that it was worth sacrificing
research time to focus on teaching, there were contradictory views presented in the interview
findings. Interviewees were given one question to identify the most important reason (root
cause) for teaching motivation. The options reflected the following causes: intrinsic, extrinsic,
cost value and self-efficacy. The majority of faculty members (62.5%) thought the root cause of
low motivation in teaching was the impact of faculty evaluation and promotion system, which
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 69

relied heavily on research. This meant the cost value between teaching and research played the
most important cause to affect teaching motivation. Faculty members complained that the
“university’s commanding wand” just looked at “research accomplishment such as paper or
project.” Extreme cases would be that professors with “teaching score at the bottom” could still
pass the evaluation “as long as I am very strong in research paper and funding project.”
Professors who “put efforts 100% on teaching and get excellent score every year” would not be
considered in promotion “if I don’t have the research and project.” Frustration and strong
opinions were expressed among faculty members that teaching was neglected in evaluation and
promotion. There was gap identified in the assumed cost need in motivation based on these
findings.
Assumed Self-Efficacy Needs
Three questions were designed to assess faculty members’ self-efficacy in making the
three teaching changes. Eighteen percent (n=53) of the faculty assumed they were strongly
capable of performing the change from knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry (Change
1), 53% (n=156) were assumed capable, and 19% (n=57) somewhat assumed capable. The total
percentage of faculty who were capable of carrying our Change 1 was as high as 90%. Change 2
showed even higher competency at 98%. Change 3 however, which was from classroom-
centered learning to learning with classroom and extracurricular activities combined, showed a
large decline to a total of 58%.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 70

Table 10
Competency of Change

Strong Capable
% n

Capable
% n
Somewhat
Capable
% n

Total
% n
Change1 18%
53 53%
156
19%
57
90%
266
Change2 26%
76 56%
165
16%
47
98%
288
Change3 5%
15 33%
98
20%
59
58%
172
Mean Value

82%

Compared to the high percentage of confidence in the other two changes, this meant
Change 3 needed more help with self-efficacy. There was triangulation of data from the
interview findings, as three faculty members identified that teachers may lack competency to
make pedagogical changes. Professor B identified some reasons for low teaching quality as,
“teachers do not have the capability” and “teachers accustomed to previous way of teaching.”
Generally, faculty members had the self-efficacy on the three teaching changes. Change 1 and
Change 2 demonstrated higher percentage of confidence than Change 3. Based on these
findings, there was no gap identified in the assumed need for self-efficacy as a whole. Only
Change 3 needed some assistance.
Synthesis of Motivation Findings
Key Finding #1. The Majority of faculty felt it was enjoyable and important to improve
their teaching skills. Many faculty members identified the existence of good teaching faculty
who really spent time and efforts on teaching students.
Key Finding #2. There were conflicts between the survey responses and the interview
responses related to cost value between the teaching and research. Even though the majority of
faculty members in the survey stated that it was worth sacrificing research time to focus on
teaching, in the interview the faculty members stated that the low motivation to teach was a
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 71

result of their focusing on research to get a good evaluation and promotion. Faculty would make
self-interest choice to choose research in order to get promotion in the academic rank.
Key Finding #3. Faculty’s low efficacy on the management of classroom and
extracurricular-combined learning was aligning with the assumed procedural knowledge need.
Their inadequate knowledge about how to implement the change correlated may be one of the
reason why they felt less confident on this.
Results and Findings for Organization Needs
Organizational factors comprise the third cause of performance needs, which were
examined by this study and will be presented in this section. Assumed organizational needs were
assessed using the constructs of culture model and cultural setting. Survey items and interview
questions were designed to assess ZJUT young faculty members’ views on the university’s
policy and culture related to teaching. There were three assumed organizational needs: to
cultivate a culture of caring for teaching quality, to have effective teaching evaluation to assure
the expected standards of teaching, and to have an effective promotion system for teaching-track
faculty. Gap was identified in two of the three assumed needs (Table 11).
Table 11
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational
Influence Category

Assumed Organizational Needs

Gap No Gap

Cultural Model
Influence

The university needs to cultivate a culture of
caring for teaching quality.

X

Cultural Setting
Influence One

The university needs to have effective
teaching evaluation to assure the expected
standards of teaching.

X

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 72

Table 11, continued
Organizational
Influence Category

Assumed Organizational Needs

Gap No Gap

Cultural Setting
Influence Two

The university needs to have an effective
promotion system for teaching-track faculty.

X

Culture Model
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) explained a cultural model as “shared mental schema
or normative understanding of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47). The culture
model in the university encompassed the values, beliefs, and attitudes developed over time. One
survey question targeted ZJUT young faculty members’ perception on whether the university
cared about teaching quality. ZJUT young faculty members were asked to choose how agreeable
they were to the statement “I believe the university cares about the quality of my teaching.”
Fourteen percent (n=42) of the faculty chose “strongly agree,” 49% (n=146) chose “agree” and
19% (n=58) chose “somewhat agree,” which concluded the total agreeable percentage to 83%.
Most faculty perceived the university had a culture of caring teaching quality, therefore no gap
identified in the assumed need to cultivate culture.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 73

Figure 4. I believe the university cares about the quality of my teaching.
Culture Setting
Teaching Evaluation. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) considered culture settings as
public policies and procedures, which could be observed and manifested the culture model. Two
survey questions concentrated on the effectiveness of the university’s policy and procedures
regarding to assurance of teaching quality. The first question was to assess faculty members’
view about whether current teaching evaluation criteria assured the expected standards of
teaching. Twenty four percent (n=71) of the faculty marked “strongly agree” the current criteria
did not assure the teaching quality, 45% (n=133) faculty “agree,” and 19% (n=56) “somewhat
agree,” which resulted the total to 88% in agreement. Eighty-eight percent of ZJUT young
faculty members thought the current teaching evaluation criteria utilized in the faculty promotion
system did not assure the expected standards of teaching, therefore there was gap in the assumed
need to establish an effective teaching evaluation system.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 74

Figure 5. The teaching evaluation criteria, utilized in the current faculty promotion system, does
not assure the expected standards of teaching.

Promotion system. The second question related to culture setting was to assess ZJUT
young faculty members’ view on the current faculty promotion system. Faculty were asked to
indicate their agreement level to the statement, “The current faculty promotion system, as a
whole, has effectively ensured the expected standards of teaching.” Only three percent (n=10) of
the faculty chose “strongly agree,” and 17% (n=50) chose “agree” and 20% (n=59) chose
“somewhat agree.” Sixty percent (n=176) of the faculty didn’t think the current faculty
promotion system ensured the expected standards of teaching, therefore gap was identified in the
assumed need to set up an effective promotion system.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 75

Figure 6. The current faculty promotion system, as a whole, has effectively ensured the expected
standards of teaching.

Interview Findings
One interview question was designed to obtain nuanced opinions from ZJUT young
faculty on how to improve the faculty evaluation and promotion system in order to improve the
teaching quality. During the interview, a short paragraph describing the current status of full-
time non-tenure-track faculty, or the teaching-track faculty system in the United States, was
provided to ZJUT young faculty. Faculty members were asked to comment on whether this
system was applicable to the ZJUT faculty who were dedicated to improve teaching quality.
Findings related to the university. Five faculty members identified that ZJUT had
established a system for teaching-track faculty several years ago. Faculty members were allowed
to “divide into teaching-track, research-track, and teaching-research-combined-track.”
Unfortunately, the evaluation for teaching faculty was, “not reasonable” and still involved with
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 76

“large amount of research workload,” such as “research publication of pedagogy” rather than
teaching criteria. The difficulty level for teaching-track faculty, in fulfilling teaching criteria for
promotion was even harder than for the research faculty. It was for this reason that “general
public will follow the path of teaching-research-combined-track” as the “easiest road for
promotion.” Even though teaching-track was available to choose in policy settings, very few
faculty would choose this advancement track in reality.
Four faculty members thought the description of the American teaching-track faculty
evaluation and promotion system was good, but that it was not applicable to ZJUT’s current
mission and vision since “we are acclaiming to be a research university.” “Introducing a system
to develop non-tenure teaching faculty” was “contradictory” to the perceived goal of ZJUT to
gradually become a research university. One professor pointed out the root cause of ZJUT
concentration on research was “evaluation criteria from the Ministry of Education.” Under
current evaluation criteria for universities, “research capability is strongly linked to our
university’s national ranking. The university ranking will determine the student enrollment
number and quality.” Another professor complained this closed cycle “is impossible to break
unless the Ministry of Education develops a system to evaluate your teaching quality.” Some
professors believed that “only prestigious universities such as Zhejiang University may come
back to focus on teaching” because these universities were at the top of national ranking and
“enjoyed large amount of funding.” All these findings indicated need to improve culture setting
for teaching in ZJUT.
Findings related to faculty. Three faculty explained the inferior status of faculty who
only concentrated on teaching. The common perception was that when a faculty shifted from
research to teaching it was due to the faculty member’s incompetency in research. Colleagues
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 77

and the administration would exclude teaching-focused faculty when it related to promotion and
rewards as one faculty complained “teaching has nothing to do with promotion.” Half of the
faculty assumed that the newly graduated Ph.D. faculty would be more aggressive in pursuing
research since they were “trained and hired based on the research ability.” They also thought
that middle-aged professors would prefer transferring to teaching because they had already
“accumulated teaching experience” and had become “less productive in research publications.”
“It’s a new pathway” for middle-aged professor to pursue “career advancement.” Three faculty
identified the current student-based course evaluation “unreasonable” and “needing redesign and
learning from abroad.” Five faculty members identified the fundamental motivation to improve
teaching was “better pay” and a “clear career promotional pathway.”
Synthesis of Organization Findings
More than two-thirds of faculty members in the survey were not satisfied with the current
teaching-track evaluation and promotion system. However, their reasons about the problems that
supported this shared view were not uniform. Some assumed it was an administrative systematic
problem that evaluation concentrated too heavily on research development. Others thought it
was the faculty themselves at fault, holding misperception of superior status for research over
teaching. Despite this disagreement, they were unanimous in believing that the solution would
be better salary and more effective career path for teaching faculty.
Summary of Validated KMO Needs
The data analysis identified gaps in the assumed knowledge, motivation and
organizational needs for ZJUT young faculty to implement the required three changes in
teaching. The knowledge gap was identified in both conceptual and procedural aspects of
teaching practice. Faculty needed to understand the importance of changing instruction from
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 78

classroom-centered learning to learning that involves both classroom and extracurricular
experiences. Faculty also required the ability to facilitate building knowledge via research-based
learning, as well as facilitating learning that involved both classroom and extracurricular
experiences. As for the metacognitive knowledge, assistance for improvement were reflected on
and clarified by the faculty.
Gap in the assumed motivation needs were not identified in extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation, but identified in cost value. As for self-efficacy, gap existed in the assumed need to
motivate change in adding extracurricular activities into teaching was established, but not existed
in the assumed needs for the other two changes. This meant the faculty needed to consider
improving teaching quality as important as research publication and build on competency and
confidence of making changes in the instruction from classroom learning alone to a mixture of
classroom and extracurricular experience.
Organizational needs gap were identified in developing effective policy and procedures.
The majority of faculty were not satisfied with current evaluation and promotion system on
teaching-track faculty and requested institutional policy to support possible change.
Table 12
Gaps in Assumed KMO Needs
KMO Type Gap Identified
Knowledge

Conceptual Faculty need to understand the importance of changing
instruction from classroom-centered learning to learning that
involves both classroom and extracurricular experiences.
Knowledge Procedural Faculty need to be able to facilitate building knowledge via
inquiry.
Knowledge Procedural Faculty need to be able to facilitate learning that involves both
classroom and extracurricular experiences.
Motivation Cost Value Faculty need to see spending time in changing the instruction
as valuable even if it takes time away from research workload.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 79

Table 12, continued
KMO Type Gap Identified
Motivation Self-Efficacy Faculty need to believe they are capable of making changes in
the instruction from classroom learning alone to a mixture of
classroom and extracurricular experience.
Organization

Cultural Setting

The university needs to have effective teaching evaluation to
assure the expected standards of teaching.
Organization

Cultural Setting

The university needs to have an effective promotion system
for teaching-track faculty.

In the next chapter, validated assumed KMO needs will be discussed and given sequential
importance in developing solutions. Research-based solutions will be presented for addressing
the root cause to improve teaching quality.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 80

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTION, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
Zhejiang University of Technology (ZJUT) is a public comprehensive university
established in 1953 in Zhejiang, China. ZJUT was ranked 76th out of the top 500 universities in
China, and was ranked second in Zhejiang Province in 2017 (Academic Ranking of World
Universities, 2018b). It has 27 colleges with 2,118 faculty members and over 30,000 full-time
students (ZJUT, 2018). The mission of ZJUT is the cultivation of students with high-quality
talents demonstrating social responsibility, innovative spirit, and engagement of practical skills
for Zhejiang Province and the whole of China (ZJUT, 2016). An organizational goal in ZJUT’s
Outline of the Medium and Long-Term Development Plan (2011–2020) as well as the current
13th Five-Year Strategic Plan (2016–2020) is to improve teaching quality. The quantified
performance goal is to increase the number of teaching-related programs awarded as national
undergraduate teaching projects (Benke Jiaoxue Gongcheng) from 46 in 2015 to 100 in 2020.
Faculty is the major stakeholder in improving teaching quality and developing projects to be
qualified as national undergraduate teaching projects. Therefore, ZJUT young faculty members
who are younger than 45 years old has been chosen as the key stakeholder group in this study.
Their goal is to implement three major changes in teaching: knowledge transmission to
knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy of both teacher and student-
centered learning experiences, and classroom-centered learning to classroom-extracurricular
learning by 2020 (ZJUT, 2011). ZJUT has listed quantified goals for its talent cultivation
mission in the 13th Five-year Strategic Plan (2016–2020) as presented in Table 1:

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 81

The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which ZJUT is achieving its
performance goal as increasing the number of teaching-related programs awarded as national
undergraduate teaching project from 46 in 2015 to 100 in 2020. The analysis has focused on
young faculty’s knowledge, motivation and organizational needs related to achieving their goal
in order to attain the organizational goal. As such, the questions that guide this study are the
following:
1. To what extent are ZJUT’s young faculty achieving the three major changes in teaching:
knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid
pedagogy with both teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and classroom-
centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning?
2. What is young faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to achieving this goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and young faculty’s
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Five chapters were used to organize this study. Chapter one provided the key concepts
and terminology commonly found in a discussion about teaching quality or effective teaching in
higher education. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the framework for the
project were also introduced. Chapter two conducted a review of current literature surrounding
the quality and teaching quality of higher education in a global context and in China specifically.
Topics of effective teaching, teaching quality, student-evaluation-of-teaching, quality
assessment, and quality assurance in higher education were addressed. Chapter Three detailed
the assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational needs to be examined as well as
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 82

methodology when it came to the choice of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter
Four, the data were assessed and analyzed and results reported, establishing the knowledge,
motivation and organizational needs.
Chapter five concludes the study by providing research-based solutions addressing the
established KMO needs. An implementation action plan with steps as well as an evaluation plan
will also be presented. This chapter has been divided into four sections. The first section
presents the validated causes and the rationale for selecting the key causes. The second section
provides solutions from evidence-based research. The third section outlines an implementation
plan with integrated solutions to address assumed KMO needs. The last section gives an
evaluation plan for guidance of the proposed solutions.
Identified Gaps Selection and Rationale
The problem-solving framework used for this study reflects the gap analysis model for
organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). In a full gap analysis, solutions would be
provided for all identified gaps through research. There were seven assumed needs gaps
identified in chapter four. These gaps are reorganized and listed in Table 13 with priority
Table 13
Gaps in Assumed KMO Needs with Priority
KMO Type Gap Identified
Organization

Cultural Setting

The university needs to have effective teaching evaluation to
assure the expected standards of teaching.
Organization

Cultural Setting

The university needs to have an effective promotion system
for teaching-track faculty.
Motivation Cost Value Faculty need to see spending time in changing the instruction
as valuable even if it takes time away from research workload.
Motivation Self-Efficacy Faculty need to believe they are capable of making changes in
the instruction from classroom learning alone to a mixture of
classroom and extracurricular experience.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 83

Table 13, continued
KMO Type Gap Identified
Knowledge

Conceptual Faculty need to understand the importance of changing
instruction from classroom-centered learning to learning that
involves both classroom and extracurricular experiences.
Knowledge Procedural Faculty need to be able to facilitate building knowledge via
inquiry.
Knowledge Procedural Faculty need to be able to facilitate learning that involves both
classroom and extracurricular experiences.

Rather than providing seven separate solutions that address each of the gap, the proposed
solution compresses the gaps and needs by identifying the most emerging causes. In the
organizational assumed needs, faculty members directly pointed out the need to improve
teaching evaluation and promotion in both survey and interviews. Organizational gap was the
most unanimously agreed cause in hindering the teaching quality improvement. Motivational
gaps were identified in cost value between research and teaching as well as in self-efficacy on
combining extracurricular activities with classroom learning. Faculty discussed and complained
more frequently in the interviews about the evaluation favored research much more than
teaching. Three knowledge gaps were identified and two out of three involved the teaching
change from classroom-centered learning to learning that involves both classroom and
extracurricular experiences. Faculty members in the interviews explained the difficulties existed
due to some organizational policy settings, rather than just lacking knowledge. In fact, analysis
demonstrated that all knowledge, motivation and organizational aspects converged into needs to
change the organizational policies related to teaching. That’s why the gaps in assumed KMO
needs were reorganized with priority from organizational change, to motivation then knowledge.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The proposed solution is to develop and implement a new evidence-based evaluation and
promotion criteria for teaching-track faculty in ZJUT. This solution was based on three sources
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 84

of research. First was the literature review on the teaching-tracking faculty or non-tenure-track
faculty (NTTF) system in the American universities. In this literature review, the University of
Southern California (USC) was referred to as the promising practice for non-tenure-track faculty
management (The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success, 2017). Then a
further document analysis was conducted on the RTPC faculty handbook of two colleges at USC
to present more details on the NTTF evaluation and promotion. Lastly, some feedback from
USC faculty on the evaluation and promotion criteria of one college were considered and
integrated into the proposed solution for ZJUT. The actual first-hand experience of USC faculty
under the RTPC system would add credibility of the proposed solution to ZJUT.
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in American Universities
The faculty composition in U.S. higher education, according to American Federation of
Teachers (AFT) statistics, has fundamentally shifted over the past four decades (AFT, 2009).
Tenured or tenure-track faculty used to account for 80% in 1969 but has dropped to less than
30% in 2015 (Maxey & Kezar, 2015). Tenured faculty refers to traditional faculty in the
universities whose workload is evenly distributed to support teaching, research and service.
NTTF are instructors or lecturers employed on limited-term contracts to teach anything from one
course to a full course load. They include part-time adjunct faculty and full-time NTTF faculty
(Kezar, 2012). Non-tenure-track faculty’s contract can be terminated at the end of services while
tenured faculty can serve the university with lifelong contracts till retirement. The trend of
having more NTTF than tenured faculty is significant across all higher institutions in the United
States, with NTTF faculty comprising on an average of 75% at community college and 50% at
research universities (Kezar & Maxey, 2014). Similar academic labor changes in higher
education have taken place in Europe as well. Fixed-term employment in many European
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 85

countries such as France and Netherlands has increased much faster than permanent or tenure-
track employment in the past 20 years (Afonso, 2016).
Non-tenure-track faculty now teach the majority of undergraduate courses in US public
colleges and universities (AFT, 2010). Many publications have warned about the possible
negative impact of NTTF on student learning and success. Benjamin (2002) reviewed several
reports on the effects of NTTF on student outcomes and argued that the student experience was
sacrificed by rising proportions of NTTF in the academic workforce. Harrington and Schibik
(2001) studied 7,174 first-time, full-time freshmen at a Midwestern comprehensive institution
between 1997 and 2001, finding that increased exposure to part-time faculty was significantly
associated with lower second-semester retention rates. Some universities are engaging in
reforms and practices responding to the growing proportion of NTTF on campuses even though
the majority of American universities have not yet come to a consensus on how to view and treat
non-tenure-track faculty (Kezar & Maxey, 2014).
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success (2017) has recognized
the USC as a promising practice for non-tenure-track faculty in the categories of participation in
campus governance and data collection on non-tenure-track faculty. Non-tenure-track faculty in
USC accounts for 74.6% (4,641) of the whole faculty (6,222) in 2017 (USC, 2018). They are
responsible for the majority teaching workload for undergraduates with a positive student
outcome reflected in USC’s retention rate from 2013 to 2016 of over 96% and a 6-year
graduation rate over 91% (University of Southern California, 2017).

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 86

Teaching-Track Faculty Evaluation and Promotion in USC
USC has four tracks for non-tenured faculty: Research, Teaching, Practitioner, and
Clinical, referring to them with the initials RTPC. The non-tenured faculty at USC bears the
majority of teaching load. In order to better support, evaluate and reward RTPC faculty, USC
has developed a separate system of policy and practice. USC’s Rossier School of Education and
Marshall School of Business have been mentioned as promising examples in promoting and
evaluating teaching excellence, using this new policy and practice (Chung, 2017).
In the Rossier School of Education, teaching-track faculty are called clinical faculty. The
non-tenure-track Assistant, Associate, or Full Professors of Clinical Education are evaluated on
an effort profile of 80% teaching and 20% service with no research workload. These Clinical
Professors are expected to teach eight courses throughout a fiscal year. Evaluation of the
Assistant, Associate, or Full (Teaching) Professor of Clinical Education is weighted 95%
teaching and 5% service, with no expectation for research. They teach 10 to 12 courses each
year. Clinical faculty are reviewed based on four criteria: demonstrated excellence in teaching,
developed abilities as a teacher on an ongoing basis, curricular/pedagogical leadership, and
participation in service. Service is demonstrated by engagement in school activities and
committees that support the school’s mission, research, and outreach activities. Increased
leadership responsibility will be considered as part of the criteria in the promotion from
Associate Professors to Full Professors. The promotion process for clinical faculty includes an
initial meeting with Associate Dean, the preparation of a professional dossier, evaluation by
committee review, with a final decision arrived at by the Dean. Promotion is based on merit
alone using these four criteria (USC Rossier School of Education, 2019).
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 87

The Marshall School of Business identifies specific guided years for each rank of clinical
professors, which is mentioned in the faculty handbook. Typically, promotion to Associate
Professor is considered during the seventh year and promotion to full Professor will be
considered after four or more years as an Associate Professor. Evaluation and promotion criteria
for teaching-track faculty are similar to those in the Rossier School of Education. One major
difference between the two schools is that Marshall applied a 100-point scale workload profile to
clarify how faculty annual performance will be evaluated. Professional Development occupies
an independent category in the workload profile. The default annual profile for a clinical faculty
is 72 points in teaching (6 full courses), 20 in service, 8 in professional development and 0 in
research (USC Marshall School of Business, 2019). To provide consistency in evaluating
teaching, the Marshall School of Business used a two score system. Each faculty member’s
teaching performance is assessed in two separate ways and assigned separate scores labeled as
T1 and T2. The T1 score is based on student ratings of a professor provided in the course-end
evaluation forms. The T2 score is based on examination of teaching materials such as course
syllabi, classroom visit reports and teaching awards, as well as instructor numerical evaluations.
Possible factors that may be used to assess faculty members include course innovation, rigor,
relevance to practice, connections to other elements of the curriculum and relation to school or
university’s strategic objectives. Faculty’s final teaching score is based on adding T1 and T2,
with T1 contributing no more than 50% to the overall score.
Transferrable Experience to ZJUT
Currently faculty members in Zhejiang University of Technology (ZJUT) can choose one
of the three advance track: teaching-track, research-track, and teaching-research-combined-track.
No tenure system exists in ZJUT. All faculty are full-time, contract-based employees of the
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 88

university. Even though the faculty members’ are contract-based, they are seldom fired from the
university. The category of teaching-track faculty in the ZJUT is similar to full-time clinical
faculty or teaching-track faculty at USC.
Interviews with faculty members from the Rossier School of Education at USC generated
many transferrable criteria to evaluate and promote the young faculty in the ZJUT. Using a
score from 1 to 10, with 10 representing most motivated, many faculty in USC gave a score of 7
or higher to the whole clinical faculty evaluation and promotion system in motivating to ensure
teaching quality. Generally the criteria used for advancing from Assistant Professor to Associate
Professor are easier than from Associate to full, with more focus on teaching. The focus changes
from Associate to Full Professor with a greater emphasis placed on leadership and university
services. Teaching evaluation criteria in the assistant and associate levels cover broad aspects of
teaching and utilize multiple indicators gathered from different perspectives. Faculty can include
wide ranging examples of achievement related to teaching to their promotion portfolios,
inclusive of both qualitative and quantitative measurements. The changes in the criteria from
Associate Professor to Full Professor, emphasizing leadership, made the faculty feel as though
the university’s focus then moves them away from teaching.
The ZJUT teaching-track faculty evaluation and promotion criteria is very quantitative
rather than qualitative. The teaching workload evaluation reflects only the number of course
credits. No qualitative evaluation is conducted to demonstrate how these courses are prepared,
delivered and assessed. On the contrary, USC has very specific evaluation criteria in both
Rossier School of Education and Marshall School of Business on teaching excellence. In the
Rossier faculty handbook (USC Rossier School of Education, 2019), examples or evidence of
higher quality in teaching are listed:
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 89

• Positive qualitative feedback from students on formal teaching evaluations or in letter
from students
• Exemplary course syllabi
• Results of observations from colleagues
• Evidence of improvement through self-evaluation (reflective or video-based)
• Honors and awards (p. 10)
Newly employed Assistant Professors in ZJUT are all required to focus on research since
the vision of the university is to become a renowned research university. These newly graduated
Ph. D. faculty members are normally not experienced at teaching because they were trained in
conducting research not in education. On the contrary, many Associate Professors have
cumulated years of teaching experience but are unable to meet the research requirements for Full
Professor. Their research ability is no longer in line with the requirement of publishing papers in
international renowned publications. Therefore, USC’s RTPC evaluation and promotion criteria
for advancement from Assistant Professor to Full Professor may apply to the ZJUT Associate
Professors who wishes to become full professor without research requirement. In the Rossier
School of Education faculty handbook (USC Rossier School of Education, 2019), promotion
from Assistant to Associate Professor for Teaching or Clinical Education will review teaching on
the criteria:
• Demonstrated excellence in teaching
1. Instructional excellence
2. Evidence of collaboration with colleagues in area of expertise through
integration of new ideas and materials and renewal of course content when
appropriate
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 90

3. Demonstrated ability to foster appropriate learning outcomes in his or her area of
specialization through assessment data
• Developed his or her abilities as a teacher on an ongoing basis
• Participation in Rossier activities and committees that support the school’s mission,
research, and outreach activities
• Curricular/pedagogical leadership
1. Develop pedagogical methods and teaching materials in his or her area of
specialization
2. Contributed to the incorporation of new course materials that take into account
current theory, practice, and empirical research on teaching effectiveness and
learner-centered education (pp. 10–11)
Some criteria related to teaching in the USC Rossier School of Education from Associate
Professor to Full Professor may be added into ZJUT criteria, such as “secured or attracted
external resources to create, strengthen, or assess teaching practices, pedagogy, or educational
projects or studies,” “served as a mentor to students and Teaching Assistants,” “developed
interdisciplinary or transformative agendas with other schools and agencies” (USC Rossier
School of Education, 2019). ZJUT teaching-track faculty evaluation and promotion should
reconsider the distribution of these criteria on the two times of rank advancement based on its
own faculty situation.
Proposed Solution to ZJUT
The seven established needs identified in Chapter 4 are integrated into one
comprehensive solution: develop and implement new evidence-based evaluation and promotion
criteria for teaching-track faculty in ZJUT. This solution aims to tackle the root cause of
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 91

organizational influences on the faculty’s teaching quality. The plan can be called the New
Criteria Plan (NCP), which could be used for evaluating and promoting teaching-track faculty.
The New Criteria Plan will try to close the gap in the assumed motivation needs and
organizational needs to enable faculty to improve their teaching quality. Five major parts should
be proposed for discussion in the initial New Criteria Plan.
No research workload for teaching-track faculty. Full-time teaching-track faculty in
USC are not required to conduct research. Only tenured faculty or research-track faculty will be
evaluated by research output. This practice in USC has ensured its excellence in both research
productivity and teaching quality. Hattie and Marsh (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 58
articles covering 498 correlations between research and teaching, and concluded that teaching-
research relation was close to zero. They investigated 182 faculty member of a large urban
university in Australia in 2002 and found out near-zero correlation between research productivity
and teaching effectiveness (Marsh & Hattie, 2002). Even though there was strong rationale
reinforcing the argument that research should contribute to teaching and vice versa, the above
mentioned empirical evidence showed that teaching and research should be considered as
independent constructs. If ZJUT wants to improve the teaching quality, it should select, support,
evaluate and promote faculty members who are good teachers.
Adding qualitative information in teaching evaluation. In the current promotion
criteria for ZJUT teaching-track faculty, completion of teaching hours is the only criterion
related to classroom instruction. How the class is prepared, delivered and accessed are not
mentioned in the criteria. Qualitative information about course syllabi, class observation, and
sample student assignment should be considered in evaluating the instruction quality. ZJUT
Faculty could showcase examples of course syllabi improvement, exemplary class instruction
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 92

video and excellent student assignment in the teaching evaluation for promotion. A combination
of numeric data and the qualitative information that explains provides a well-rounded and
comprehensive reflection of teaching qualities.
Create annual work profile for teaching faculty. A 100-point scale workload profile
could be created to clarify how performance will be evaluated for teaching-track faculty in
ZJUT. The suggested annual profile is 72 points in teaching, 20 in service, and 8 in professional
development and 0 in research, following the example of Marshall School of Business in USC.
The 72 points in teaching could be assessed by a combination of numeric scores from student
evaluation forms and qualitative examples presented by the faculty. Using a score of 20 in
evaluating service could follow ZJUT’s current practice. A score of eight in professional
development should be created to reflective of the needs for knowledge related to improving
teaching quality. No research workload will be required for the promotion of teaching-track
faculty.
The 72 points in teaching should include T1 score representing students’ feedback on
teaching and T2 score showcasing the qualitative assessment on teachers. USC revised its
student evaluation on teaching significantly on 2017. Student course evaluation form on teachers
was changed to provide feedback about students’ learning experiences, instead of measuring
teaching effectiveness due to their lack of validity and vulnerability to implicit bias (Chung,
2017). USC’s former student course evaluation questionnaire only had two items (a) overall.
How would you rate this instructor, and (b) overall, how would you rate this course, used in the
faculty review processes. The new student course evaluation questionnaire in 2017 changed the
practice to include more items specific to students’ learning experience, such as course design,
instructional practices, inclusion practices, assessment and course impact. The need to improve
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 93

student course evaluation form existed in ZJUT as well since many ZJUT faculty members
questioned the validity and bias of their current “student evaluating teacher” practice as
“unreasonable” and “funny.” A new course evaluation form could be developed in ZJUT to
better reflect teachers’ course design, instruction, assessment and impact. Students may give
scores on these categories based on their learning experience. The result will comprise the T1
score in the faculty’s annual teaching evaluation. T2 score should be based on peer review of
classroom practices, syllabi, teaching portfolios, and teaching statement from faculty members
and administrators. T1 score could account for 40% and T2 score 60% in the total of 72 credits.
A teaching statement is a short annual reflection essay could be included in the annual
evaluation. According to clinical faculty members in the Rossier School of Education, the
reflection essay is very effective for faculty to summarize what new pedagogical practice they
have tried this year and remind them to analyze their teaching practice this year.
Application of USC’s teaching and promotion criteria for ZJUT faculty. ZJUT’s
current promotion criteria for teaching-track faculty are concentrated on research paper
publication, external honors and awards. The different between Assistant to Associate and
Associate to Full Professor is the number of papers in higher category of journal or sequential
position as authors in external projects and awards. A larger portion of the evaluation should be
reflective of internal teaching-related accomplishments. This can be included in the promotion
criteria from Assistant to Associate Professor. External teaching awards and projects should
comprise a higher percentage when evaluating the promotion from Associate to Full Professor.
The suggested promotion criteria in teaching from Assistant to Associate Professor are:
• Demonstrated excellence in teaching (high score in annual workload profile)
• Mentored students outside of classroom
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 94

• Curricular/pedagogical leadership and collaboration
• Developed his or her abilities as a teacher on an ongoing basis
No quota on teaching-track Associate Professor and Full Professor. ZJUT issues the
quota on the numbers of promotion for Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and Associate
Professor to Full Professor each year. This practice is the same as tenure-track faculty system in
the USC. As for teaching-track faculty or clinical faculty, USC does not have a quota limit on
the titles. Clinical faculty promotion is merit-based and depended on promotion criteria without
number cap. ZJUT faculty expressed the concern over the teaching-track faculty quota. The
current quota limit would hinder the motivation of faculty to move to the teaching-track
advancement. ZJUT could promote the teaching-track faculty based on merit and motivate more
faculty to devote to improve teaching quality.
The proposed New Criteria Plan for teaching-track faculty is based on USC’s clinical
faculty evaluation and promotion criteria with some modification to be suitable for ZJUT. For
example, the T1 and T2 ratio in calculating the annual teaching score is different. Student course
evaluation score only accounts for 40% and qualitative assessment accounts for 60%. This is
due to Chinese students’ characteristics of less participation in active learning. Another
modification is adding mentoring students outside of classroom as a criterion to promote the
virtue education from teachers to students based on Chinese social characteristics. One more
modification is the division of internal and external honors and awards on two stages of
promotion. It only requires university-level honors and awards in teaching from Assistant to
Associate Professor. The provincial and/or national honors and awards will be required in the
promotion from Associate to Full Professor.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 95

All principles proposed in the New Criteria Plan were generated from research and
practice. They need to be adapted into ZJUT’s situation after discussion among all stakeholders
in ZJUT. Table 14 outlines the proposed principles in the new evaluation and promotion criteria
for teaching-track faculty.
Table 14
Key Principles in the New Criteria Plan
Criteria for Assistant to Associate
Professor (teaching-track)
Criteria for Associate to Full Professor
(teaching-track)
Teaching
- Demonstrated excellence in annual teaching
workload profile (72 scores in teaching, 40%
student course evaluation score, 60%
qualitative examples and self-reflection essay)
- Serves in mentoring students outside of
classroom
- Curricular/pedagogical collaboration and
leadership (examples to be determined by
faculty)
- Professional Teaching Development
evidence provided on an ongoing basis
(examples to be determined by faculty)
- University-level honors and awards in
teaching

Services
TBD by ZJUT

Research
None

Teaching
- Meets all criteria for Associate Professor
- Serves in mentor capacity for assistant
professors and academic committee
- Demonstration of collaboration and
leadership in projects outside of university
(examples to be determined by faculty)
- Achieve provincial and/or national awards
and honors (e.g. national undergraduate
teaching project)

Services
TBD by ZJUT

Research
None

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The model that informing this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). It is based on the original Kirkpatrick
Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model suggests that
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 96

evaluation plans start with the goals of the organization and work backwards. By taking this
approach the leading indicators bridging the recommended solutions to the organization’s goals
are easier to identify and more closely aligned with the organizational goals. Leading indicators
refer to short-term observations and measurements reflecting the positive impact of critical to
produce desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Further, this reverse order of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) allows for a sequence of three other actions: a) the development
of solution outcomes focusing on assessing work behaviors, b) the identification of indicators
identifying that learning occurred during implementation, and c) the emergence of indicators that
organizational members are satisfied with implementation strategies. Designing the
implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces connections between the immediate
solutions and the larger goal soliciting proximal buy in to ensure success (Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick, 2016). These four levels collectively create the framework for an evaluation and
implementation model for change, the success of which relies very heavily on incorporating the
organizational goal into the recommendations for change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
One performance goal of ZJUT is to increase the number of teaching-related programs
awarded as national undergraduate teaching projects (Benke Jiaoxue Gongcheng) from 46 in
2015 to 100 in 2020. The major stakeholder in this endeavor is the faculty, who will be
responsible for improving teaching quality and developing projects to be qualified as national
undergraduate teaching projects. This study focused on the young faculty, those 45 years old or
younger, as the stakeholder group. Their goal was articulated as implementing three major
changes in teaching: knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 97

to a hybrid pedagogy of both teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and classroom-
centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning by 2020.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The Level 4 results is the degree to which targeted program outcomes occur and
contribute to the organization’s highest level result (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). ZJUT’s
one performance goal is to increase the number of teaching-related programs awarded as national
undergraduate teaching projects from 46 in 2015 to 100 in 2020. This goal takes time to achieve,
therefore leading indicators are developed to observe and measure whether critical behaviors are
on track. The proposed NCP for teaching-track faculty aims to increase faculty’s motivation on
realization of the major three pedagogical changes in their daily teaching. Three suggested
leading indicators to evaluate this plan are: increasing percentage of faculty who will choose the
new teaching-track, improved faculty motivation for teaching improvement, and better student
feedback on course evaluation forms.
Level 3: Behavior
The New World Kirkpatrick Model defined Level 3 behavior as the degree to which
participants apply what they learned during a training program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Since the New Criteria Plan is a policy rather than a training program, the Level 3
evaluation will focus on the faculty’s behavior change towards teaching. Indicators will include
active participation in professional development programs on teaching, forming the Faculty
Learning Community, and showcasing examples of applying the three pedagogical changes.
Level 2 and Level 1: Learning and Reaction
There is no training involved in the New Criteria Plan so Level 2, or learning evaluation,
is not applicable here. Level 1 reaction is the degree to which participants find the training
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 98

program favorable, engaging and relevant to their jobs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). When
the New Criteria Plan is developed and implemented, surveys could be sent out for the first
group of teaching-track faculty who go through the new criteria for promotion. The surveys will
examine the following two outcomes: whether the new evaluation and promotion criteria
successfully motivates young faculty to improve teaching quality and if all faculty members are
motivated to choose teaching-track advancement. Table 15 summarized the evaluation
indicators in each level.
Table 15
Evaluation Indicators
Action Plan:

Impact (Level 4) Behavior (Level 3) Reaction (Level 1)
Develop and
implement new
evidence-based
evaluation and
promotion criteria for
teaching-track faculty.
-The percentage of
faculty who choose
the new teaching-track
advancement will
increase to 20% from
current less than 10%
-The number of
faculty who prepare
for and apply for
Undergraduate
Teaching Project will
increase annually
-Peer evaluations
indicating an observed
improvement of
teaching
-Active participation
in PD on teaching
-Forming Faculty
Learning
Community
-Active learning and
practicing research-
based pedagogy
-Increased examples
of applying the three
pedagogical changes
in annual evaluation

-Survey teaching-
track faculty
evaluating level of
changed motivation
related to
improving teaching
quality
-Survey all faculty
whether the new
system motivates
them to choose
teaching tracking

Implementation Plan
Policy implementation includes mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization
(Fowler, 2013). The focus at the mobilization stage should be on continuing dialogue with all
key stakeholders involved in the policy adoption, planning and gathering resources. The
president and vice presidents of ZJUT, in collaboration with the academic affairs and human
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 99

resources department, will hold discussions with each college deans related to drafting an action
plan. The outcomes of these discussions will then be provided to the faculty for further
discussion. Planning for policy implementation is evolutionary and must consider a wide range
of suggestions from all stakeholders. At the final implementation stage, monitoring and
feedback are the key focus. If the innovative policy is implemented successfully, it will be
incorporated into the university institutional documents. Normally it takes 14–17 months for the
policy mobilization, and 5–6 months to show initial implementation results. The expected
outcomes require an addition 18 months for valid evaluation (Fowler, 2013). Table 16 outlines
the key implementation action steps with evaluation indicators.
Table 16
Key Implementation Action Steps
Proposed
Solution
Action Steps Building
Capacity &
Resource
Requirement
Timeline Indicators
&
Measures
Strategy:
develop and
implement
new
evidence-
based
evaluation
and
promotion
criteria for
teaching-
track faculty
in ZJUT
1. University academic affairs office and
human resources office will prepare an
evidenced-based proposal and organize
discussion with college deans for a new
evaluation and promotion system for
teaching-track faculty.

Support from
university
leaders
Four
months
Feedback
from
college
deans
2. Each college will hold discussion with
faculty to identify specific problems in each
college and suggest agreeable evaluation
and promotion criteria for teaching-track
faculty.
Support from
outside
experts for
research-based
solution
Input from
faculty and
administrators

Four
months
Feedback
from
faculty
3. University will gather information from
colleges and develop a master plan for
teaching-track faculty evaluation and
promotion system.

Three
months
Feedback
from
university
leaders

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 100

Table 16, continued
Proposed
Solution
Action Steps Building
Capacity &
Resource
Requirement
Timeline Indicators
&
Measures
Strategy:
develop and
implement
new
evidence-
based
evaluation
and
promotion
criteria for
teaching-
track faculty
in ZJUT
4. Each college will develop suitable
evaluation and promotion criteria for each
college.

Three
months
Feedback
from
faculty

Summary
The recommendations in this study reflects the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) and offers a framework for achieving and evaluating desired
outcomes. The feasibility can be assessed by The ZJUT administrators, utilizing the information
detailed in the final report. Any required adaptations and revisions of the model should reflect
reactions and suggestions gained from input by the faculty and administrators of ZJUT. The
development and implementation of the New Criteria Plan will require a paradigm shift towards
supporting an educational environment and culture from focusing on research to teaching
excellence. The benefits that can be attained in relation to both the stakeholder and
organizational goals makes this plan a worthwhile undertaking.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was designed to explore ZJUT young faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs related to improving teaching quality. One of the limitations of this study is
that this study was only conducted on one campus, so the results cannot be generalized to other
universities directly. A second limitation is reflected in the study’s methodology, utilizing two
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 101

separate methods to identify three variables (KMO) of interest. This mix method study used
online surveys and follow-up face-to-face interviews. The online survey was majorly used to
identify M (motivation) and O (organizaional) needs while the interviews were conducted to
establish K (knowledge) needs. The quantitative survey was not tested for reliability and
validity. Only content validity was established because each question was generated according
to certain theories. Another potential limitation was evaluating the truthfulness of the interview
answers considering the level of trust and the possibility that faculty might not always answer
truthfully.
For delimitations, even though the findings and solutions for one specific university
cannot directly transferred to other Chinese universities, the implementation of Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis KMO framework may be valuable to others to analyze their teaching quality
or other performance problems, since most Chinese universities are homogeneous. A pilot study
of the survey was conducted and participants were contacted to establish clarity on the questions.
The number of survey respondents was required to be a large sample of almost 300, which would
increase data reliability. At beginning of each interview, the importance of providing truthful
answer was reiterated to increase the possibility of trustful results. Triangulation of the survey
data and interview results was applied to increase the trustworthiness of final findings.
Future Research
More follow-up studies could be conducted related to this initial study. Young faculty
members were the stakeholder group chosen for this study based on Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis model. Other vital stakeholders, such as students and university administrators could be
selected as stakeholder group in future studies. Performance gap identification and
improvements, identified by students and administrators, are also importance in the process of
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 102

improving teaching quality as a whole. Continued research could also seek to identify the
knowledge contents of effective teaching in universities in China. Other research-based
pedagogies suitable for Chinese universities, in addition to the three major pedagogical changes
required by this Chinese university, could be researched on a broad scope. Another suggestion
for future research is to evaluate the current promising practice model of non-tenure-track faculty
in the University of Southern California or anywhere in the world to provide more insights and
guidance on policy reform.
Conclusion
Chinese higher education has witnessed huge expansion in both number of students and
institutions in the past 20 years. Even though the Chinese Ministry of Education conducted
several rounds of evaluations on universities for teaching quality, many problems still existed in
the quality of teaching. These gaps included faculty who were weak in pedagogy, institutions
that were weak on quality requirements, and a system of evaluation that focused on research
rather than teaching (MOE, 2018b). This evaluation study chose Zhejiang University of
Technology (ZJUT) as the organization for a KMO gap analysis for its teaching quality. Gap
analysis is a conceptual framework developed by Clark and Estes (2008). It’s a systematic and
analytical method that helps to clarify ZJUT’s organizational goals and identify the knowledge
(K), motivation (M) and organizational (O) influences needed by faculty to achieve the
stakeholder’s goal as well as organizational goal. ZJUT has 1) an organizational goal to improve
teaching quality and 2) a performance goal to increase the number of teaching-related programs
awarded as national undergraduate teaching projects (Benke Jiaoxue Gongcheng) from 46 in
2015 to 100 in 2020. Faculty is the major stakeholder in improving teaching quality and
developing projects to be qualified as national undergraduate teaching projects. Therefore, ZJUT
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 103

young faculty members who are 45 years old and younger were chosen as the key stakeholder
group for this study. Their goal was to implement three major changes in teaching: knowledge
transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy of both
teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and classroom-centered learning to
classroom-extracurricular learning by 2020 (ZJUT, 2011).
This evaluation study utilized a mix method research approach. It used a combination of
online survey and face-to-face interviews to identify ZJUT young faculty’s assumed needs in the
knowledge (K), motivation (M) and organizational (O) aspects. The goal was to assess readiness
for implementing three major changes in pedagogy. Triangulation of survey results and
interview findings established seven KMO needs out of 21 original assumed needs. Even though
gaps were identified in all knowledge, motivation and organizational fields, the solution was
generated more towards the root cause in motivation and organizational needs. The integrated
research-based solution plan was called the New Criteria Plan, which aimed to develop and
implement new evidence-based evaluation and promotion criteria for teaching-track faculty in
ZJUT. Successful experience in American universities were introduced in the initial action plan
proposal to ZJUT. Five major parts were proposed in the initial policy draft: 1) no research
workload for teaching-track faculty, 2) adding more qualitative information in the teaching
evaluation, 3) creating a 100-point scale annual performance review including teaching, service
and professional development for teaching-track faculty, 4) applying suitable USC’s teaching
evaluation and promotion criteria to ZJUT faculty, and 5) no quota on teaching-track faculty
promotion. Ongoing discussion and adaptation of this new evaluation and promotion policy will
be needed in the implementation and evaluation process. A successful case of implementing this
evaluation and promotion criteria for teaching-track faculty in ZJUT will be a good model for
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 104

other Chinese universities to motivate faculty in improving the teaching quality. Moreover,
implementation of this reform may pave the way to improving the whole landscape of higher
education teaching quality in China.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 105

REFERENCES
Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2018a). Academic ranking of world universities.
Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2003.html
Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2018b). Best Chinese universities ranking. Retrieved
from http://www.shanghairanking.com/Chinese_Universities_Rankings/ Overall-
Ranking-2017.html
Afonso, A. (2016). Varieties of academic labor markets in Europe. PS: Political Science &
Politics, 49(4), 816-821.
AFT Higher Education. (2009). American Academic: The State of the Higher Education
Workforce, 1997–2007
American Federation of Teachers. (2010). American academic: A national survey of part-
time/adjunct faculty.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. London, England: Pearson.
Ball, C. (1985). Fitness for purpose: Essays in higher education. Guildford, England: SRHE &
NFER-Nelson,
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122-147.
Benjamin, E. (2002). How over-reliance on contingent appointments diminishes faculty
involvement in student learning. Change, 1995-2002.
Boyer Commission on Education Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998).
Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research universities.
Stoney Brook, NY: Author.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 106

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville,
NJ: Princeton University.
Boyer, E. L., Altbach, P. G. &Whitelaw, M. J. (1994). The academic profession: An
international perspective (A Special Report). Ewing, NJ: Princeton Fulfillment.
Brown, R. (2004). Quality assurance in higher education: The UK experience since 1992.
London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
Burke, J. C. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chan, Y.-K. (2016). Investigating the relationship among extracurricular activities, learning
approach and academic outcomes: A case study. Active Learning in Higher Education,
17(3), 223-233.
Cheng, M. (2010). Audit cultures and quality assurance mechanisms in England: A study of their
perceived impact on the work of academics. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 259-
271.
Chung, Ruth. (2017). Promoting and Evaluating Teaching Excellence at USC.

Cid, L. (2014, 12). Developing mathematical reasoning: A comparative study using student and
teacher-centered pedagogies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
uscthesesreloadpub_Volume3/etd-CidLuciano-3033.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Damme, D. V. (2011). Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education. Higher
Education, 41(4), 415-441.
Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing
higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111-124.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 107

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon, & N.
Eisenberg, Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (pp. 1017-1095). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Education Online. (2018). News. Retrieved from http://www.eol.cn/html/g/gkrs/index.shtml
Fenollar, P., Román, S., & Cuestas, P. J. (2007). University students' academic performance: An
integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77(4), 873-891.
Filippakou, O. (2011). The idea of quality in higher education: A conceptual approach.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(1), 15-28.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. London, England: SAGE.
Fowler, F.C. (2013). Chapter 10: Policy implementation: Getting people to carry out a policy.
In Policy Studies for Educational Leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person/Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gu, J. (2012). Spatial recruiting competition in Chinese higher education system. Higher
Education, 63(2), 165-185.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. London, England:
Pearson.
Harding, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. SAGE Publications Limited
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 108

Harrington, C., & Schibik, T. (2001). Caveat Emptor: Is There a Relationship between Part-Time
Faculty Utilization and Student Learning Outcomes and Retention? AIR 2001 Annual
Forum Paper.
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 18(1), 9-34.
Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and
beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journal of Higher
Education, 72(6), 699-729.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-
analysis. Review of educational research, 66(4), 507-542.
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79-91.
Higher Education Evaluation Center of The Ministry of Education. (2018). About HEEC.
Retrieved from http://www.heec.edu.cn/en/enAboutHEEC_d.jsp
Huang, F. (2005). Quality enhancement and quantitative growth: Changes and trends of China's
higher education. Higher Education Policy, 18(2), 117-130.
Huang, F. (2015). Building the world-class research universities: A case study of China. Higher
Education, 70(2), 203-215
Huang, X. H., Adamson, B., & Lee, J. C. K. (2014). The move to quality assurance in Chinese
higher education: Tensions between policy and practices. London Review of Education,
12(3), 286-299.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2010). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and
mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 109

Johnson, T. D., & Ryan, K. E. (2000, September). A comprehensive approach to the evaluation
of college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 109-123.
Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing University Teaching: Lessions from research
into award-winning teachers. London and New York: Routledge.
Kemenade, E. V., Pupius, M., & Hardjono, T. W. (2008). More value to defining quality. Quality
in Higher Education, 14(2), 175-185.
Kezar, A. (2012). Embracing non-tenure track faculty: Changing campuses for the new faculty
majority. Routledge.
Kezar Adrianna, & Maxey Daniel. (2014). Understanding Key Stakeholder Belief Systems or
Institutional Logic Related to Non-Tenure-Track Faculty and the Changing Professoriate.
Teachers College Record, p.42.
Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four
Levels (3rd Edition). San Francisco, CA: Brett Koehler Publishers, Inc., pp. 1-114.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Krause, K.-L. (2012). Addressing the wicked problem of quality in higher education: Theoretical
approaches and implications. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(3), 285-
297.
Lai, M., Du, P., & Li, L. (2014). Struggling to handle teaching and research: A study on
academic work at select universities in the Chinese Mainland. Teaching in Higher
Education, 19:8, 966-979.
Lee, J. C.-K., Huang, X., & Zhong, B. (2012). Friend or foe: The impact of undergraduate
teaching evaluation in China. Higher Education Review, pp. 44(2), 5-25.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 110

Li, Y. (2010). Quality assurance in Chinese higher education. Research in Comparative and
International Education, 5(1), 58-76.
Li, Y., Li, J., & Sun, Y. (2013, April 29). Young faculty job perceptions in the midst of Chinese
higher education reform: The case of Zhejiang University. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 33(3), 273-294.
Liu, J. (2012, November). Examining massification policies and their consequences for equality
in Chinese higher education: A cultural perspective. Higher Education, 64(5), 647-660.
Liu, S. (2010). Accountability in China: Primitive Attempts. In B. Stensaker, & L. Harvey
(Eds.), Accountability in Higher Education: Global Perspectives on Trust and Power (pp.
89-108). New York, NY: Routledge.
Liu, S., & Rosa, M. J. (2008). Quality assessment of undergraduate education in China. Higher
Education Management and Policy, 20(3), 1-18.
Liu, Z. Y. (2007). The development of higher education evaluation in China: The case of
undergraduate teaching evaluation. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 28(3), 40-48.
Long, W., & Håklev, S. (2012). A practical model of development for China's National Quality
Course Plan. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 920-932.
Marginson, S. (2004). Going global: Governance implications of cross-border traffic in higher
education. In W. Tierney (Ed.), Competing conceptions of academic governance:
Negotiating the perfect storm (pp. 1-32). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.
Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability,
validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of educational psychology, 76(5), 707.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 111

Marsh, H. W. (1994). Students' evaluation of educational quality (SEEQ): A multidimensional
rating instrument of students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Sydney, Australia:
Self Research Centre: University of Western Sydney.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching
effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs?. The journal of
higher education, 73(5), 603-641.
Marton, F., & Säljö, F. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.
Maxey, D., & Kezar, A. (2015). Revealing opportunities and obstacles for changing non-tenure-
track faculty practices: An examination of stakeholders' awareness of institutional
contradictions. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(4), 564-59
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2018a). Chinese Higher Education
Quality Report. Retrieved from Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China:
http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/xw_fbh/moe_2069/xwfbh_2016n/xwfb_160407/16040
7_sfcl/201604/t20160406_236891.html
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2018b). Opinions of the Ministry of
Finance of the Ministry of Education on implementing the "Undergraduate Teaching
Quality and Teaching Reform Project in Colleges and Universities " during the "Twelfth
Five-Year Plan" period. Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/html
files/moe/s5818/201107/122688.html#
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 112

Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2018c). Resources. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A01/s7048/201007/t20100729_ 171904.html
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2018d). Public files. Retrieved from
http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7168/201403/165450.html
Mohrman, K., Wang, Y., & Li, X. (2011). Quality assurance in undergraduate education:
Transformation of higher education policy in China. In T. Huang & A. W. Wiseman
(Eds.), The impact and transformation of education policy in China (International
Perspectives on Education and Society, Vol. 15; pp. 345-375). Bingley, England:
Emerald Group.
Mok, K.-H. (2005). Globalisation and governance: Educational policy instruments and
regulatory arrangements. International Review of Education, 51(4), 289-311.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2018). National data. Retrieved from http://data.stats.
gov.cn/index.htm
Olaskoaga-Larrauri, J., González-Laskibar, X., & Barrenetxea-Ayesta, M. (2015). Political
nature and socio-professional determinants of the concept of quality. Higher Education,
69(4), 673-691.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in
social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Prisacariu, A., & Shah, M. (2016). Defining the quality of higher education around ethics and
moral values. Quality in Higher Education, 22(2), 152-166.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The
Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129-150.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 113

Ramsden, P., & Moses, I. (1992). Association between research and teaching in Australian
higher education. Higher Education, 23(3), 273-295.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Ryan, T. (2015). Quality assurance in higher education: A review of literature. Higher Learning
Research Communications, 5(4). 1-12.
Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in
higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research
Communications, 5(3), 3-13.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. R. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory,
Research, and Applications (3rd Edition).
Skelton, A. (2004, August). Understanding 'teaching excellence' in higher education: A critical
evaluation of the National Teaching Fellowships Scheme. Studies in Higher Education,
29(4), 451-468.
Steinhardt, I., Schneijderberg, C., Götze, N., Baumann, J., & Krücken, G. (2017). Mapping the
quality assurance of teaching and learning in higher education: The emergence of a
specialty? Higher Education, 74(2), 221-237.
Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2011). Accountability in Higher Education: Global Perspectives on
Trust and Power. New York, NY: Routledge.
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success (2017). Retrieved from
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success:
www.thechangingfaculty.org
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 114

University of Southern California. (2017). About USC: Facts and Figures. Retrieved from
University of Southern California : http://about.usc.edu/facts/
USC Marshall School of Business. (2019, 06 06). marshall.usc.edu. Retrieved from Faculty
Resources: https://www.marshall.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2017-03/USC-MSB-Faculty-
Manual-2017.pdf
USC Rossier School of Education. (2019, 06 06). Rossier Faculty Portal. Retrieved from
rossierfaculty.usc.edu: https://rossierfaculty.usc.edu/files/2014/10/FT-RTPC-Guidelines-
Summary-2017.pdf
Vedder, P. (1994). Global measurement of the quality of education: A help to developing
countries? International Review of Education, 40(1), 5.
Vulcano, B. A. (2007). Extending the Generality of the Qualities and Behaviors Constituting
Effective Teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 114-117.
Wahlen, S. (2002). Teaching skills and academic rewards. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1),
81-87.
Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York NY: The Free Press.
Yin, H., Lu, G., & Wang, W. (2014). Unmasking the teaching quality of higher education:
Students' course experience and approaches to learning in China. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 949-970.
Yin, H., Wang, W., & Han, J. (2015, April 26). Chinese undergraduates' perceptions of teaching
quality and the effects on approaches to studying and course satisfaction. Higher
Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 71(1), 39-57.
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 115

Ying, H., & Wang, W. (2014). Assessing and improving the quality of undergraduate teaching in
China: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 40(8), 1032-1049.
Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profile of effective college and university teachers. The
Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 670-686.
Zhejiang University of Technology. (2011). Outline of the Medium and Long-Term Development
Plan 2011-2020. Zhejiang, China: Author.
Zhejiang University of Technology. (2014). ZJUT Faculty Professional Title Promotion
Handbook. Zhejiang, China: Author.
Zhejiang University of Technology. (2016). Zhejiang University of Technology 13th five-year
strategic plan. Zhejiang, China: Author.
Zhejiang University of Technology. (2018, January 29). University profile. Retrieved from
http://www.zjut.edu.cn/ReadClassDetail.jsp?bigclassid=5&sid=80
Zou, Y., Du, X., & Rasmussen, P. (2012). Quality of higher education: Organisational or
educational? A content analysis of Chinese university self-evaluation reports. Quality in
Higher Education, 18(2), 169-184.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 116

APPENDIX A
Survey Items
1. How long have you been working at Zhejiang University of Technology?
-less than 3 years
-3 years 1 month -6 years
-6 years 1 month -12 years
-over 12 years

2. What’s your academic rank?
-Lecturer
-Associate Professor
-Full Professor

3. What’s your gender?
-Male
-Female

4. Which subject category are you teaching at ZJUT?
-Philosophy
-Economics
-Law
-Education
-Literature
-Science
-Engineering
-Agriculture
-Medicine
-Management
-Art

5. I know the three major changes in teaching required by the University’s 2011-2020
medium and long-term development plan.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

6. Changing my instruction methods from teaching with lecturing and examination to
supporting student research to increase their curiosity is not enjoyable.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 117

-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

7. I know about the university’s goal to increase the number of national undergraduate
teaching project programs from 46 in 2015 to 100 by 2020.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

8. Making a change to my teaching methods is important to the university to apply for
more national undergraduate teaching project programs.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

9. I believe I am able to change my teaching methods from lecture and examination to
research based learning and inquiry.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

10. I don’t think I will enjoy changing from a teacher-centered pedagogy to a teacher and
student-centered pedagogical approach.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

11. Changing my pedagogy from teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid model is important
to the university.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 118

-Agree
-Strongly agree

12. I am capable of changing from teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid model of
instruction that employs both teacher and student-centered pedagogical approaches.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

13. I enjoy making changes in my instruction from classroom learning alone to a mixture of
classroom and extracurricular experiences.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

14. I think my implementation of changing from classroom-centered learning to classroom-
extracurricular combined learning is not important to the University.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

15. Changing my teaching strategies from classroom-centered learning to learning in
classroom and with extracurricular experiences will be difficult.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

16. It is worthwhile for me to spend time making changes to my instruction, even if it takes
away from my research responsibilities.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 119

-Strongly agree

17. I believe the university cares about the quality of my teaching.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

18. The teaching evaluation criteria, utilized in the current faculty promotion system, does
not assure the expected standards of teaching.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

19. The current faculty promotion system, as a whole, has effectively ensured the expected
standards of teaching.
-Strongly disagree
-Disagree
-Slightly disagree
-Slightly agree
-Agree
-Strongly agree

20. The three changes required in teaching by University’s 2011-2020 medium and long-term
development plan are:
a) From simple knowledge transmission as lecturing and examination to helping
students inquiry knowledge via research-based teaching,
b) From classroom-centered learning to learning that involves both classroom and
extracurricular experiences
c) From knowing and teaching to research and understanding in both classroom and
extracurricular experiences.
d) From teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid model of instruction that employs both
teacher and student-centered pedagogical approaches,
1) a, b, and d
2) b, c and d
3) c, d, and a

21. In order to further understand faculty’s perception on teaching quality in Chinese
higher education institutions, I plan to travel to Hangzhou and hold face-to-face interviews
at ZJUT campus in the middle of November, 2018. Would you agree to be contacted to
participate in my follow-up interview?
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 120

a) Yes
b) No

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 121

APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to receive my interview. I am a doctor of
education (Ed.D.) candidate from the University of Southern California. I will be conducting a
confidential interview with you today. All of your answers will be kept confidential because I
will be assigning pseudonyms to the interviews, removing any personal identifier from your
responses.

I have a series of questions to ask you that may take anywhere from 45 minutes to 1 hour to
complete. The goal of these questions is to assess your knowledge and beliefs about required
changes in pedagogy as in the 2011-2020 outline of the medium and long-term development plan
of ZJUT. These changes include 1) moving from simple knowledge transmission (like lecturing
and examinations) to helping students increase their inquiry knowledge via research-based
teaching, 2) from knowledge advances due to teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid model of
instruction of teacher and student-centered pedagogical approaches, and 3) classroom-centered
learning to learning that involves both classroom and extracurricular experiences.

In the informed consent you agreed to audio recording, please keep in mind that the digital
recording will be transcribed by a third party and destroyed to keep your identity confidential.
Are you still ok with being recorded today?

1. Traditional knowledge transmission in the university is characterized by lecturing, note-
taking and periodic examination. The university is asking faculty to change from the
traditional way to knowledge inquiry, which is characterized as research-based learning.
What’s your understanding of this change?

2. Please tell me how you would approach teaching knowledge via inquiry?

3. The university is asking faculty to also change from teacher-centered pedagogy to both
teacher and student-centered pedagogy. Would you please tell me your understanding of
these two pedagogies?

4. Have you utilized the hybrid practice that uses both teacher and student centered pedagogy in
your teaching? If so, would you please give me an example of teaching with both teacher and
student-centered pedagogy?

5. If you were asked to explain changing from classroom-centered learning to extracurricular
experience-classroom combination learning, what would you say?

6. Please describe how you combine classroom and extracurricular experiences in teaching, if at
all?

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 122

7. If you are in the process of implementing the major three changes in your instruction, what’s
your strength in doing so? Or, if you feel you are not ready to implement these changes yet,
what areas do you need help in?

8. From the survey results, there are many reasons to explain why teachers are not
motivated to make major changes in their instruction, (put some top reasons as
indicated by survey results: such as lacking interest in changing, feeling it’s not important
to meet the goal of increasing the number of undergraduate teaching project, research
over teaching, and lack of efficacy. Which one do you think it’s the most important
reason? Can you think of any other reasons why teachers are not motivated to make
changes in their instruction?

9. You received and read information on a special track in the American system of higher
education for clinical faculty who focus on teaching. Do you think this system would be
applicable to ZJUT? (why/why not)

10. Is there anything else related to teaching quality you would like to add or comment on that
was not addressed in the previous questions?

Thank you for your time. If you have any questions or think of anything you would like to add
please feel free to contact me directly at yuanmenx@usc.edu. Once the audio recording is
transcribed, I will email you the major points for your confirmation before they are included in
the research results.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 123

APPENDIX C

University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Yuanmeng Xu under the
supervision of Dr. Jennifer Crawford at the University of Southern California. Please read through
this form and ask any questions you might have before deciding whether or not you want to
participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand to what degree ZJUT’s young faculty are achieving the
three major changes in teaching: knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered
pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy with both teacher and student-centered learning experiences and
classroom-centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey and a follow-up
interview or just the survey.
Survey:
The survey will be 20 Likert-type questions majorly assessing your views on the
motivation and organizational influences related to achieving the three major changes in
teaching. You are free to choose not to answer some of the questions and free to stop at
any point.
Interview:
If you volunteer to participate in a follow-up interview, there will be an answer to choose
the end of the survey. You will be purposefully selected from all volunteers for interview
based on your academic ranking and employment length with ZJUT. The interview will
be 45 minutes to one hour long with 10 questions. It will majorly assess your knowledge
about the three major changes in teaching. Your permission will be obtained before the
interview is recorded. You can still participate in this research study if you do not wish to
be recorded. You may freely choose to stop participation at any point in the study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At
the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be
used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should
not participate.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 124

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Yuanmeng Xu
at yuanmenx@usc.edu and 001-5164139638.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 125

APPENDIX D
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Organizational Global Goal
By 2020, Zhejiang University of Technology (ZJUT) will increase the number of teaching-related
programs awarded as national undergraduate teaching project from 46 in 2015 to 100.

Stakeholder Goal
By 2020, all faculty will be implementing three major changes in teaching: knowledge transmission to
knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy with both teacher and student-
centered learning experiences, and classroom-centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning.

Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment

Gap No Gap
1. Key reasons and facts of
changing instruction from
simple knowledge
transmission to building
knowledge via inquiry.
2. Difference and benefits of
changing from teacher-
centered pedagogy to a
hybrid model of instruction
that employs both teacher
and student-centered
pedagogical approaches.
3. Importance of changing
instruction from
classroom-centered
learning to learning that
involves both classroom
and extracurricular
experiences.

1. Facilitate building
knowledge via inquiry.
2. Implement the hybrid
model of instruction that
employs both teacher and
student-centered
pedagogical approaches.
3. Facilitate learning that
involves both classroom
Conceptual

Procedural

X

X

X

X

X

X

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 126

and extracurricular
experiences.

Reflect on and monitor teaching
effectiveness in the context of
building knowledge via inquiry,
facilitating a hybrid teaching
model of both teacher and
student-centered, and facilitating
learning that involves both
classroom and extracurricular
experiences.

Metacognitive

X

Motivation Construct Assumed Motivation
Influence
Motivation Influence Assessment
Expectancy value

Self-Efficacy

Intrinsic Value – enjoy
applying three major
changes to improve the
teaching quality
Extrinsic Value – feel it’s
critical to implement
three changes in teaching
in order to increase
national undergraduate
teaching projects.
Cost value – see
spending time in
changing the instruction
as valuable even if it
takes time away from
research workload.

Believe they are capable
of effectively applying
three changes in
teaching.

X

X
X

X

Organizational Influence
Category
Assumed
Organizational
Influence
Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model

Cultural Setting

Cultivate a culture of
caring for teaching
quality

1. Holding teachers
accountable for
expected standards
of teaching.

X

X
TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 127

2. Attainable
advancement
criteria for teaching-
track faculty
through attainable
measures.

X

TEACHING QUALITY OF ZJUT 128

APPENDIX E
Demographics of Survey Respondents
Characteristics N %
Overall 295
Gender
Male
Female

165
130

56%
44%
Working years in ZJUT
Less than 3 years
3 years 1 month-6 years
6 years 1 month-12 years
Over 12 years

81
80
73
61

27%
27%
25%
21%
Academic rank
Lecture
Associate Professor
Full Professor

192
87
16

65%
29%
6%
Teaching Subject
Philosophy
Economics
Law
Education
Literature
Science
Engineering
Agriculture
Medicine
Management
Art

14
23
21
12
21
33
112
0
5
32
22

5%
8%
7%
4%
7%
11%
38%
0%
2%
11%
7%

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Chinese higher education has witnessed huge expansion in numbers of students and institutions in the past 20 years. The first National Report on Chinese Higher Education Quality in 2016 (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2018b) identified the increasing number of college students was from 117,000 in 1949 to 37 million in 2015. The report also highlighted the problem of struggling teaching quality in the massification process. This mix methods study chose Zhejiang University of Technology (ZJUT) as the organization for an evaluation research on its teaching quality. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model was the conceptual framework used to identify the knowledge (K), motivation (M) and organizational (O) influences needed by ZJUT young faculty to achieve their goal. Their goal was to implement three major changes in teaching: knowledge transmission to knowledge inquiry, teacher-centered pedagogy to a hybrid pedagogy of both teacher and student-centered learning experiences, and classroom-centered learning to classroom-extracurricular learning by 2020 (ZJUT, 2011). Two hundred and ninety five faculty completed an online survey and eight participated follow-up face-to-face interviews to reveal their knowledge and motivation on improving teaching quality. Organizational influences on their teaching quality were also analyzed. Findings demonstrated gaps in all K, M and O areas but root cause was more in the organizational influences. The overarching solution was to develop and implement new evidence-based criteria for evaluating and promoting teaching-track faculty in ZJUT. Successful experience in American universities were introduced and integrated in the initial action plan proposal.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

PDF

Intentional, pedagogically driven, and systematic use of technology in teaching practice

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

Leading instructional shifts in emergent bilingual education: a principal's role

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Learner-centered teaching in Uganda: an analysis of continuing educational needs

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

Increasing Emiratisation in engineering faculty position at the higher colleges of technology

PDF

A California community college's climate action plan: an evaluation study

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Faculty internationalization at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST): a promising practice study

PDF

A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Approaches to teaching for twenty-first century learners in South Korea: An evaluation study of GSS

PDF

An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

Asset Metadata

Creator Xu, Yuanmeng (author)

Core Title Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 08/14/2019

Defense Date 07/15/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Chinese higher education,gap analysis,non-tenure-track faculty,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher evaluation and promotion,teaching quality

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crawford, Jenifer (committee chair), Harju, Heidi (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email aliyahxu@gmail.com,aliyahxu1021@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-214124

Unique identifier UC11663584

Identifier etd-XuYuanmeng-7784.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-214124 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-XuYuanmeng-7784.pdf

Dmrecord 214124

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Xu, Yuanmeng

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA