Administrative Roles Of Educational Leaders For Quality Earning Environment In The Universities At Lahore

Introduction

Learning is the core business in today’s knowledge economy (Lodge & Bonsanquet, 2014). Quality is the driving force and central point for all the leaders engaged in the system of higher education. Globally the higher education systems are pressed to bring the proficiency by maintaining the quality of learning environment ( Zepeda, Parylo, & Klar, 2017). Today higher education is going through a great transformation thus quality of learning is considered as a central policy area. For this governments are giving quality a central place in an educational policy (Mbabazi Bamwesiga, Fejes, & Dahlgren, 2013). The human resource of universities must equip themselves with knowledge, skills and technology so that they can work to their full potential. So, the ingredients of quality are still a debated issue.

The landscape of higher education theorises that due to the mass enrolments in universities worldwide the pressure on an educational system is to find out purposeful way to improve the teaching and learning environment. The higher education has involved masses throughout the world so it must provide opportunities to whole society (Kazmi, 2005). Research in Ireland highlighted that the governments are keen to take new initiatives for the improvement of the overall quality in higher education (Lane & Johnstone, 2013) and so that they can tackle diversity and rapidly changing dynamics in higher education institutions (Hazelkorn, 2014).

It is important to mention that quality learning environment is the key to handle the complex and rapidly changing and technologically infused unpredictable world of higher learning (Honey, 1999). Abualrub, Karseth, & Stensaker (2013) and Abualrub (2014) found that limited literature exists about learning environments. It has also been found in the study that the learning environments are the instruments for managing the challenges of quality. And that in the available literature three different lenses are used to research these environments i.e., learning environment as pedagogical setting, as a networking activity and as an organisational responsibility.

It was concluded that leaders and administrators are less aware about learning environment researches. Fields, Kenny, & Mueller (2019) through their case study approach explored those educational leaders are the builder of trust, possessed interpersonal skills and encourage positive discourses. The researcher through their coaching and mentoring empowered others as another researcher supported this view through his findings that university level basketball players were influenced more by the training and instructional behaviour from their coaches that include positive feedback and social support (Atta, Butt, Kamil, & Mushtaq, 2019). They are the risk takers, collaborators and create networking between all stakeholders.

Brennan & Shah (2000) researched that learning environments are all programs, policies, procedures tone of educational institutions supporting and enhancing the process of learning. A study advocated that in this world of knowledge economy flexibility and innovation are the essential elements of learning environment. These environments are encouraging, motivating, risk taking and giving incentives for those involved in these enterprise (Schellekens, Paas, Verbraeck, & Van Merriënboer, 2010). According to Broek & Hake (2012) and Davis & Maldonado (2015) learning environments are not viewed without context. Context determine the needs and requirements that are according to the society, educational institutions, learner’s characteristics, teaching experiences and learning process (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2011).

Research Methodology

It was a quantitative study, conducted at Lahore based public and private universities chartered by government of Punjab and Pakistan. There were five Public and 11 Private Universities. The universities included in population are those which are offering common faculties (Natural Sciences, Management Sciences, Arts and Humanities and the Social Sciences) dealing with general education only.

In the first stage as, stratified sampling was used. Then commonalities were searched out in these universities. Out of these universities which are offering Natural Sciences, Management Sciences, Arts and Humanities and the Social Sciences had been taken up for the study purpose on the basis of commonality and leaving others aside. Such universities are stretched over 4 faculties at the minimum. The population consisted of two tiers; first tiers Deans/Professors/Directors/Head of the departments (HODs) or chairman and Associate professors.

Second tier is composed of the faculty members including assistant professors and lecturers as junior faculty of the one Public and two Private Universities at Lahore; embracing four faculties. At the first-tier census sampling was done for senior faculty members. Permissions were sought from the junior faculty. A schedule of visits to the institutions was prepared and intimated to the junior faculty of universities selected for the conduct of research. Not all but about 40% of the staff showed this inclination to be the participants of research. Three visits for each of the university were planned. Those who turned up till the last visit were included in the sample that came out to be the 30% of the total junior faculty.

The rating scale was developed and use for data collection. Same rating scale was used for the different levels of leadership. Each item was casted on five-point Likert Scale. To develop the validity and reliability of the rating scale expert opinion was taken and pilot test was done. Title, demographic information about the respondents was also included i.e., the name of university, public or private, gender, qualification, post held, experience in post and at university and experience of teaching and administration as well. For data analysis appropriate statistical tests were used.

Discussion

The first objective of the study was to highlight the administrative leadership roles in the universities at Lahore. These roles are about budget and expenditure, internal educational efficiency, annual calendar of the program, discipline record, institutional rules and regulations, continuous professional development of faculty process and plan and admission policy. Middlehurst & Elton (1992) has also identified some related leadership roles in her research that include roles for resources, finances, fund raiser, motivators, communicators, creator of working climate. The roles related to budget and expenditure is very important because efficient use of resources is linked with it. Budget is the working plan of income and expense. Universities document each item that is required for budget. The roles we researched according to this domain are head wise budget and expenditures are prepared each year, institutional audit is conducted regularly, reconciliation record of account is maintained. These factors have a great impact on the higher educational quality because their limit decides the working and efficiency of the system.

These also determine the mobilisation of funds and recruitment of academics (Williams et al., 2013). Universities must have regular backups, develop proper system to align resources to mission and strategy. Effective leadership is the key to handle it expertly and creatively (Ewell, 2010). Internal educational efficiency includes roles about performance audits are made after regular intervals, flow through the system is monitored and efforts are made to maintain the enrolment level. Internal efficiency is related to provide facilities to the students so that quality must be enhanced in teaching, learning, research and other activities (Agasisti & Johnes, 2015). Roles for annual calendar of the programs includes notified each year, includes schedules of administrative and curriculum activities. University calendar should be regularly updated each year. This is the handbook that includes every details of the roles of the leaders (Murphy & Curtis, 2013). If it is not regularly updated it blur the picture of the roles and overlapping occur regarding the role of different tiers of the faculty and roles of the leaders and managers. For admission policy includes admission policy exist and followed, advertised, prospectus is made available. All this must be done according to Higher education commission Pakistan. Flexibility, inclucivity and equity should be the key ingredient of admission policy while maintaining quality standards (Greenbank, 2006).

The second objective of the study was to find out different aspects of administrative leadership roles which are being reflected in different capacities by different leaders. So, this study affirms these roles for Deans, Directors/Chairmen, Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers. It found the elements of administrative roles of educational leaders of the universities at Lahore. We found most researches talked about the roles of head of the departments (HODs) because they are considered as middle level leadership in the literature. Very few researches showed the roles regarding vice-chancellors (VCs) and Deans. Further professor’s roles are rarely explored. HODs are responsible to create a balance between administrative and academic activities in the departments. So that faculty must be engaged in research-oriented activities. Deans do extensive fund raising, budgetary allocations and involve everyone in open communication. They are concerned with challenges like budgetary concerns, lack of resources and team work (Van Wart, 2013a).

He further elaborated that data and information are the very important tools deans and VCs take help from it and use it to enhance capabilities to tackle with the diverse faculty and their needs to work in these complex learning environments. Administrative roles are daily duties that are especially related to the institutional policies and goals. Due to the frequent and more interaction with the outer community and different stake holders they inculcate the strong sense of values among others. They allow trust, openness, collaborations, respect, fairness and safety in these learning environments. Thus, they are the cultivators of ethics and values. Thus we can say that they are the keepers and wearer of multiple lenses to understand the diversity, develop people and involve others effectively (Spendlove, 2007). Higher education is not simple but complex system that perform multiplicity of functions in the society with compatibility, employability and academic excellence (de Boer & Enders, 2017).

Conclusion

This research study portrays a complete picture of administrative aspects of the roles for quality learning environments in the public and private universities at Lahore. Different researches highlighted different aspects of the leadership roles. It is concluded that prominent higher administrative leadership roles in public sector universities are for discipline, financial and leave rules. Public universities are better options in discharging and practising of their roles as well as quality of their learning environment. Overall administrative services roles are compromised by different tiers of faculty in the universities. Clear job descriptions should be available to all so that no overlapping occurs within different tiers of faculty and with managers also. Further the leadership or faculty is overburdened by extra roles that are not factual so these must be dust off from them. Lastly leadership must be understood in the realm of the context because leadership occurs is specific context and societal background.