[The following article appears in the February 1994 edition of
_TQM_in_Higher_Education_, page 3.]


                          TQM EMPOWERS STUDENTS
                                    
                                  [by]
                                    
                             John Kachurick

     As a TQM practitioner and business professor at College
Misericordia (PA), I look for opportunities to incorporate TQM
into the classroom.

     Believing that colleges must meet or exceed customer expec-
tations, I recently allowed my students to participate in the
delivery of their education.

     I explained to each of my classes that they weren't the only
customers of the education process, since business and industry,
social agencies, and all levels of government, as well as society
as a whole, are stakeholders in the same process.

     With this thought in mind, the students and I--who was
designated as "facilitator"--developed their course goals and
objectives using brainstorming and affinity diagrams. After I
taught them decision-making through consensus, I allowed each
class to develop its own mechanisms for performance appraisal.

     I also permitted each student to move 10% of his/her total
grade among the various options of appraisal--tests, papers,
projects, presentations. Each class also designated the type and
style of test I'd administer.

     After the first test in "Introductory Finance," I realized I
needed to know what was happening in this system. Although I had
"empowered" the "workers" (students), most of their grades were
below expectations.

     To analyze the teaching/learning system, I used a variables
control chart to determine stability and control limits. I chose
the chart because I needed to know how the system was operating
and what it could produce. After that, I could look for ways to
improve the system, test improvements, adapt those processes that
worked, and discard those that didn't--a PDCA cycle.

     Using "SPCExpert," a shareware program that generates
control charts, Pareto diagrams, and other tools [available for
download from the TQM BBS, 310-585-1164, under the name of
SPCEX.ZIP], I developed a control chart for test grades. Immedi-
ately, I saw that the system exhibited four "special cause"
variations: one above the upper control limit (UCL) and three
below the lower control limit (LCL).

     The one score above the UCL indicated that one student did
well on the test. I made a note to investigate that student's
method of studying.

     For the three students who fell below the LCL, I looked for
reasons--the assignable causes--for this. One student didn't
purchase the textbook or auxiliary aids, a second wasn't in class
over half the time, and the third student missed a large number
of classes due to illness.

     Since I was aware of how these special causes came about, I
discarded them and plotted the control chart again. I had a
stable system, but the mean score was 73. To improve the system,
I looked for ways to understand the causes and raise the mean to
78, the average grade of the college scale.

     I took the control chart into class, discussed the results,
and asked for input. Using a cause-and-effect diagram, the
students identified a number of potential causes for low perfor-
mance, isolating one--the instructor covered the material too
quickly. (While I believed that other causes were influencing
grades more than the "instructor" problem, I agreed to slow down
my presentation.)

     Since I attributed the poor performance to student laziness
and lack of motivation, I was surprised when I found that the
test scores did increase substantially. In fact, the mean score
rose to 79.8. (This also represents the typical "jumping to
conclusions" before examining the data since TQM requires
data-driven problem solving.)

     I discussed with the students whether it was the slower pace
of instruction or some other reason that influenced the increase
in test scores. They believed the slower pace was a major influ-
ence in improving performance, but some noted that after taking
the first test, their anxiety level decreased, possibly influenc-
ing the outcome of the test.

     It appears that the course attempted to cover too much
material in too short of time. I intend to re-evaluate the
"required" material before the course is offered again, with an
eye toward reduction. It now doesn't seem as important that I
cover everything, as it is that the students understood and
retained everything I covered.

     For more information, contact: John Kachurick, Department of
Business, College Misericordia, 301 Lake St., Dallas, PA 18612;
Ph: 717/6746301; Fax: 717/675-2441.