Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and ...

PERSPECTIVES ON

- Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and Research

RESEaRCH

- Enabling activation mechanisms

to achieve quality performance at

the University of Princess Noura

bint abdul Rahman

- Problems of parallel education in Tibah’s university from the students perspectives

- alternatives of Government Financing for Higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi arabia

RESEaRCH PROjECTS

- Models That Link University’s Branches With Their Mother University In Some Countries: a Proposed Model for Saudi Universities

a peer-refreed, bi-annual journal Issue No.10 - Muharram 1435 aH - Nov. 2013

قضية العدد بي��ن الجامع��ي التعلي��م ف��ي التماي��ز -

التدريس والبحث

البحــــــــــوث- آلي��ات تفعي��ل التمكي��ن لتحقي��ق جودة بن��ت ن��ورة األمي��رة جامع��ة ف��ي األداء

عبدالرحمن- مش��كالت التعليم الم��وازي في جامعة

طيبة من وجهة نظر الطالبات- بدائل تموي��ل التعليم العالي الحكومي

في المملكة العربية السعودية

المشروعات البحثيةالجامع�ي��ة الكلي��ات ارتب��اط نم��اذج -بالجامع��ات ف��ي بع��ض ال��دول : نموذج

مقترح للجامعات السعودية

كتب ورسائل علمية

العدد العاشر - محرم 1435ه� - نوفمبر 2013ممجلة علمية متخصصة محكمة نصف سنوية

ه�14

35م

حرم

شر عا

د العد

ال

ي عال

م العلي

للتة

ديعو

سة ال

جللم

ا

PERSPECTIVES ON

- Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and Research

RESEaRCH

- Enabling activation mechanisms

to achieve quality performance at

the University of Princess Noura

bint abdul Rahman

- Problems of parallel education in Tibah’s university from the students perspectives

- alternatives of Government Financing for Higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi arabia

RESEaRCH PROjECTS

- Models That Link University’s Branches With Their Mother University In Some Countries: a Proposed Model for Saudi Universities

a peer-refreed, bi-annual journal Issue No.10 - Muharram 1435 aH - Nov. 2013

قضية العدد بي��ن الجامع��ي التعلي��م ف��ي التماي��ز -

التدريس والبحث

البحــــــــــوث- آلي��ات تفعي��ل التمكي��ن لتحقي��ق جودة بن��ت ن��ورة األمي��رة جامع��ة ف��ي األداء

عبدالرحمن- مش��كالت التعليم الم��وازي في جامعة

طيبة من وجهة نظر الطالبات- بدائل تموي��ل التعليم العالي الحكومي

في المملكة العربية السعودية

المشروعات البحثيةالجامع�ي��ة الكلي��ات ارتب��اط نم��اذج -بالجامع��ات ف��ي بع��ض ال��دول : نموذج

مقترح للجامعات السعودية

كتب ورسائل علمية

العدد العاشر - محرم 1435ه� - نوفمبر 2013ممجلة علمية متخصصة محكمة نصف سنوية

General Rules:1- Topics to be submitted have to be

related to the field of higher education.2- Articles could be written in Arabic or

English. In addition, the journal accepts book reviews.

3- Manuscripts submitted are judged on the originality, appropriateness of methodologies, clearness of ideas and statements, contribution to the advancement of knowledge. In addition, they should not be taken from a dissertation or published book.

4- Manuscripts should be submitted with a cover letter asking for acceptance

with the name, short biography, and contact information of the first author.

5- Author should sign a declaration that the manuscript has not be submitted or accepted in other venues.

6- The editorial board then will forward the manuscript to selected reviewers to be blindly-evaluated. Revision might be required based on this review.

7- The author will be eventually notified about the decision of acceptance or rejection. No submitted materials would be returned.

8- Accepted manuscripts can’t be

submitted for publication in other

venues without written permission from

the editor.

9- Five free copies of the issue containing

the published manuscript will be sent to

the author.

Technical Instruction:

1- Submitted articles should not exceed

20 A4 pages, using “Time New

Roman” font, size 12. Other materials

should not exceed 5 pages.

2- Tables and figures should be sized to

12x18 cm.

3- Submission has to be digital in MS

Word format.

4- Text citations and the end references

should be written and sorted in APA

style.

5- Using endnotes is not recommended. If

it is needed, it should be minimized to

the clarification points, and numbered

throughout the article, then listed at the

end after the references.

Manuscript submission

All manuscripts should be submitted in MS Word format to this email address:[email protected]

The Saudi Journal of Higher Education

A Peer-refereed, bi-annual JournalPublished by : Center for Higher Education Research and

Studies (CHERS) Ministry of Higher Education, Saudi Arabia

© Center for Higher Education Research and Studies, Ministry of Higher Education 2013

This journal is copyright. All rights reserved. Except for legitimate non-commercial educational use, no part of this publication may be reproduced or communicated in any form or by any means without the written permission of the Journal Editor-in-Chief

Deposit Ref: 47 / 1424 Date 2 / 1 / 1424 HISSN : 1658 - 1113

The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this Journal and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of CHERS nor the Ministry of Higher Education

ContentsSupervisor

Dr. Khalid M. Al-AnkaryMinister of Higher Education

Deputy SupervisorDr. Abdulhalem A. Mazi

Director, CHERS

Editorial BoardProf . Abdulrahman A. Sayegh

)Editor-in-Chief(King Saud University

Prof . Mohammed M. Al-Hamid Al-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud Islamic

University

Prof .Mahroos A. Al-GhabbanTaibah University

Prof . Saleh A. Al-NassarKing Saud University

Prof . Amal M. Al-ShamanKing Saud Univeristy

Prof . Fatimah M. Al-Oboudi Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman

University

Dr. Abdullah H. Al-KhalafAl-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud

Islamic University

Associate EditorDr. Majda I. Al-Jaroudi

King Saud University

SecretaryArwa S. Al-Ruhaimi

Language editorHmood A. Al-Salamah

DesignerEng. Jamal E. Mashali

Contact UsE-mail: [email protected]

www.chers.edu.sa

7

11

39

47

49

51

55

PREFACE

PERSPECTIVES ON :

• Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and Research

Prof. Mahroos Ahmad Al-Ghabban

Dr. Husam Abdulwahab Zaman

• Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and Research

Prof. John C. Weidman

RESEARCH

• Enabling activation mechanisms to achieve quality performance at the University of Princess Noura bint Abdul Rahman

• Problems of parallel education in Taibah’s university from the students perspectives

• Alternatives of Government Financing for Higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

RESEARCH PROJECTS

• Models That Link University’s Branches With Their Mother University In Some Countries: A Proposed Model for Saudi Universities

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has recently celebrated its 83rd anniversary in the memory of its foundation and unification by the founder King Abdullaziz bin Abdurrahman, may Allah bless his soul. As we cherish this most important national event, it is an opportunity for an evaluative reflection on the developmental achievement that has been accomplished in different sectors and particularly in the educational sector and higher education to be specific. In 1936, the Kingdom witnessed the first higher education institution with the establishment of Scholarship Preparatory school in Makah aiming to prepare students to pursue their higher education abroad. With the return of first patch of this program, Share’a College and Teacher Education College were established in 1949 and 1952 respectively. These two initial steps were the milestones for the development of this sector over the last eight decades. Recently, two mage projects were initiated to presume those steps and to revive the sectors: King Abdullah’s project for Higher Education Development, and King Abdullah Scholarships program. The main goals for these projects are strengthening innovation and diversity among universities, and expanding equal opportunities for all citizens to enroll in higher education institutions. The number of universities has expanded dramatically, from 8 universities (all public and concentrated in big cities) in 1995, to 35 public and private universities all over the Kingdom with its different amenities of colleges, institutes and research centers. This expansion has its great effect on the development of local communities across the Kingdom.

Accomplishing these strategic goals is the responsibility of what commonly called the “Strategic Trinity”: The Higher Education Council, The Ministry of Higher Education, and the universities. Their collaborative efforts focus on developing the integrity of higher education sector, reforming its structure and organization, improving the quality of its research and teaching functions, differentiating its institutional missions and academic programs, and diversifying its financing and budgeting approaches. All these developmental efforts are conducted according to international standards and benchmarks, with deployment of national and international cooperation and partnership.

This current issue of Saudi Journal for Higher Education elaborates on this “strategic partnership for development” by approaching analytically and critically the issue of mission differentiation among higher education institution in the Kingdom. Mission differentiation, as the issue’s theme, was presented from national and international perspectives. Other articles in this issue look at related subjects: parallel education in Taibah University, measuring performance in Princess Nora University, in addition to reviewing recent publication on leadership and organization in higher education.

In conclusion, I have great appreciation for the editorial board of our journal for their great effort in encouraging and expanding the research in the field of higher education in the Kingdom. I hope that we will continue working cooperatively to develop our sector with the increasing support from the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdullaziz and his Crown Prince, whom interests are on improving the quality of higher education sector and expanding access to its institutions for all citizens. We greatly believed in the high qualification and intellectuality resides in our universities that will work in achieving our national goals related to serving our nation and the whole human beings.

Dr. Khalid M. Al-Anqari The Minister of Higher

Education and the Magazine's General

Supervisor

Preface

Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and Research

Perspectives on

10 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.10 - Nov.2013

11The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.10 - Nov.2013

Mission Differentiation in Higher

Education between Teaching and

Research

Prof. Mahroos Ahmad Al-Ghabban

Prof. of Comparative Education

Vice Rector of Taibah University

[email protected]

Introduction

The growing demand for Higher Education since the end of the World War II and its

repercussions of a great expansion of its institutions capacity at the level of the whole world,

especially during the period since the beginning of the last decade of the twentieth century

and the first decade of the twenty-first century, led to the changing nature of universities from

elite to mass institutions. This in turn created huge pressure on national governments in trying

to cope with various problems associated with the growing enrollment in these institutions

(Guri-Rosenblit et al., 2007), where there is no country in the world having higher education

system immune from facing the pressure of massification that has become a permanent and

stable condition with its own logic and consequences leading to fundamental changes in

universities’ structure.

The approach of differentiation and diversity has become on the top of the important

policies list pursued by contemporary higher education systems. It is aimed to meet the

increasing demand and diversified economic and social backgrounds and talent among the

growing number of students, to the extent that makes expansion and diversity in higher

education Twin Phenomena linked to the development of the Higher Education in many

countries of the world (zha, 2008). This is what Altabach (2002) previously noted that

differentiation is a central property for mass higher education systems globally.

Pers

pect

ives

on

Dr. Husam Abdulwahab Zaman Asst. Prof. of Comparative Education

Supervisor of Saudi Electronic UniversityMadinah Munawwarah

[email protected]


The process of differentiation in

Higher Education can occur vertically or

horizontally. The vertical differentiation

occurs as the types of institutions proliferate,

with the traditional research universities

being joined by teaching and community

colleges. The horizontal differentiation

occurs as a result of the spread of private

higher education institutions operated

by new service providers. The growing

number of these private institutions and

their enrollment, especially the for-profit

ones, is the largest manifestation of the

differentiation aspects in the world higher

education systems. In Brazil, for example,

nearly %60 of higher education students

are enrolled in private higher education

institutions and this percentage is exceeded

in Philippine to more than %80 (The World

Bank, 2000).

The impetuses leading to the

two forms of differentiation vary. While

horizontal differentiation is driven by

increased demand for higher education,

vertical differentiation is a reaction to

demand for greater diversity of graduates.

Higher Education system described

by differentiation and diversity of its

institutions on the horizontal and vertical

levels is certainly best able to serve

individuals and society. The mission

differentiation among Higher Education

institutions is considered a logical response

to the increasing importance of specialized

knowledge. As we find in many cases that

the new or restructured institutions are best

serving the public interest through their

focus on a specific set of goals for certain

group of students. Besides, differentiation

works to unify the efforts and prevents

duplication. It is also helpful in halting

institutional drift and makes the process

of accountability easier (The World Bank,

2000).

In this context, this paper has come

to show how far the higher education

institutions, especially the governmental

ones in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are

in need to differentiation. It emphasizes

that it is the most important way for

developing the sector. The paper proposes

a hierarchical structure to reconstruct

these institutions in a way that basically

achieves the vertical differentiation based

on diversity and integration of mission and

goals. Though this paper does not claim

that it offers a magical and comprehensive

formula to reform higher education in KSA,

yet it seeks to provide a starting point for a

constructive dialogue towards change in the

desired direction according to the local data

and learned lessons of the contemporary


international experiences concerning higher

education development.

Universities between research and

teaching:

Teaching and research are two

basic functions in modern universities,

yet it is always a dilemma for educational

institutions to make decision about what

should be their main focus. These decisions

become more difficult when identifying the

area of focus implies arranging priorities

and allocating resources. Accordingly, we

can find that some systems develop obvious

mechanisms for differentiating among

Higher Education institutions between

research and teaching universities, while

many other systems suffer from blurring

vision concerning differentiation among

their educational institutions and their

assigned roles.

Following the history of universities,

it can be shown that they were mainly

constructed for teaching not research. The

contemporary research universities date

back to the beginning of the 19th century.

Before that, universities were largely

devoted to teaching and the preparation

of professionals in different areas like

Theology, Medicine and Law (Altbach,

2011a). Thanks to the German scholar

Wilhelm von Humbold (1767-1835) who

made the function of research a basic one

and whose view was that university, as

an institution, should be a place for the

production of the scientific knowledge

rather than training on a profession or a

craft. In other words it should be a place

that combines both teaching and research as

two faces for the same coin. The faculty of

Philosophy should be the beating heart of

university where research becomes for the

sake of research. The role of government

should be minimized to providing the

financial resources with a limited authority

to professors appointment. Hamboldt’s

vision was applied in Friedrich Wilhelms

University that was founded in 1810 AD in

Berlin, Germany. This pattern of universities

was known as the Humboldtian Model and

imitated in many countries around the world

( Gürüz, 2011).

Despite the historical fact that

universities emerged basically as teaching

institutions, yet research universities

come on the top of the academic system

hierarchy and have a high degree of respect.


They also participate actively in the production of authentic knowledge in both its basic and

applied research as well as granting the high scientific degrees. The world-class research

universities are also characterized by strong and direct position in the world knowledge

network with an ability to attract internal and external talented students, researcher, staff

members, technicians, and financial resources. That is why they always occupy the advanced

levels in the world rankings which normally focus on research universities. Studying the

common factors among world-class research universities (Salim, 2009), diagram (1) shows

briefly the characteristics of this kind of institutions and the objective condition that should be

considered to be classified internationally.

The research universities usually provide limited number of undergraduate programs,

while focusing on postgraduate especially at the PhD level. Therefore, they attract the best

and most intelligent students whether locally or internationally. Besides, they employ the

best academics and researchers. Research competency and productivity are the criteria for

employment and reward. Briefly, the academic society in the research universities revolves

around research and research culture and even the undergraduate students are given the

opportunity to participate in research (Altbach, 2011a).

Figure (1): Characteristics of World-class Research Universities


The source: Salmi, Jamil (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities.

Washington, DC: World Bank

On the economic and social levels, Altbach (2011a) explains that research universities

stand at the center of the 21st-century global knowledge economy as they are elite, complex

institutions with multiple academic and societal roles not only through production of

new knowledge leads to advanced technology , but also by contributing to better our

understanding of human condition. Moreover, there is widespread recognition of the

importance of research universities in almost all countries. The number of these universities

varies from country to country, although it occurs always in a very limited number compared

to the total number of higher education institutions in those countries. Smaller countries

may have only one research university, whereas larger nations may have many research

universities. In the United States, for example there are 150 research universities out of

about 4800 postsecondary institutions; India may have 10 such universities out of its 18000

higher education institutions, and China has about 100 research universities among its 5000

postsecondary institutions. It is observed that research universities, in most countries except in

Japan and the United States, are almost public institutions because they need a very large fund

compared to other universities as well as the private sector rarely supports these universities.

Salmi (2009) observes that most of countries do not realize the complexity and need for

resources necessary for the construction and continuity of research universities. Jouti (2012)

confirms this observation when he compares the annual budget of Harvard University and the

general annual budget of Morocco in which the former represents third of the latter.

On the other hand, teaching universities are the dominant pattern in terms of the

number of institutions and their spread globally. Its basic mission revolves around the

dissemination of knowledge and preparation of professionals to meet the needs of society

and labor market. The elite institutions of this pattern work on preparing and graduating

excellent leaders in various scientific and professional areas. Most colleges in this category

are considered the main shelter and the attractive environment for children of society’s elite as

they prepare them scientifically and practically in a way that matches their expected roles in

future. In most cases, these colleges are good tributary for excellent students to complete their

postgraduate programs in distinctive research universities. Teaching universities, in general,


work on preparing and qualifying trained

manpower efficiently with what labor

market needs. While in most of them, there

are professional postgraduate programs

at Masters and PhD levels, most research

outputs concentrate on the practical and

applied aspects.

Despite the clear difference between

these two patterns of universities through

the content of their missions and activities,

it is observed that most of these classified

universities in both patterns do not declare

themselves or add the quality “teaching” or

“research” to their names. Rather, they cling

to the traditional concept of university that

combines teaching and research.

Comparing the teaching university

with the research university in terms of

attention and funding, it is noted that the

requirements of financing and operating the

research universities excel those of teaching

universities and perhaps that is a logical

interpretation for the huge budgets that

research universities have versus what is

allocated for teaching universities. However,

that does not negate that there are modern

trends in favor of teaching universities.

The preparation of workforce with high

skills has become an important function of

Higher Education more than ever. Besides,

the privatization, generalization and

commodification of education increase the

priority given to teaching (Altbach et al.,

2010).

Concerning the different

mechanisms and policies of performance

evaluation and ranking between these

two patterns of universities, it seems

that the criteria and indicators measuring

the level of performance and status of

research university are more easy to

measure and objective compared with its

teaching counterpart. This may be due to,

according to Altbach (2011b), the difficulty

of measuring the quality and effect of

teaching quantitatively. In addition, making

comparisons among different academic

systems in terms of the quality and effect of

teaching is more difficult, which explains

the ignoring of most world rankings creating

criteria for the measurement and comparison

of teaching and learning quality. Though

the level of performance and status of

research universities were measured by a

set of criteria and indicators based formerly

on reputation, yet this has been changed

recently with the advent of the World

University Ranking Bodies. The Academic

ranking of World Universities (ARWU)

in Shanghai is one of these bodies that is

considered the most stable, transparent,


objective and clear in methodology.

Measurement in this ranking focuses on the

research productivity and uses six criteria

including the number of scientific papers

published in two journals “Science” and

“Nature”; the number of researchers whose

articles are frequently cited; teaching staff

members who got “Noble” and “Fields”

Prizes; the number of published and indexed

articles in “Science Citation Index” and

“Social Sciences Citation index” in addition

to other indexes. But some criteria of

Shanghai have a role in favor of the Western

universities especially those concerning the

number of graduates who received Noble

Prize or having the ability to attract them. In

addition, the indexes used for this ranking

are mainly focusing on research published

in English (Altbach, 2011b). Concerning

the educational aspects, it is generally

noted that rankings use a set of indicators

to measure the level of performance and

status of university relevant to both inputs

and outputs. Qualifications of faculty

members, their nationalities, conditions

of students’ admission, the proportion of

international students, and the percentage of

professor to student are the main indicators

of inputs. While the main indicators used

for measuring the quality of outputs are the

amount of demand for these outputs, the

degree of employers’ satisfaction and time

required for employment after graduation.

To sum up, the distinction

between the two patterns of research and

teaching should not be understood as

the research universities ignore teaching

and dissemination of knowledge or the

teaching universities have no place for

research As they have different purposes,

the research university is concerned with

disseminating knowledge in order to

produce more of it, while the teaching

university is concerned with that for the

purpose of qualifying and training more

students in different professions.. However,

taking care of the students’ education,

evaluating and measuring the learning

outcomes are common activities among

different institutions in the two patterns.

States need both patterns of universities, but

certainly need a larger number of teaching

universities because of the growing needs

of labor market for excellent competencies

in various fields on one hand, and a limited

number of research universities (varies

according to the size and degree of progress

of the state but perhaps no more than one in

small state) on the other hand, because of

the high cost of establishing and financing a

productive research university that.


Mission Differentiation of Higher Education

Institutions from a Global Perspective:

The great demand for Higher

Education and the accompanying

unprecedented increase of enrollment

resulted in a state of conflict and

polarization between forces of massification

and forces of excellence protection. This

conflict is not confined to the developing

countries but extends to include the

developed countries that have a long history

in higher education and differentiation of its

institutions.

Though the strategy of adopting

the hierarchal organizational structure

that ensures ample opportunities for

admission with the protection of excellence

is considered the most available option

in many educational systems whether

implicitly or explicitly, yet it was exposed to

many challenges and sometimes to changes

in some systems as a result of massification

requirements.

In the European Union, we find the

United Kingdom, for example, characterized

for decades with the differentiation of its

institutions among research, polytechnic and

community universities until the nineties

of the last century. The country witnessed

reactional change when converting all the

colleges and polytechnic universities to

universities which in turn leads, as Ritzen

(2011) indicates, to the loss of transparency

in differentiation between institutions on

one hand, and the watering down of research

effectiveness on the national level from

the other hand. Although other European

countries faced the same challenges, yet

the political power in the Netherlands was

more stable in maintaining the gains of

differentiation among their educational

institutions when the parliament refused

the request of polytechnic colleges to be

converted into research universities on

the ground that a state in the size of the

Netherlands does not need 12 universities

like Harvard in its educational system and

enough to have one or two universities only

to compete in the world university rankings

(Ritzen,2011). On the other side of the

Atlantic, the American educational system

was evident in its respect and appreciation

for differentiation among its Higher

Education institutions which appeared

clearly and directly in the California State

Plan of Higher Education that will be

presented later in details.

In developing countries, we find

two completely different models for the


largest two developing countries in this

regard. While China sought to develop

its higher education system according

to vertical structure taking into account

differentiation among its institutions – as

will be detailed later - we find the higher

education in India has grown in a haphazard

manner. The successive Indian governments

expanded the sector by opening more public

universities and granting permits for the

private universities without checking the

nature of their missions and priorities of

functions (Agarwal, 2011). This in turn led

to a state of disconnect between the status

quo and outputs of university education and

the requirements of development and labor

market.

But there are still some distinctive

experiences in legalizing and maintaining

mission differentiation that deserve to be

studied and observed. The experience of

California State in USA and that of China

are models of prestigious and successful

experiences in this regard.

The experience of California State:

There is almost an agreement that

one of the best global model for Higher

Education is in USA. This may be due

to, according to professor of Education in

Stanford University David F. Labaree, its

success in dealing with the tension between

two contradictory principles: accessibility

by offering admission opportunity for

everyone, and exclusivity by limiting

access to elite universities for distinguished

students. The higher education system

in America has developed a hierarchy of

universities ranging from open access

institutions at the bottom to highly exclusive

institutions at the top confined to excellent

and high achievers. Therefore, it is a system

provides opportunities for all and protects

distinction (Labaree, 2007).

Further to the magnitude of the

Higher Education system in America,

decentralization and flexibility, it contains

unique and various experiences and

practices. The experience of California State

known as The California Master Plan for

Higher Education comes in the forefront of

experiences which received attention and

admiration inside and outside America. It

is not surprising that it can be replicated or

claimed to be replicated in most countries.

The California Master Plan for

Higher Education dates back to 1960

(Douglass, 2000). This plan is based on

building a system for the governmental

higher education combining both elite and


mass institutions through setting up three systems for higher education. Each one of them has

its own clear mission that distinguishes it from others but they are all combined by a general

regulatory framework achieving integration. More than fifty years since this experience was

applied and is still working successfully. California University and its ten campuses come

at the top of this triple system led by Berkeley Campus with its research mission. Followed

by California State University (CSU) with its twenty three branches, this university offers

bachelor and master degrees with a mission focusing on teaching. The third system consists

of 112 community colleges attended by the largest number of students. Its mission is

concentrated on teaching and service.

Figure (2) Hierarchy of Governmental Higher Education System in California State

Figure (2) Hierarchy of Governmental Higher Education System in California State

Comprehensive University (teaching and research)

California State University (CSU)

Community Colleges

-It accepts higher than 12.5 of High School graduates based on their relative percentage.

-It offers Bachelor and Master programs.

- It is concerned at the level of state with providing doctoral program.

- It provides degrees in (Law, Medicine, Dentistry) as graduate degrees in the American system.

Research University

California University

Comprehensive university (teaching & research)

California State University (CSU)

Community Colleges

-It selects students from the top 33.3% of High School graduates based on their percentages.

-It offers all bachelor and master programs in all academic and professional specifications.

- It accepts all High School graduates who have the ability to complete their studies.

-It provides co-diploma degrees in a number of academic and professional specifications which qualify for labor market and to complete bachelor in one of the above two universities.

-The above two universities adhere to admit graduates of other colleges in the third year for two students in the first year.


These patterns absorb High School graduates who wish to join the universities

included within this system. While the research university and the teaching university absorb

about 50% of those graduates (13% for California University and 33% for California State

University), the other applicants join the community colleges spread throughout the state. The

privilege of California system is that it has flexibility protecting the right of high achievers in

joining institutions at the top of hierarchy or through transferring them from the lower to the

upper institutions (Douglass, 2000).

What most distinguishes this model, as indicated by Ritzen (2011), is the mutual

respect and great appreciation for the role of each pattern of university education in this

system to the point that the head of Berkeley university (that is considered one of the most

prominent campuses of research university) proudly declared that about half of the top 100

graduates of master program of his university are the graduates of community colleges in the

same system as a result of doing their educational mission in the best way.

The experience of China:

China, the strongly coming giant on the international educational area recently,

gave special attention to the development of its educational system. It witnesses an ambitious

project for the development of its higher education system called (Project 985) in which it was

announced that there is a need to world-class universities. The executive five- year plan of the

project (from 2003-2007) includs the following five major trends (Al Essa,2011):

1. From a central administration to local ones with important authorities in university

administration of.

2. From elite education to mass education.

3. From focus on narrow specifications to comprehensive general education.

4. From governmental education to private education.

5. From local education to global education.

Based on these trends, the Chinese universities got more independence in the


management of their affairs. A new system

was followed in financing universities

based on a variety of sources like allowing,

for the first time, to impose tuition fees on

students, and major modifications to the

salary and reward of faculty members which

allow the Chinese universities to attract

more international competencies. Besides,

the central government allocated specific

funding packages for constructing world-

class universities.

In response to the previous great

trends and the accompanying change in

the China’s economic policy towards a

market economy, an improvement in the

citizens income and the steady increase in

the proportion of students enrolled in higher

education, the structure of higher education

institutions is restructured in a hierarchical

way based on their missions and goals,

as shown in figure (3). The hierarchy (the

organizational pyramid) of higher education

in China consists of four sections or ranks.

Each section contains a set of institutions

that decrease in number when moving to the

top of the pyramid because of the need and

high cost. At the top of the pyramid, there are

national elite universities whose main focus

is on research. They teach the majority of

PhD students, in addition to some Masters

and bachelor students. These universities,

with its effective participation in international

research arena, are assigned to be the

national team responsible for strengthening

China’s innovation ability, while playing

the leading role in conducting research

which is considered important for national

development and security. . Universities

of the second rank are basically concerned

with teaching in which most of their students

are at Bachelor and Masters Levels with

limited number of PhD students in certain

specifications, as research is considered the

second priority. Universities of the third rank

are exclusively concerned with teaching and

training of undergraduate students with no

graduate programs to be offered. Finally,

there is a new class of institutions at the

bottom of the pyramid called the Senior

Vocational Colleges offering programs

lasting from 2 to 3 years. The institutions of

the third and fourth ranks constitute most of

higher education institutions and considered

the main outlet to absorb the steady increased

numbers of applicants, whereas admission to

national elite universities is symbolic and

very limited.


Figure (3) Hierarchy of Higher Education in China

The crisis of differentiation in Higher Education in the Kingdom:

Public universities are considered the backbone of higher education in the Kingdom

of Saudi Arabia in which they include about 90% of students enrolled in this pattern of

education. However, comparing these universities’ missions reveals a lack of focus and

differentiation, as they all seek distinguishing position in both research and teaching.

Although this problem, as described in the report of the UNESCO World Conference on

Higher Education 2009, is a real and complex identity problem that is overlooked by most

higher education systems in the world so far (Altbach et al., 2010, p.184). However, its

importance and danger increase greatly on the level of higher education in the Kingdom

Figure (3) Hierarchy of Higher Education in China

Research Universities

(National Elite Universities)

PhD, MA, B.

Research &Teaching Universities

B., MA, PhD in very limited specifications

Teaching Universities

Bachelor

Vocational Colleges

Duration of study (2-3 years)


that has witnessed during the last ten years

successive and rapid changes especially with

regard to its massification and privatization

which makes dealing with this issue fateful

and inevitable.

Getting university degree is still

seen, in the Saudi society, as a matter of

pride (swank) and social mobility. Besides,

joining the higher education institutions

helps young high school graduates,

especially girls, to find a safe haven

,albeit temporarily, from unemployment.

In addition, enrolling in higher education

institutions eases the load of daily charges,

as higher education in the Kingdom is

not only offered free of charge, but in

most cases students are paid stipends in

addition to providing them with some free

services such as transportation and housing

especially for female students coming from

remote areas.

In responding to this high social

demand, the number of universities in

the Kingdom jumped from 11 public

universities in 2005 to 24 universities in

2011, and from 4 to 8 private universities

in the same period with total percentage

growth amounted 113%. Besides, statistics

indicate that the total percentage of students

enrolled in higher education in the Kingdom

of Saudi Arabia takes a rapid ascending

curve. The enrollment ratio in higher

education improved from 30.2% in 2007

to 38.9% in 2011 (the Higher Education

Observatory, 2001, pp. 37-38), while this

percent in 2000 did not exceed 22%. This

percentage is going to be up to 50% in 2020

(the Ministry of Higher Education, 2012)

in which there is still demand to higher

education especially university level. With

these data, it becomes of urgent significant

importance to launch initiatives, supported

with long and short–term policies for

restructuring universities in the Kingdom to

cope with these changes in order to achieve

both differentiation and integration among

them.

Without reducing the importance

of this quantitative expansion, tit wasn’t

accompanied with a real consideration

of the issue of universities’ identity. In

response to the lack of differentiation

among higher education institutions in the

Kingdom, two main viewpoints about the

problem and its causes are observed: Al Essa

(2011), the former director of Al Yamamah

Private University, attributes the cause to

the traditional beginnings of established

public universities which affected deeply

the structure of educational system and

contributed to submitting the universities to


a bureaucratic centralized system directly

linked to the powers of the state whether

the Ministry of Higher Education or other

superior bodies. This contributes to effacing

the identity of universities and stifling

opportunities of diversity and difference

among them. Universities are founded as if

they are duplicate copies for one university

with its structures, systems, divisions and

practices. No one knows what distinguishes

this university from the other or what makes

university excel the others. Besides, the

establishment of emergent universities in

different regions of the Kingdom came also

in a cloning way, which intensifies the crisis

of the universities’ identity. This analysis

comes to confirm what had been earlier

referred to in the World Bank report (2008)

about reforming education in the Middle

East and North Africa. The report asserts

the need of educational systems in these

countries, and Saudi Arabia specifically,

to follow a new path for reforming

education and achieving effectiveness

and competitiveness. The most prominent

features of this path is the decentralization

of educational systems, along with effective

evaluation and increased accountability.

Luomi (2008) comments on the report’s

recommendations that higher education

institutions in these countries are not only

in need to increase funding but to inject

diversification in the system as well,

particularly in the light of growing demand

on of High School graduates to join its

institutions,.

The other viewpoint about meeting

challenges facing the higher education

in the Kingdom is not necessarily based

on a call for ending centralization. The

former president of King Fahd University

of Petroleum and Minerals- (Al Dakheel,

2011) points out that the solution lies in

the adoption of triple system for higher

education. This system consists of national

research universities and regional teaching

universities including a number of relevant

colleges whose main purpose is teaching

and are not allowed to offer postgraduate

programs except on a limited scale that does

not exceed master stage. The last pattern

includes the community colleges that give

students an opportunity for education for a

period of two to three years after secondary

Education. This type of colleges focuses

on preparing and training the assistants of

specialists who labor market increasingly

needs.


Differentiation in the Future Plan of

University Education in Saudi Arabia

(AFAQ Project):

From this standpoint, the Ministry of

Higher Education initiated a project called

“The Future Plan for University Education

in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Afaq”.

The project’s scope was limited to university

education and especially on public and

private universities and colleges lying under

the umbrella of the Ministry of Higher

Education. The project aims to develop

a long-term strategic plan (25 years) that

identifies the vision of university education,

its mission, needs, types and quality of

outputs. It also aims to develop an action

detailed plan for the first five years. The plan

was officially issued in 2011.

The strategic vision of AFAQ

looks forward to setting an integrated

university education in the Kingdom

whose main trends are controlled by

three dimensions: expansion, quality and

differentiation, with the ability to compete

globally and contribute effectively in

constructing knowledge society (The

Ministry of Higher Education, No date

a). The first five-year detailed action

plan includes 40 programs such as:

capacity planning of university education,

international exchange for students, the

reinforcement the role of private higher

education, the fortification of quality

assurance system in Higher Education,

planning the expected need of, and

recruiting policies for faculty member ,

the partnership with business and industry

sector , the development of electronic and

distance education, the encouragement of

innovation and productivity, by tying faculty

salaries and incentives to their performance,

and finally, the activation of differentiation

and integration higher education institutions.

(The Ministry of Higher Education, no date

b).

The privilege of AFAQ

demonstrated in drawing attention

towards the issue of differentiation in

university education through highlighting

differentiation as one of the main three

dimensions of the strategic plan showed in

Figure (4), which was neglected in Saudi

higher education for a long time.The plan

defines differentiation as the integrated

diversity among universities based on their

visions and missions . this should be done

through integrative diversification in terms

of academic specifications, geographical

spread, and alignment with development

requirements (the Ministry of Higher

Education, no date a).


Figure (4) Dimensions of the Strategic Trends of “Afaq” Plan

The source: Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry Commission of Educational Affairs

(no date a). The Future Plan of University Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

1450/2029: Handbook

AFAQ formulated a differentiation model for higher education system in the Kingdom

as shown in table (1). The model classifies the institutions of higher education into six

patterns: specialized research universities, comprehensive universities, teaching universities,

applied universities, virtual universities and the community colleges.


Table (1) Model of differentiation of the University Education system in the Kingdom

according to “Afaq” classification

# Pattern Definition

1 Specialized ResearchUniversities

Focus mainly on research and postgraduate programs and offer distinguished research programs in strategic.fields in addition to other undergraduate programs

2 ComprehensiveUniversities

Concern with the balance between research and teaching; undergraduate and postgraduate programs. They are always located in densely populated areas.and are comprehensive in offered specializations

3 TeachingUniversities

Mainly offer undergraduate programs and limited number of Masters degrees and research programs..They focus on serving local communities

4 AppliedUniversities

The academic curricula focus on the practical aspects and students professional preparation in addition to theoretical principles. They are concerned with knowledge, skills, field work and the applied research necessary for meeting the society’s, industry’s and business’s needs. The programs can include various .fields of study

5 Virtual Universities

Aim to offer distance learning programs in the form of online courses utilizing the latest communication technologies so as to be available to students all over .the Kingdom

6 CommunityColleges

offer applied programs consistent with the local community’s needs. They grant diploma degree and.prepare some of their students to university education

The source: Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry Commission of Educational Affairs

(no date a). The Future Plan of University Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

1450/2029: Handbook


A Critical Review of AFAQ Proposed

Differentiation Model

Investigating the previous proposed

model of differentiation in the future plan

of University Education in the Kingdom

(AFAQ), it is shown that it is a step towards

the right direction for reforming the

structure of university education System;

however, it has a number of drawbacks that

should be reconsidered.

The first drawback is the number

of patterns proposed for institutions. Six

patterns are not justified when compared

to other international odels especially

those of California and China which have

3 to 4 patterns respectively that cover,

without overlapping, all higher education

institution in their systems. Afaq model,

for example, singled out an independent

pattern for applied universities which are

very close to vocational education. This type

of education should not be within AFAQ

scope as it is supervised by the General

institution of Technical and Vocational

Education, not by the Ministry of Higher

Education . In addition, there is an overlap

between teaching and comprehensive

universities on one hand and applied

universities on the other hand. Moreover, the

virtual universities do not deserve to be an

independent pattern as done in the model, as

they can be included within the category of

teaching universities.

The second drawback of AFAQ

differentiation model for “” project is its

expansion in assigning research function

to all the proposed patterns of universities

except the virtual universities. This in turn

will lead eventually to unjustified distraction

of efforts and resources. The research

function should be limited to the specialized

research and comprehensive universities

because of the concentration and optimal

investment of human and material resources.

The third drawback is the

marginalization of the role of community

colleges by making their primary job is to

provide applied programs at the level of

diplomas and enable a limited number of

them to prepare the enrolled students for

the university stage. Focusing their role, in

this way, makes them intersect clearly with

the mission of polytechnic colleges to the

extent that is difficult to distinguish between

the missions of them. This gives a chance

for duplication and the consequent waste of

resources and efforts. It is better to give a

major role for community colleges to be the

main gate or tributary for joining university.


Finally, this model is suggests a fuzzy and non- binding mechanism for the re-

distribution of current universities according to the proposed patterns. Accordingly, the

current universities stay – until now - as they are and ready to remain in this state in the

future.

A proposed Differentiation Model for University Education in the Kingdom:

In light of the drawbacks of the AFAQ proposed model, besides the lessons learned

from the relevant international experiences, a differentiation model for public university

education based on diversity and integration can be provided. Table (2) and figure (5)

illustrate the components and features of this proposed model as well as the way of

distributing current universities according to this model.

Table (2) the Proposed Differentiation Model for the Governmental University Education

System

Pattern Definition Universities proposed to beclassified in this pattern

Researchuniversities

They are primarily concerned with post graduate programs in the scientific fields and research in the strategic fields. They offer some.Bachelor programs

King Saud, King Abdel Aziz, King Fahd, King Abdullah university for Science and Technology, King Saud forHealth Sciences

ComprehensiveUniversities

Teaching & ()Research

They are concerned with providing most of the Bachelor programs, Master in most specifications, PhD in limited areas (the Islamic studies, Education and Humanities) and limited research program related to.community service

Islamic University, Imam, Umm Al Qura, King Faisal, King Khalid, Taibah, Al Qassim, Al Taif, Al Dammam,Princess Noura, Jazan


TeachingUniversities

They are focused exclusively on undergraduate programs, in specializations related to local communityneeds the available resourc-

.es

Prince Salman, Tabuk, North- ern Borders, Al Jouf, Shaqra, Al Majmaah, Al Baha, Najran,Hail and the Electronic uni-.versity

Faculties of University

Preparation and community

Service

They are concerned with the preparatory programs.They offer associate diplomas aligned to labor market .needs

Substitute for Community Colleges and the Preparatory.year

Figure (5) the Differentiation Proposed Model

The privileges of the proposed model of differentiation in this study are as follows:

1. It is consistent with successful international experiences in which it benefits from

the most prominent characteristics of the two models of California and China. It also

reformulates them with a model commensurate with the status quo and needs of the

Saudi society. From the two models it borrows the idea of organizing the institutions

Figure (5) the Differentiation Proposed Model

The privileges of the proposed model of differentiation in this study are as follows:

Teaching Universities

Research Universities

Comprehensive Universities

Faculties of University

Preparation and

community Service


of higher education hierarchically

based on differentiation of mission

and goals. From the Chinese model

it takes the idea of triple distribution

of types of universities. There are

research universities, comprehensive

(research & teaching) universities

and teaching universities.

From the model of California it

takes the idea of flexibility and

expanding the opportunities with

protection of excellence in which

the distinguished students of

the pyramid base are allowed to

continue their education in the

higher institutions of the pyramid.

2. The base of the pyramid (the

faculties of university preparation

and community service) assures

the expansion in admission

opportunities, developing the idea of

community college and addressing

some of its problems in Saudi

context. Most of the community

colleges suffer from lack of demand

and are stigmatized as a refuge

for under-achieved students. The

opportunity of their graduates to join

the university has become so limited

if found. In addition, because

of the dissatisfaction with high

school graduates’ competencies, all

universities provide a preparatory

year for accepted applicants. Thus,

the suggestion of establishing

faculties for university preparation

and community service will

be suitable substitute for both

community colleges and preparatory

year at the same time.

3. The model highlights that the

number of research universities

should be very limited to confirm

that the quality is more important

than quantity when establishing

such universities. Focusing on

competitiveness, high quality and

continuity of the offered programs

of teaching and research that serve

the scientific research should come

first. The model also confirms that

universities established to meet the

local community and business’s

needs of manpower should be

teaching universities that can be

turned into comprehensive ones

when necessary, with the availability

of needed resources.

4. The model takes into account the

status quo of the Saudi universities

so as to achieve diversity and


integration among them. The

proposed model helps the Saudi

universities overcome their

excessive tendency to become

comprehensive universities. By

reviewing the vision and mission

of all Saudi universities, except

King Abdullah University for

Sciences and Technology, it is found

that they are all comprehensive

institutions (teaching and research)

realistically or ambitiously. This is

happening while it is well-observed

that most of these universities,

especially the emerging ones whose

number is more than one-third,

do not have the basic capacity to

run serious research programs.

In an attempt to address this

issue practically, the proposed

model distributes the public

universities among the patterns

based on a number of criteria,

notably: originality, chronological

age of university, availability of

research infrastructure, nature of

the available specifications and

experience, the position in global

ranking of universities, and the

region where university is located.

Moreover when the model suggested

the comprehensive (teaching

&research) universities, it considers

that programs and fields of research

in these universities complement

and not compete their counterparts

in research universities. The model

provides these universities with an

opportunity to offer postgraduate

programs at the level of Masters

and PhD in religious, human and

educational studies, especially

within institutions with relatively

long history and experience in

offering such programs like the

Islamic University in Medina, , Al

Imam Muhammad Bin Saud Islamic

University, and Umm Al Qura

University.

5. The model supports the students’

mobility between the regions of

the Kingdom and reinforces the

social and cultural intricacy of

Saudi students. There were only

seven universities in the Kingdom

decade and half ago found in four

administrative regions of the thirteen

regions of the Kingdom. These

universities attracted the students

from all over the Kingdom. This

turns them to be centers for smelting

social and cultural backgrounds of

the Saudi students. This privilege

started to shrink clearly when each


region had its own university, with

its comprehensive mission and

offered programs which eventually

limited the students’ mobility among

regions. It is expected that the

proposed model and its achieved

diversity will restore and support

this mobility.

In this regard, it may be

important to confirm the importance

of the role of centralization in higher

education system in the Kingdom

of Saudi Arabia. As in many

international experiences, there will

be reluctance inside and outside

the higher education institutions

against imposing differentiation

among them. As long as there is no

general trend to impose the policy

of differentiation, its application

in all institutions and linking

the financial support of Higher

Education institutions to the degree

of commitment to their assigned

mission in accordance with their

capabilities and needs of surrounding

environment, differentiation will

not be implemented successfully in

Saudi higher education institutions.

Conclusion:

Globally, the issue of differentiation

and diversity among higher education

institutions is no longer a supplementary

but a fundamental requirement imposed

as a consequence of massification of the

sector. Therefore, applying the policy

of horizontal and vertical differentiation

of higher education system of countries

should be listed at the top of policy agenda

in many countries to meet the increasing

demand for higher education and the market

need of greater diversity in the graduates’

qualifications and abilities.

In Saudi Arabia, the absence of

differentiation especially the vertical one

among public universities, considered the

backbone of higher education with 90%

of enrolled students, is a troubling issue

for those interested in the higher education

reform. This is reflected in the absence of

distinct identity and considering mission

differentiation at the time of universities

establishment especially the emerging

ones, which were based on negative

simulation of old institutions. This is

accompanied with absence of a binding

policy for constructing a hierarchical system

for the higher education institutions and


limiting the reform focus on technical and

operational issues. Thus, the introduction

of mission differentiation policy is no

longer a luxury but an urgent necessity as

recently observed by the Ministry of Higher

Education in its strategic paper “the Future

Plan of University Higher Education in the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – AFAQ Project”.

AFAQ considers mission differentiation

as one of the three main dimensions of

strategic trends of in addition to quality

and expansion; it suggests a model for

differentiation of public university education

system. But the proposed model in “AFAQ”

project has some drawbacks including: the

unjustified increase of university patterns,

its expansion in making research among the

main functions of five out of the six patterns,

the marginalization of the community

colleges role and the absence of criteria for

the distribution of current universities on the

proposed patterns.

In light of the previous drawbacks

, and based on the learned lessons from

relevant international experiences especially

those of California in USA and China,

the current study suggested a mission

differentiation model for public university

Education in the Kingdom . The model is

based on assuring diversity and integration

of higher education institutions and their

missions, and proposes re-organizing

them hierarchy of four patterns: research,

comprehensive (teaching & research),

and teaching universities, in addition to

faculties of university preparation and

community service. The privileges of this

model are its consistency with successful

international experiences; expanding

admission opportunities while protecting

excellence; considering the status quo of

Saudi universities; restoring and supporting

the students’ geographic mobility in a way

that reinforces social and cultural intricacy

of Saudi students. The study also highlights

the importance of benefiting from the

centralization of the system to impose a

mission differentiation policy whether

based on this proposed model or not. The

re-organization of institutions, is argued,

should consider the resources availability to

higher education institutions and the social

and developmental needs of the surrounding

environments.

To guarantee the success of the

proposed model, it is necessary to modify

the rules and regulations governing higher

education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The regulations of employing faculty

members, researchers and technicians or


those related to contracting or promoting

them should be changed to be consistent

with the mission of the university and its

assigned local or global role. The current

system of promoting faculty members

– for example - is completely biased to

research production, while applying the

proposed differentiation model necessitates

diversifying promotion policies to be

suitable for different university patterns.

In addition, proposing and implementing

such policies require greater levels of

flexibility and independence to be granted

for universities in administration and

management of their academic and financial

affairs.


Al-Ohali, Mohammad and Al-Mehrej,

Hamad (2012). “Faculty Salary and

Remuneration in the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia”. In Altbach, Philip G., Liz

Reisberg, Maria Yudkevich, Gregory

Androushchak, and Ivān F. Pacheco. Paying

The Professoriate: Aglobal Comparison of

Compensation and Contracts. Marceline,

Mo, Walsworth Publishing Company.

Agarwal, Pawan (2011). “Mission

Differentation”. Paper presented as Keynote

address, International Exhibition and

Conference on Higher Education.

Altlbach, P.G.(2002). “Differentiation

Requires Definition : The Need for

Classification in Complex Academic

System”. International Higher Education,

26, 2-3.

Altabach, P.G.(2007). The Logic of Mass

Higher education. P.G. Altabach (ed),

Tradition and Transition : The International

Imperative in Higher Education, Rotterdam,

Netherland, Sense Publishers. 3-22.

Altbach, Philip G. (2011a) “The Past,

Persent, and Future of the Research

University”. In Altbach, Philip G. and

Salmi, Jamil (ed), The Rood to Academic

Excellence : The Making of World-Class

Research Universities. Washington, DC: The

world Bank.

Altbach, Philip G. (2011b) “Ranking Season

IS Here”. The Saudi Journal of Higher

Education, No.5, 176-183.

Douglass, John A. (2000). The California

Idea and American Higher Education.

Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press.

Guri – Rosenblit, S., Sebkova, H. and

Teichler, U. (2007). “Massification and

Diversity of Higher Education Systems:

Interplay of Complex Dimensions”. Higher

Education Policy, Vol. 20, No. 4, PP. 373-

389.

Gürüz, Kemal (2011). Higher Education and

International Student Mobility in the Global

Knowledge Economy. Second ed. Albany,

State University of New York.

Labaree, David F. (2006). “Understanding

the Rise of American Higher Education

: How Complexity Breeds Autonomy”.

Paper presented as vice presidential address,

Division F, American Education Research

Association.

Luomi, Mari (2008). “Reforming Higher

References املراجــــــــــــع


Education: the GCC highway in the shadow

of the World Bank road’ In Davidson,

Christopher and smith, Peter M. (Ed).

Higher Education in the Gulf States:

Shaping Economies, Politics and Culture.

London Middle East Institute at SOAS,

London.

Ritzen, Jo (2011). “Strategy, Structure and

Organization”. Paper presented as Keynote

address, International Exhibition and

Conference on Higher Education.

Salmi, Jamil (2009). The Challenge of

Establishing World-Class Universities.

Washington, DC: World Bank.

The World Bank (2000). Higher Education

in Developing Countries : Peril and Promise,

Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

The World Bank (2008). The Road Not

Traveled : Education Reform in the Middle

East and North Africa. Washington, DC: The

World Bank

Zha, Qiang (2009). “Diversification or

Homogenization : How Government and

Markets Have Combined to (Re) Shape

Chinese Higher Education in Its Recent

Massification Process”. Higher Education,

58:41-58.

Arabic References

التعليم يف توجهات )2010م( واآخرون جي. فيليب – األتباخ البحوث مركز ترجمة الأكادميية، الثورة ر�صد العاملي، العايل

والدرا�صات يف وزارة التعليم العايل يف اململكة العربية ال�صعودية.

توبقال دار امل�صتقبل، جامعة ،)2012( بوطالب حفيظ جوطي، للن�صر، الدار البي�صاء.

ماله العايل التعليم )2011م(، اهلل عبد العزيز عبد الدخيل، وماعليه، �صركة العبيكان للأبحاث والتطوير، الريا�ض.

العي�صى، اأحمد )2009م( اإ�صلح التعليم يف ال�صعودية بني غياب الروؤية ال�صيا�صية وتوج�ض الثقافة الدينية وعجز الإدارة الرتبوية،

دار ال�صاقي، بريوت.

رحلة ال�صعودية: يف العايل التعليم )2011م( اأحمد العي�صى، البحث عن الهوية، دار ال�صاقي، بريوت.

التعليم )2012م(، العايل التعليم مر�صد العايل، التعليم وزارة ومقارنات حملية موؤ�صرات ال�صعودية العربية اململكة يف العايف

دولية، وزارة التعليم العايل يف اململكة العربية ال�صعودية.

التعليم )2011م(، العايل التعليم مر�صد العايل، التعليم وزارة ومقارنات حملية موؤ�صرات ال�صعودية العربية اململكة يف العايل

دولية، اململكة العربية ال�صعودية، وزارة التعليم العايل.

.)a وزارة التعليم العايل، وكالة الوزارة لل�صوؤون التعليمية )بدونال�صعودية العربية اململكة يف اجلامعي للتعليم امل�صتقبلية اخلطة العربية اململكة تعريفي. كتّيب 1450هـ/2029م: )اآفاق(

ال�صعودية، وزارة التعليم العايل.

)b وزارة التعليم العايل، وكالة الوزارة لل�صوؤون التعليمية )بدونال�صعودية العربية اململكة يف اجلامعي للتعليم امل�صتقبلية اخلطة )اآفاق( 1450هـ/2029م: برامج اآفاق التنفيذية. اململكة العربية

ال�صعودية، وزارة التعليم العايل.


The authors of this article have provided a thoughtful analysis of international

trends in the differentiation of national higher education systems and applied their

assessment to the Saudi Arabian context. Building from a constructive and well-

documented critique of the current “AFAQ” plan for differentiation of higher education

institutions in Saudi Arabia, they recommend that the number of tiers in the new higher

education system be reduced from six to four, identify which existing institutions would

be in each tier, and discuss benefits of the proposed structure.

I am well aware of the major effort that went into the national planning

process, having participated in both the “AFAQ” conference on “Future Trends in

Higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” in Riyadh (December, 2006) and a

preliminary meeting at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (May, 2006).

The resulting “AFAQ” plan, based on extensive consultation with both domestic and

international experts, is comprehensive and far reaching. The modifications to the

“AFAQ” plan put forward in the present article are a constructive effort to improve

effectiveness and efficiency of the Saudi higher education system across the different

Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and Research

John C. Weidman

Professor of Higher and International Development Education

University of Pittsburgh, USA

Pers

pect

ives

on


institutional tiers by reducing complexity

and sharpening programmatic focus

while, at the same time, retaining

the basic goals and objectives of a

differentiated structure. The authors

provide a convincing rationale for

each of the four tiers, though I would

question whether “virtual” or online

programs should be confined to a single

tier (“teaching universities”). The

experience in the USA, for instance, has

been that online academic programming

of one sort or another can be found in all

types of higher education institutions,

from community colleges through elite

research universities.

There are, however, a

few issues that I believe require

attention in order for the proposed

plan modifications to take place. My

goal is not to provide a blueprint for

implementation, but rather to reflect

on important concerns that might

be considered. Any specific actions

necessary would, of course, have

to be determined by the Ministry of

Higher Education, the respective higher

education institutions, and relevant

stakeholders.

System Integration

The authors describe how a

four-tier structure might be integrated so

that each type of institution contributes

to improved quality and impact of

the entire higher education system.

While higher education institutions

in each of the four tiers would have

their own, unique missions, integration

across tiers is important in order to

make certain there is not significant

duplication of activities across

institutional tiers. Higher education

institutions around the world are prone

to “mission creep,” namely, a tendency

to take on an increasingly expansive

range of academic activities. From

an institutional perspective, there

are usually compelling reasons for

expanding, most notably student demand

and perceived enhancement of status and

reputation. This can spread resources

too thinly, directing them away from

the primary mission, and may affect

overall quality at both the institutional

and system levels. Consequently, there

may need to be periodic review and

assessment (e.g., via a formal quality

assurance and/or accreditation system)

to make certain that “mission creep”

is not occurring. Many countries also

support organizations for presidents of

higher education institutions, including

requiring meetings of leaders across

tiers.


Opportunity for Students to Transfer

between Institutions

Most national higher education

systems seek acceptable avenues for

students to move, at least in some

limited way, between institutions

without losing credit for courses already

completed. Transfer is generally most

common across institutions in the

same tier, but many systems also have

mechanisms in place to encourage those

students who demonstrate significantly

outstanding academic accomplishment

to move to a higher tier higher education

institution in the system. This requires

curricular integration across institutions.

The California community college

system, for instance, provides open

access to all state high school graduates

but also gives them the opportunity

to move to a higher level (either

comprehensive or research university)

if their academic achievement warrants

such advancement. One mechanism for

making this possible is the establishment

of “articulation agreements” between

institutions through which four-year

institutions agree to accept course credits

earned either from other same- and

higher-tier tier institutions or from two-

year institutions.

Labor Market Demand for Graduates

Because of the community

focus in both the “AFAQ” plan and

the proposed modification, projected

labor market requirements for graduates

should be considered, at least to some

extent, in building academic programs

and community service activities at each

tier and degree level in the system. This

is particularly difficult in the Middle

East and North Africa (MENA) region

due to the large expat workforce and

preference of country nationals for civil

service jobs (Weidman, 2011). The high

costs (e.g., facilities, equipment, faculty,

etc.) of running institutions make it

imperative that investments in higher

education be strategic, not on only in

terms of institutional capacity but also

with respect to labor market (local,

national, and international, depending on

the institutional tier) and other national

development goals. While there are

significant national benefits to having

an “educated citizenry,” most students

and their families are more immediately

concerned with having graduates finding

employment as soon as possible after

completing their degrees. Projected

employment patterns and corresponding

demand for academic programs serving

women should also be considered.


Building “World-Class” Universities

One final concern has to

do with possible consequences of

designating a small set of institutions as

elite, research universities, presumably

with corresponding special funding.

While this may simply reflect a

national desire to have a tier of very

high-level institutions aspiring to

become, as Salmi and others call

them, “world-class” universities, it

has consequences spanning the entire

higher education system. It requires

establishing a careful balance across

institutions in expectations for faculty

and student performance, academic and

other resource allocation, and student

admission selectivity. It requires

training and recruitment of faculty

with outstanding credentials. As the

authors mention, this also includes

establishing faculty reward systems that

are not totally driven by research and

publications, but are uniquely identified

with institutions in each tier and based

on the specific types of faculty work

expected.

Higher education in Saudi

Arabia has a promising future based

on systematic planning and careful

investment. The present article reflects

the sort of dialog that promises to

engage stakeholders and, ultimately, to

facilitate effective implementation of

higher education reform.


Weidman, John C. (2011). Linking

Higher Education Reform to Labour

Market Demand in the Gulf States:

A Slippery Slope?” Pp. 2124- in

Intersections of the Public and Private

in Education in the GCC. Conference

Proceedings, Papers from the Second

Annual Symposium of the Gulf

Comparative Education Society, Ras Al

Khaimah, United Arab Emirates, 1617-

March. http://boneducation.com/bon/

wp-content/uploads/201110//GCES-

2011-Proceedings-.pdf#page=21

References املراجــــــــــــع


Research Abstract


Abstract:

The purpose of this descriptive analytical study was to arrive at the mechanism of activating

the Empowerment to achieve quality performance at Princess Noura Bint Abdulrahman

University. The research’s main question was (How can the Empowerment of quality

performance be achieved at Princess Noura Bint Abdulrahman University?). A number of sub-

questions came out of such question. For this purpose, a questionnaire including the following

points was designed:

First: A diagnosis of the reality of the support given to the Empowerment at Princess Noura

Bint Abdulrahman University. Such diagnosis includes the following:

1- Delegation of administrative and regulatory procedures to the authority;

2- Communication and Organizational Trust;

3- Teams (Internal Committees);

4- Motivation and Self-esteem.

Second: Mechanisms of supporting the Empowerment of quality performance at Princess

Enabling activation mechanisms to achieve quality performance atthe University of Princess Nourabint Abdul Rahman

Prof. Seham Mohammed S. KakiProfessor of educational administration

Princess Noura Bint Abdul Rahman University

E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Madawe alshaallanAssistant Professor of Educational Admin.

Princess Noura Bint Abdul Rahman University

E-mail: [email protected]

Key words: Quality - Empowerment

Res

earc

h A

bstr

act


Noura Bint Abdulrahman University.

The findings of this study highlighted

the mechanisms of supporting the

Empowerment of academic quality

performance including the promotion of

dialogue, exchange of information and

power sharing, strengthening Organizational

Loyalty and Commitment, increasing

the staff’s Absorptive Capability and

improving their productivity through

the activation of national standards and

benchmarks of performance, highlighting

the importance of human relationships in

supporting the Empowerment, developing

incentives which are commensurate with

the performance, adopting the Group

Work Method, improving productivity and

designing university quality performance

systems, in addition to ensuring the

Organizational Climate which enables

to adopt the Empowerment mechanisms,

delegating authority and expanding granted

powers, activating human relationships,

adopting incentives to improve productivity,

achieving Career Compliance by supporting

Job Satisfaction, designing training

programs at various administrative levels

thus helping to spread the culture of

Empowerment and improve the efficiency of

the employees in a manner that enables them

to activate the administrative Empowerment.

The study stressed the importance of

training, organizing workshops, lectures

and instructive seminars, the importance of

reconsidering the administrative procedures

and organizational structure, describing

jobs, focusing on the communication with

members to open effective communication

channels, ensuring the availability of

technological environment which leads

to quality performance, encouraging

the participation of faculty members in

the scientific tasks, and supporting and

stimulating evaluation researches that

achieve the Empowerment of quality

performance for the universities’ Faculty

Members.


Abstract:

This study has aimed to detect the problems of parallel education in Taibah’s university from the students’ perspective, and that was done by getting acquainted with the problems that students of parallel learning faced. the levels of problems were based on management, service, and academic levels.The study used the descriptive and analytical approach to achieve the required goals. The study has also made a questionnaire to detect the problems; the questionnaire contained 52 phrases. And to assure the validity of the questionnaire, the virtual honesty and the consistency test were measured. The questionnaire was handed to 178 students; the following results were discovered:

1- The problems based on the management level were:A- The students do not have different varieties of specializations; moreover, most of the

specializations are unwanted in the labor market; even more, students can’t transfer from one specialization to another; lastly, there is a lack of communication between students and the management.

B- Students do not receive guidance from the Deanship of parallel learning; additionally the

Problems of parallel education in Taibah’s

university from the students perspectives

Dr.Mona Ali Al SaloosAssociate Professor

Faculty of EducationTaibah University

[email protected]

Dr. Sahar Mufti El SidikyAssistant Professor

Faculty of Education Taibah University

[email protected]

Key words: Parallel Education - Problems of university education

Res

earc

h A

bstr

act


deanship retire in evenings even though the students of parallel learning start their shift at the evening.

C- There is also a lack of connection between the students and the academy coordinator, as well as the lack of the presence of the coordinator.

2- The problems based on the service level:The following is not available

during the evening shift: medical shift, transportation systems, library ,cafeteria.

3- The problems based on the academic level were:Traditional ways of teaching, no teaching aids, no office hours in the evening; therefore the lack of office hours lead to the lack of connection between a student and her teacher.


Abstract:This paper mainly aims to shed light on the various available resources and alternatives that

finance education so as to make use of it as far as possible in mobilizing the financial resources

of education sector in general and government higher education in particular in the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia. To achieve this target, the problem of financing education has been reviewed as

well as indicators of education finance. Also the status in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been

referred to and showed that expenditure on education is generally in constant rise.

The paper concluded that it is necessary to adopt different alternatives to finance educational

expenditure in the Kingdom in addition to the main finance resource (the government) such as

individuals participation in financing their education by that extent that does not affect joining

rates and equality of opportunities, participation of private sector represented by its various

companies and corporations through incentive taxation or granting loans or subsidization, or

donations , or others. Lastly, there is also financing through the optimal exploitation of the

natural and human resources available to educational institutions and researches to different

institutions or the utmost use of educational utilities at evening time, vacations, seasons, renting

unused buildings … etc.

Alternatives of Government

Financing for Higher Education in

the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Dr. Abdullah Mohamed AlmalikiAssistant Professor of Economics

Chairman of Administrative Sciences departmentCommunity College, King Saud University - Riyadh

[email protected]

Key words: Finance, financing of higher education, public higher education, education spending, education funding alternatives

Res

earc

h A

bstr

act


Research projects


Models That Link University’s Branches

With Their Mother University In Some

Countries: A Proposed Model for Saudi

Universities.Res

earc

h pr

ojec

ts

Higher education has an extremely important position in the life of nations and populations in various social, economical, political and knowledge aspects. With the emergence of the technical challenges, the increasing population and the high requirements of the labor market, the world›s universities particularly in Saudi Arabia faced great challenges to achieve the balance required by the human development in order for the country to be in the ranks of developed nations. The Ministry of Higher Education found itself in the midst of massive changes in the institution’s elements and components which resulted in strategic plans developed by the ministry. The Ministry informed the universities about these changes to enable them to face the outcome of those systematic changes.

The most prominent transition faced by the universities in the Kingdom is the increased demand for higher education as a result of population growth and the high requirements of the productive and the service sectors, the needs of the development process and the labor market. The effects of these plans were the expansion of the education for citizens through opening a large number of universities and colleges in many parts of the Kingdom, in addition to join colleges from other sectors to the universities in major cities. Despite of the positive aspects of this expansion, it is a challenge to the major universities which found themselves managed by the same old mechanisms that may not fit with such an expansion.

Hence there was a need to find a suitable mechanism for the management of the provincial colleges (branches) by the universities to which they belong. The study focused on

Dr. Einas Suliman Al EisaDr. Sinaa Abdulmuhssen Al ageelDr. Hana Ibrahem ALsobayelDr. Majda Ibrahim Aljaroudi


analyzing the current situation to figure out the weaknesses. Furthermore the study approach focused on studying samples of international universities which have succeeded in finding this balance between effective management and quality of output. The study then finds an administration model to link the branches to the mother university to fit the higher education system in the Kingdom.

The study began by analyzing the current situation in the provinces’ colleges, followed by a poll, among experienced groups and decision makers in universities, about the current situation and the future vision for improving the link between colleges and universities.

The study also included a comprehensive survey of the literature published on the objectives, goals and higher education policies in numerous counties, and models of colleges’ management. The study also reviewed previous scientific theories and studies on higher education’s governance, and the guiding principles for designing a new model for universities’ governance. The study of these models is the first step in the search for better alternatives to solve the problem of linking university’s branches with the mother university. This step will be followed by several steps to ensure the optimal application of the model and apply it in our universities.

University governance models:

Faculty / Academic Governance

Traditional governance models assumed that faculty members (also known as academic administration) should run the universities. This usually happens by granting broad administrative powers to the heads (managers) of the university or for the university to be well represented on boards of directors or a combination of both ways.

Corporate Governance

Governance model Supporters suggests that trained professionals and policy experts, who are capable of effective management, should manage the universities.

Trustee Governance

This model is based on the management of the university by the Board of Trustees, who own shares in the university and work for a group of beneficiaries.

Stakeholder Governance

In this model, Governance delegates the decision-making to a wide range of beneficiaries (students, faculty members, partners, government, and society in general) locally and abroad.

Amalgam Model

Amalgam Model for university governance is a mix of faculty governance, the corporate and trustee models, and governance of the beneficiaries.


Virtual Organization

The concept of «virtual organization» appeared in 1993. It is one of the models of modern governance which aims to link the components of the organization in a flexible manner to allow them to adapt and quickly respond to the requirements of the beneficiaries. The idea of a «virtual organization» is considered as one of the most common concepts in contemporary management theory. Its popularity may come from the need to create more flexible working procedures and structures. There are three types of virtual organizations:

• Cellular Organization

The idea of cellular pattern is based on the dynamic organization that is capable of adapting, and is consisting of «biological “cells. Each cell has the ability to change its function and direction. In traditional universities, such «cells» can be a group of departments and researchers. It works within the organizational structure of the University, and interacts with other cells.

• Patching Organization

This concept “patching” by Brown and Eisenhart refers to smoothly transform (patching again) the organization resources and boundaries in order to accommodate the new opportunities. It means moving activities, abilities and resources that are being “cut and re – patched”. Through this process of rearranging, the organization

becomes a mixture that is able to adapt and change.

• Boundaryless Organization

The idea of boundaryless organizations is based on the vision of organization elements, such as the size, the role clarity, specialization and control, which was traditionally understood as a contribution to the organizational success, whereas it may be an obstacle in achieving the objectives of the topic. Managers begun to realize that speed, flexibility, innovation, and integration are more important than the size, and that flexible management is vital to success.

Therefore, universities can compare their governance models with other institutions as long as they are aware of the need of adopting their own path, needs and practices. Those governance models may work differently for other cultural organizations. A long history of autocratic management of a team of directors or presidents can result in an uncooperative pattern of governance, though the form was submitted as collaborative style.

By reviewing the literature on this field, we find that when applying or modifying the models of governance, the first step is to determine what we are searching for, how to apply it, and when to do it. This requires recognizing deficiencies in the existing model of governance in the organization and what amendment can be achieved, which


can be as follows:

- Trustee governance is the most appropriate mode to rebuild confidence if the problem is a crisis, misconduct or failure.

- Corporate model is appropriate if it is a financial problem.

- The academic governance model is appropriate if the problem is related to the quality of the academic programs.

- The amalgam model is appropriate if the problem is a mixture of different issues.

The study also reviewed the experiences of a number of universities that have been selected to shed light on their successful management experiences with a special focus on the management of its colleges and branches. The governance system in universities is the result of many factors, including the state policy and higher education priorities. Therefore it is important to recognize the developments that occurred in higher education, which in turn brought the successful changes in universities’ structure and management. The study reviewed higher education developments and the impact on the organization administrational structure in USA (University of California, University of Virginia, University of Michigan, and University of North Carolina) in Europe (University of London, Vienna University

of Economics and Business) and East Asia (University of Singapore, University of Hong Kong).

The study showed the relationship between colleges and their mother universities in three categories:

First: University System

The major university system which is dominated by the government is applied in most state universities in the USA. Academic governance and trustee governance models are predominantly applied in major multi-branch universities, where branches are administratively linked through the Board of Regents and academically through Academic Senate.

Second: Collegiate System

London University branches are considered the best model to demonstrate the administrative independency of the branches, and its academic link with the mother university. Corporate governance model is predominantly applied in this system through the board of directors whereas trustee governance model is through the board of trustee.

Third: Constitutional Autonomy

The University of Michigan is considered a pioneer in this system as it guaranteed its policy independence from the state. The stakeholder governance model should


be followed in this system where there

are representatives from the community,

state, students and faculty members in the

university administration.

The study made a number of

recommendations based on analyzing

of the current situation, global models

and previous scientific studies. These

recommendations will reduce the problems regarding administration connection. It will also ensure boosting the branches’ academic level and quality performance. The most prominent recommendation is forming executive councils in the region and the university, which aim to reduce centralization of the university, and give more autonomy to the parties concerned.

Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and ...

Documents

Transcript of Mission Differentiation in Higher Education between Teaching and ...