Higher Education Leadership and University Governance Effectiveness: A Qualitative Case Study of UIM
Abstract views: 0
PDF downloads: 0
Keywords:
Higher education leadership, University governance, Participatory decision-making, Academic services, Institutional accountabilityAbstract
This simulated study examined the role of higher education leadership in improving the effectiveness of university governance at University “UIM,” used as a pseudonym to maintain institutional confidentiality. The study employed a qualitative case study design. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, observations, and document analysis involving university leaders, faculty administrators, lecturers, administrative employees, and students. Data were analyzed through data reduction, coding, data presentation, and conclusion formulation. The findings indicate that university leadership contributes to governance effectiveness through the establishment of institutional direction, policy communication, participatory decision-making, coordination among organizational units, monitoring, and evaluation. Transparency, accountability, stakeholder participation, and digital administrative services also support the improvement of governance and service quality. However, several challenges remain, including inconsistent information distribution, limited coordination, unequal digital competence, and weak follow-up mechanisms. The study concludes that collaborative, communicative, and accountable leadership is essential for strengthening university governance and improving academic and administrative services.
Downloads
References
P. Delgadoa, C. Vargasb, R. Ackermanc, and L. Salmerón, “Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 25, pp. 23–38, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003.
F. Reichert, D. Lange, and L. Chow, “Educational beliefs matter for classroom instruction: A comparative analysis of teachers’ beliefs about the aims of civic education,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 98, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103248.
J. Roick and T. Ringeisen, “Students’ math performance in higher education: examining the role of self-regulated learning and self-efficacy,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 65, pp. 148–158, 2018.
G. Ocak and A. Yamaç, “Examination of the relationships between fifth graders’ self-regulated learning strategies, motivational beliefs, attitudes, and achievement,” Educ. Sci. Theory Pract., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 380–387, 2013.
S. Li and J. Zheng, “The relationship between self-efficacy and self-regulated learning in one-to-one computing environment: The mediated role of task values,” Asia-Pacific Educ. Res., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 455–463, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s40299-018-0405-2.
B. J. Zimmerman and A. R. Moylan, “Self-regulation: where metacognition and motivation intersect,” in D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser, Eds., Handbook of Metacognition in Education, 2009, pp. 299–315.
P. R. Pintrich, D. A. F. Smith, T. Duncan, and W. Mckeachie, A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1991.
M. Pressley and C. B. McCormick, Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York, USA: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995.
A. Bandura, Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985.
A. L. Dent and A. C. Koenka, “The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 425–474, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9320-8.
T. J. Cleary and A. Kitsantas, “Motivation and self-regulated learning influences on middle school mathematics achievement,” School Psych. Rev., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 88–107, 2017.
P. R. Pintrich, “Chapter 14 - The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning,” in in M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, M. Zeidner, Eds., Handbook of Self-Regulation, San Diego, California: Academic Press, 2000, pp. 451–502.
H. Vonkova and J. Hrabak, “The (in) comparability of ICT knowledge and skill self-assessments among upper secondary school students: The use of the anchoring vignette method,” Comput. Educ., vol. 85, pp. 191–202, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.003.
F. Baier, A.-T. Decker, T. Voss, T. Kleickmann, U. Klusmann, and M. Kunter, “What makes a good teacher? The relative importance of mathematics teachers’ cognitive ability, personality, knowledge, beliefs, and motivation for instructional quality,” Br. J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 767–786, 2019, doi: 10.1111/bjep.12256.
A. M. Flanagan, D. C. Cormier, and O. Bulut, “Achievement may be rooted in teacher expectations: examining the differential influences of ethnicity, years of teaching, and classroom behaviour,” Soc. Psychol. Educ., vol. 23, pp. 1429–1448, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11218-020-09590-y.
F. M. van der Kleij, “Comparison of teacher and student perceptions of formative assessment feedback practices and association with individual student characteristics,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 175–189, 2019.
R. G. Brockett and R. Hiemstra, Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice. London and New York: Routledge, 2020.
R. Hiemstra and R. G. Brockett, “Reframing the Meaning of Self-Directed Learning: An Updated Modeltt,” in Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings, 2012, pp. 155–161.
S. Geng, K. M. Y. Law, and B. Niu, “Investigating self-directed learning and technology readiness in blending learning environment,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 16, no. 17, pp. 1–22, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0147-0.
J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen, and H. H. Hyun, How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2012.
M. Honey and D. Marshall, “The impact of on-line muti-choice questions on undergraduate student nurses’ learning,” in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), 2003, pp. 236–243.
R. A. Krueger and M. A. Casey, Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage Publications, Inc., 2015.
J. W. Creswell and V. L. P. Clark, “Choosing a mixed methods design,” in Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 2011, pp. 53–106.
E. H. Mahvelati, “Learners’ perceptions and performance under peer versus teacher corrective feedback conditions,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 70, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100995.
K. Ismayilova and R. M.Klassen, “Research and teaching self-efficacy of university faculty: Relations with job satisfaction,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 98, pp. 55–66, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.012.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Heri Sugiyanto, M. Reza Andrea Putra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
