Journal of International Education in Business

Improving learning outcome using Six Sigma methodology

Godson A. Tetteh

Article information:

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Godson A. Tetteh , (2015),"Improving learning outcome using Six Sigma methodology", Journal of
International Education in Business, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 18 - 36
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-10-2013-0040
Downloaded on: 16 May 2016, At: 23:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 152 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2015),"An exploratory study of the perceptions of AACSB Internationals 2013 Accreditation
Standards", Journal of International Education in Business, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 2-17 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-02-2014-0009
(2015),"Undergraduate accounting students: prepared for the workplace?", Journal of International
Education in Business, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 37-48 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-11-2013-0043
(2015),"A framework for Six Sigma project selection in higher educational institutions, using a
weighted scorecard approach", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 30-46 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2014-0014

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:603747 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-469X.htm

JIEB
8,1

Improving learning outcome

using Six Sigma methodology
Godson Tetteh

18

Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA),

Accra, Ghana

Received 21 October 2013

Revised 19 February 2014
Accepted 17 August 2014

Abstract
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

Purpose The purpose of this research paper is to apply the Six Sigma methodology to identify the
attributes of a lecturer that will help improve a students prior knowledge of a discipline from an initial
x per cent knowledge to a higher y per cent of knowledge.
Design/methodology/approach The data collection method involved a one-on-one, in-depth
interview based on the Kano questionnaire with a sample of 170 undergraduate and graduate students
aged between 25 and 40 years in two Ghanaian universities. The Kano questionnaire contained the
critical to quality (CTQ) and the 25 functional requirements (FRs). The analytical Kano (A-Kano)
questionnaire was adopted for the purpose of improving learning outcome with a studentlecturer
interaction. The CTQs in this study, from the customer (student) perspective, will correspond to Blooms
(1956) categories in the cognitive domain made up of remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate
and create. The configuration index, which provides a decision factor for selecting the 25 FRs that
contribute to improving learning outcome made up of the American Society of Qualitys six leadership
competencies (navigator, communicator, mentor, learner, builder and motivator) and 19 attributes from
previous research studies on service quality in higher education. This study used the varimax and
quartimax factor analysis rotation methods to generate the principal components (PCs).
Findings Out of the 25 FRs, four (communicator, mentor, builder and motivator) of the American
Society of Quality (ASQ) leadership competencies were found to be exciters or attractive and when
applied by the lecturer would exceed customer (student) expectation.
Research limitations/implications The study involved only a judgment sample of 170
undergraduate and graduate students from two universities drawn in Accra, Ghana; hence, the outcome
cannot be generalized to the entire student population in Ghana as a whole.
Practical implications The Kano results from this study corroborates with previous findings that
students perceive Fostering of Team Work, Expertise in Other Subject Areas, Variety of Teaching
Methods, Friendliness and Humor as either exciters or attractive attributes.
Social implications Some of the benefits from this study include the fact that lecturers may
improve classroom experience knowing what their students regard as satisfactory and dissatisfactory
attributes or they may have a better understanding of the students perspective. The concept of student
satisfaction addressed in this study should therefore always be seen as a means to an end, with the end
being the transformation of students.
Originality/value This study contributes to the literature by examining how the students
approach to learning or acquiring new knowledge has a significant effect on the learning outcome using
factor analysis rotation methods to generate the PCs.
Journal of International Education
in Business
Vol. 8 No. 1, 2015
pp. 18-36
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2046-469X
DOI 10.1108/JIEB-10-2013-0040

Keywords Six Sigma methodology, Student satisfaction, Educational services,

Effective and efficient lecturer, Factor analysis, Kano evaluation
Paper type Research paper

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

1. Introduction
Six Sigma is a data-driven methodology of defining, measuring, analyzing, improving
and controlling the quality in an institutions products, processes, transactions and
services so that the product or service quality and reliability meets and exceeds
customer requirements. This research problem statement is defined as Dr Baker, a
professor of physics at a university in the USA, confessed that when he entered the
teaching profession, he had a set of attitudes toward instruction and student university
teacher interaction. At the beginning of the semester, he would declare, in the presence
of his students, that only 50 per cent would pass his class and his predictions, most of the
time, came true. Unfortunately, other university professors or teachers shared the same
philosophy, and they would laugh over the number of their students who have failed in
their respective classes. (Schuller, 1993). The research question is, do college professors
or teachers have a role to play in the learning outcome or is the learning outcome the sole
responsibility of the student? What are the attitudes of the university teacher that will
improve learning outcomes? This study contributes to literature by examining how the
attitude(s) of the university teacher has a significant effect on the learning outcome
using the Six Sigma methodology.
In Six Sigma methodology, an effective quality management, is built on a
foundational concept known as customer focus. Identifying ones customers and
understanding their expectations are fundamental to achieving customer satisfaction.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society for
Quality (ASQ) standardized official definition of quality is the totality of features and
characteristics of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy given needs
(Evans, 2012). Also quality has been defined as meeting or exceeding customer
expectations. When an institution is operating in a total quality setting, the customers
define quality. Therefore, customer satisfaction must be the highest priority of the
higher education institution. To understand this definition, one must first understand
the meaning of the term customer. The conceptual framework behind this definition
requires an understanding and integration of many concepts and principles that are part
of the total quality philosophy.
Customer satisfaction is achieved by producing high-quality products or services
that meet or exceed expectations. For example, Watson (2003) and Narasimhan (2001)
maintained that fee-paying students expect value for money and behave more like
customers. Customer-driven quality is fundamental to high-performing organizations
and institutions. Reliable customers are the most important customers. Customers who
are satisfied with the quality of their purchases from an organization become reliable
customers. Continual improvement is the only way to keep customers satisfied and
loyal. Arambewela et al. (2005) and Maringe (2005) urged institutions that want to retain
existing students, and recruit new students to regard students as customers in need of
higher education services (Helgesen and Nesset, 2007). Hence, there is a need for
university teachers to treat students as customers. If students are considered as
customers, the university teacher must then meet or exceed their expectations to
motivate them to acquire new knowledge. Because the customers (students) define
quality and value, it is imperative to clearly identify the attributes (or critical to quality
[CTQs] and Functional Requirements [FR]) that provide satisfaction to the customer
(student) when achieved fully, but do not cause dissatisfaction when not fulfilled. To

Six Sigma
methodology

19

JIEB
8,1

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

20

fulfill this requirement, we will use the Kano Model to explore the critical elements or
attributes, CTQs and FR, of a teacher that will help improve the learning outcome.
The Kano Model theorized by Kano et al. (1984) is one of the quality management
tools used in many models of customer satisfaction. The model uniquely classifies
product or service attributes based on how they are perceived by customers and their
effect on customer satisfaction. Kano et al. (1984) considered two aspects of any given
quality attribute an objective aspect involving the fulfillment of quality and a
subjective aspect involving the customers perception of satisfaction. Using this model,
quality attributes can be divided into five categories as follows:
(1) Attractive quality attribute: An attribute that gives satisfaction if present but
that produces no dissatisfaction if absent.
(2) One-dimensional quality attribute: An attribute that is positively and linearly
related to customer satisfaction that is, the greater the degree of fulfillment of
the attribute, the greater the degree of customer satisfaction.
(3) Must-be quality attribute: An attribute whose absence will result in customer
dissatisfaction but whose presence does not significantly contribute to customer
satisfaction.
(4) Indifferent quality attribute: An attribute whose presence or absence does not
cause any satisfaction or dissatisfaction to customers.
(5) Reverse quality attribute: An attribute whose presence causes customer
dissatisfaction and whose absence results in customer satisfaction.
It is assumed in this study that a university teacher needs to exhibit these attributes in
the classroom to make an impact to improve learning outcome. We continue this paper
by reviewing the literature on the students approach to learning, teachers approach to
teaching, students treated as customers, leadership attributes and the Kano Model.
2. Literature review
Bloom et al. (1956) define knowledge involving the recall of specifics and universals; the
recall of methods and processes; or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting (Bloom
et al., 1956 p. 201). Blooms Taxonomy has three classifications or domains that
university teachers set as learning objectives for students to acquire knowledge. The
three classifications or domains are cognitive domain, affective domain and
psychomotor domain. The main objective or goal of university teachers is to equip the
students to achieve these three main classifications or domains. Nonetheless, there are
several studies on the teachers approach to teaching (that is how they teach) and
the conceptions they hold about teaching (what they believe about teaching), and the
approach to learning from the students perspective which needs to be investigated.
2.1 Students approach to learning
A number of research studies have been carried out on learning styles how adults
learn, study preferences and how psychologists with an interest in learning styles have
developed methods to help students and teachers. The most popular learning-style
schemes include the Dunn and Dunn learning-styles model [for example, as expressed
by Dunn (1990), Kolb (1984, 1985) and Honey and Mumford (1992)]. Pashler et al. (2008)
concluded that there is no significant evidence base to the widespread meshing

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

hypothesis, which implies a student will learn best if taught in a(n) (auditory, visual,
tactile or kinesthetic) into the general educational practice.
Notwithstanding, there is a major gap in most of these research cases, as a teacher
assigned to teach a group of students has no control whatsoever on the selection of the
students, whether they are visual, auditory or kinesthetic learners (Ormrod, 2008). Most
students in a tertiary institution may have acquired a minimum qualification to enable
them to be admitted for a particular discipline. The Yale Graduate School (2013) Web
site, for instance, offers advice to their teachers that college students enter our
classrooms with a wide variety of learning styles. Teachers are therefore to determine
their own modality of learning method and also assess their students learning styles to
optimize the instructional methods.
Students have studied textbooks on their own without a teacher or teacher
intervention and have been able to acquire the requisite knowledge in several
disciplines; the author of this study is one of them. Is it possible for students to acquire
new knowledge without a classroom teachers intervention?
Several papers have been written about how students performances have been
falling over the years (Ravitch (1995), Clift (2011), and Parry (2011). Clift (2011), in From
Students, a Misplaced Sense of Entitlement, stated that students pass through a deeply
flawed education system and they are only interested in what they can do to make the
teachers give them a pass. Notwithstanding, interventions made by teachers to
improve learning outcome sometimes lead to undesirable results. For example, in an
article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Parry (2011), vowed never to
probe cheating in the classroom again, after his yearly teaching evaluations fell below
average of 5.3 out of 7.0 and his yearly salary took a dive.
2.2 Teachers approach to teaching
Researchers have investigated both qualitative and quantitative studies about teachers
approach to teaching and the consequential students approach to learning to improve
learning outcome. Trigwell and Prosser (1991), and Trigwell et al. (1999) in their study
concluded that so called deep approach to teaching created awareness on student
learning. However, a surface approach teaching encourages students to memorize and
recall the subject matter. The results of the qualitative study were used to establish the
approaches to teaching inventory (Trigwell and Prosser, 1996; Prosser and Trigwell,
1999). The methodologies used by these teachers have some relationship with their
conceptions of teaching (Trigwell and Prosser, 1999) and also to their perceptions of
their teaching context (Prosser and Trigwell, 1997). Teachers who conceive learning as
information accumulation to meet external demands also conceive teaching as
transmitting information to students, and approach their teaching in terms of
teacher-focused strategies. Conversely, teachers who conceive learning as developing
and changing students conceptions approach teaching in terms of helping students to
develop and change their conceptions in a student-focused way (Prosser and Trigwell,
1998). However, Meyer and Malcolm (2006) have criticized The Approaches to Teaching
Inventory published by Trigwell et al. (1999) with the purpose of measuring the ways
teachers approach their teaching and of exploring the way academics go about teaching
in a specific context or subject as having serious and irreversible concerns with the
rigor and the methodology employed in the psychometric development.

Six Sigma
methodology

21

JIEB
8,1

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

22

2.3 Students treated as customers

Gruber et al. (2010), in their research paper, treated students as customers in the service
industry and stated that higher education institutions must focus more on meeting or
exceeding students (customers) expectation from a total quality management
perspective. Also Harnash-Glezer and Meyer (1991) and Hill et al. (2003) have concluded
the importance of the teaching staff and the quality of the teacher as important factors in
the delivery of high-quality education. Correspondingly, Pozo-Munoz et al. (2000) and
Marzo-Navarro et al. (2005c) conjectured that teaching staff are the main players in a
university, and having the largest positive influence on student satisfaction. For this
reason, the students (customers) satisfaction in a university could be influenced by the
quality and attitude of the teacher. Hence, in this study, the student is considered as a
customer of the teacher. The teacher must meet or exceed the students expectations to
motivate them to acquire new knowledge.

2.4 Leadership attributes

Swanson et al. (2005), in their study, found that knowledgeable, empathetic, friendly,
helpful, reliable, responsive and expressive attributes are some of the characteristics of
an effective teacher. Harrison and Killion (2007) have verified how teachers could exhibit
leadership qualities to support school and student success; hence, teachers are expected
to exhibit leadership qualities. Similarly, the American Society of Quality (ASQ, 2014)
has summarized six leadership competencies or attributes (navigator, communicator,
mentor, learner, builder and motivator) based on more than 50 authors thoughts on
quality leadership (Hirzel, 2004) which will be investigated in this study. It is assumed in
this study that a teacher needs to exhibit these six leadership attributes in the classroom
to make an impact to improve learning outcome.
The six leadership attributes or construct to be exhibited by the teacher are defined as:
(1) Navigator: To create a shared meaning and provide direction toward a vision,
mission, goal or end-result for students.
(2) Communicator: To effectively listen and articulate messages to provide shared
meaning. (The teacher should break down barriers and foster open, honest and
honorable communication with the students).
(3) Mentor: To guide the students in their actions and be a role model including
ethical decision-making.
(4) Learner: To continuously through his or her formal study and experience,
develop a personal knowledge, skills, abilities and capabilities of the students.
(5) Builder: To establish learning processes and structures to allow for the
achievement of goals and outcomes using all resources available.
(6) Motivator: To influence students to take action in a desirable manner.
In support of our adaptation of these six leadership constructs, Clayson (1999) and
Curran and Rosen (2006) have demonstrated the importance of the personality of the
teacher as the strongest contributing factor of the students evaluation of the teachers
teaching effectiveness. These six leadership construct measures have a good theoretical
foundation and a strong indication of construct validity and reliability (Delucchi, 2000;
Moore and Kuol, 2007).

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

To that end, the Kano Model (Kano et al., 1984) would be used in this study to reveal
the preferred six leadership attributes (navigator, communicator, mentor, learner, builder
and motivator) of the teacher that needs to be exhibited in the classroom to improve the
learning outcome.
2.5 Six Sigma methodology the Kano Model
The Kano Model is used to identify the critical elements or attributes, CTQs and FRs, of
a teacher that will help improve the learning outcome. The traditional Kano Model
(Kano et al., 1984) is an approximate estimate of the customers satisfaction in relation to
the service provided or performance level. Hence, it only allows attributes of qualitative
assessment of the service provided (Wassenaar et al., 2005). It will be convenient to
incorporate quantitative measures to assign some scales in terms of the levels of
customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Matzler and Hinterhuber, 1998). However, the
resulting Kano category is still qualitative in nature, which could not precisely reflect
the extent to which the customers are satisfied (Berger et al., 1993).
Hence, Xu et al. (2009), in an effort to address the inherent deficiencies of the
traditional Kano et al. (1984) method, proposed an analytical Kano (A-Kano) Model with
a focus on customer need analysis. The A-Kano Model extends traditional Kano indices,
which are quantitative measurements of customer satisfaction derived from Kano
questionnaires and surveys. Kano classifiers, which consist of a set of criteria to classify
customer CTQs based on the Kano indices. The A-Kano was adopted for the purpose of
improving learning outcome with a student university teacher interaction. However,
we do not agree that the importance of the FRs or the leadership attributes should be
self-stated. Our contribution to literature is to use the factor analysis method to
determine the level of importance instead of the self-stated importance as stated by Xu
et al. (2009).
3. Methodology
This study replicates that of Xu et al.s (2009) Kano indices model for quantification of
customer satisfaction. Let s denote the university students which is made up of
J students (respondents), so that s ' {tj j1, 2 [] J}. The set of FRs is identified as
F ' {fi i 1, 2 [] I}. The respondents evaluations are denoted by fi (@ i1, 2 [] I)
as per the functional and dysfunctional forms of Kano Model questions. For each
respondent, tj s (@ j 1, 2 [], J), the evaluation fi (@ i1, 2 [] I) is represented as
eiJ (xij, yij, wij), where xij is the score given to an FR for the dysfunctional form
question; yij is the score given to an FR for the functional form question; and, for wij,
we do not agree that it should be a self-stated importance, which is the respondents
perception or the importance of an FR. However, we assume, in this study, that the
level of importance of the FR should be determined by the application of factor
analysis (principal component technique).
Based on the Kano Model, the FRs of each variable were initially classified (using the
functional and dysfunctional form of Kano questions) as exciter or attractive (a),
must-be (m), one-dimensional (o) and indifferent (i) as depicted in Table I. For each
variable, a contingency output was generated (between functional and dysfunctional
questions) and the frequencies of respondents summed according to the classification
structure (where the letters represent the Kano customer groups). A Questionable (Q)
category will not be included in the averages, and a Reverse (R) category can be

Six Sigma
methodology

23

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

JIEB
8,1

transformed out of the category by reversing the sense of functional and dysfunctional
of questions (Berger et al., 1993).

24

3.1 Developing Kano indices for quantifying customer satisfaction

Following Gruber et al. (2010), this study adopts a scoring scheme that defines
customers satisfaction (using functional questions) and dissatisfaction (using
dysfunctional questions) as depicted in Table II. The scale is designed to be asymmetric
because positive answers are considered to be stronger responses than negative ones
(Xu et al., 2009).
3.2 Identifying FR level of importance using factor analysis
The level of importance of the FRs is determined in this study by the application of
factor analysis (principal component technique). The level of importance of any
component is observed in its eigenvalue or the percentage of variance that it accounted
for. Using the eigenvalue for establishing a cutoff is probably most reliable when the
number of variables is between 20 and 50 (Hair et al., 2005). Hence, the highest
component (component 1) accounts for higher variations in the responses compared to
all the other components (it has the highest eigenvalue or percentage). The second
highest component accounts for the next larger variation in the responses and so on.
Again, within each component are the identified variables whose importance is also
measured by their correlation to that component. Hence, for each FR, the weight is
determined as a product of the factor loadings and the variance accounted for by the
associated component. The satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the FR is the product of

Table I.
Kano evaluation
table

Functional question

Like it
that way

Dysfunctional questions
Must be
I am
Can live with
that way
neutral
it that way

Dislike it
that way

Like it that way

Must be that way
I am neutral
Can live with it that way
Dislike it that way

Q
R
R
R
R

E
I
I
I
R

O
M
M
M
Q

E
I
I
I
R

E
I
I
I
R

Notes: E exciter or attractive; O one-dimensional; M must be; I indifferent; R reverse;

Q questionable

Scores for functional/dysfunctional

features
Like it that way
Must be that way
I am neutral
Table II.
Can live with it that way
Scores for functional/ Dislike it that way
dysfunctional
Source: Xu et al. (2009)
features

Functional form
questions

Dysfunctional form
questions

1
0.5
0
0.25
0.5

0.5
0.25
0
0.5
1

the variable mean and its weight. Based on the study by Xu et al. (2009), for each FR, the
average level of satisfaction for the dysfunctional form question within the university
students s is defined as xi, and the average level of satisfaction for the functional form
question within the same university students s is defined as yi, so that:

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

Xi

1
J

J
J1

wijxij and Yi

1
J

J
J1

wijyij

(1)

For each FR, the mean of the satisfaction (yij) and dissatisfaction (xij) is computed.
This is however weighted by the level of importance associated with that functional
variable. Multivariate factor analysis was used to identify the underlying evaluative
dimensions for the weight wij of the level of importance. The use of factor analysis
method demands the existence of correlation among the variables of interest and
also the adequacy of the sample for the factors formed to account for higher
variation in the variables. The high statistics of Bartletts Test of Sphericity
(1493.860) with the corresponding small significant value (0.0005) confirmed the
existence of strong correlation among the responses, and the KaiserMeyerOlkin
(KMO) statistics of 0.702 which is greater than 0.500 indicated a strong sampling
adequacy and hence reliability of the data (sample) for the factor analysis technique.
The analysis was repeated for the dysfunctional form questions to identify the
weight associated with the dysfunctional variables. The Bartletts Test of
Sphericity (2047.007) with the corresponding small significant value (0.0005)
confirmed the existence of strong correlation among the responses and the KMO
statistics of 0.737. Specific items that correlate highly are assumed to be a member
of that broader dimension. These dimensions become composites of specific
variables, which, in turn, allow the dimensions to be interpreted and described.
In this study, the principal objective is to identify the weight wij associated with the
FR (variables) and not to identify the factors that account for the variations in each
variable (as explained in most factor analysis). This is more of a principal component
analysis (because we are interested in the components formed and the correlated
variables in each component). The functional component matrix identifies the set of
variables that are highly correlated with the principal component formed. A FR variable
can belong to only one principal component, and this is determined by its loadings; the
FR variable is allocated to a component where the loading is the highest. The weight wij
of any variable is therefore the product of its loadings and the percentage variance (in
decimals) of the principal components that it belongs to.
For each FR, the customers average satisfaction/dissatisfaction with respect to the
functional/dysfunctional form question is computed, resulting in the data point (Xi, Yi)
with respect to equation (1) and the Kano configuration index for each FR is computed as
Exciter or Attractive, Must-be, One-dimensional or Indifferent as depicted in Figure 1
based on a method proposed by Berger et al. (1993).
It has been speculated that a fairly large percentage of tertiary students in a class
are only interested in acquiring the certificate and not necessarily acquiring
knowledge during class sessions. A total of 50 graduate students were interviewed
to determine the appropriateness of the six leadership construct as quality attributes;
an overwhelming majority concluded they were applicable. The situational
leadership model suggested leadership styles may depend on the readiness of

Six Sigma
methodology

25

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

26

Figure 1.
Kano Model of FRs
classification

1
Functional (Satisfaction)

JIEB
8,1

Attractive Or Exciter

One-Dimensional

Indifference

Must Be

0.5

0.5

Dysfunctional (Dissatisfaction)

subordinates (students) skills and abilities to perform the work or acquire new
knowledge [available at: www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Int-Loc/
Leadership-Theories-and-Studies.html (accessed 9 May 2013)]. Hence, a survey
conducted by the author in a similar manner in three different class sessions on
students readiness to obtain new knowledge with an average population of 50
revealed:
10 per cent are unable and unwilling;
40 per are unable but willing;
15 per cent are able but unwilling; and
35 per cent are able and willing.
A teacher exhibiting the six leadership attributes should be able to equip all or majority
of the various combinations (able or unable and willing or unwilling), including the
unable and unwilling students to improve their learning outcome.
3.3 Measure phase data collection
Anobjectiveofthemeasurephaseisthedevelopmentofareliableandvalidmeasurementsystem
of the process identified in the define phase. A purposive or judgment sampling plan was drawn
to ensure that the students interviewed for response to the questionnaire yielded as nearly as
possible the same averages or proportion as the totality. The following procedures proposed by
Pande et al. (2000) were followed to address the particulars of measurements and the details of
data collection:
(1) Selected what to measure CTQs and FRs:
considered the questions that need to be answered and the data that will help
answer these questions; and
considered the students to be interviewed, and minimized interview errors.
(2) Developed operational definitions of the CTQs and FRs:
Considered the description of what is being measured to ensure that there are
no miscommunications.
(3) Identified the data source(s):

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

Considered where someone can obtain data and whether historical data can
be used.
(4) Prepared the collection and sampling plan:
considered who will collect and compile the data and the tools that are
necessary to capture the data; and
created a data-sampling plan that addresses any potential data integrity issues.
(5) Implemented and refined the measurement system:
Considered what could be done to assess an initial set of measures and
procedures for collecting the data before expending a lot of resource
collecting/compiling questionable data.
As the data were collected and analyzed, an interpretative framework was constructed,
so the sampling strategy changed from largely judgment to largely theoretical to build
on the learning theory (Marshall, 1996). The data collection involved an in-depth
interview based on the Kano questionnaire with a sample of 170 undergraduate and
graduate students aged between 25 to 40 years in two Ghanaian universities. The
respondents were divided into two groups depending on their age and undergraduate or
graduate levels, representing the two market segments (s). Each respondent was
required to respond to the Kano questionnaire with respect to every FR. The
respondents were interviewed in classrooms and libraries and were not given any
incentive for participation. The Kano questionnaire contained the CTQs and the 25 FRs.
The CTQs in this study from the customers (students) perspective will correspond
to Bloom et al.s (1956) categories in the cognitive domain (Anderson and Krathwohl,
2001) made up of remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and create. The
configuration index, which provides a decision factor for selecting the 25 FRs that
contribute to improve the learning outcome are made up of the American Society of
Qualitys six leadership (teacher) attributes (navigator, communicator, mentor, learner,
builder and motivator) and 19 other attributes from previous research studies on service
quality in higher education (Voss et al., 2007).
For each teacher attribute in the Kano questionnaire, students had to respond to a
question consisting of two parts (for instance):
(1) If a teacher possesses good communication skills, how do you feel? (functional
form of the question); and
(2) If a teacher does not possess good communication skills, how do you feel?
(Dysfunctional form of the question).
For each question, respondents could then answer in five different ways following a
five-point Likert scale (Likert, 1932):
(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

I like it that way;

It must be that way;
I am neutral;
I can live with it that way; and
I dislike it that way.

Six Sigma
methodology

27

JIEB
8,1

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

28

The form of Kano questionnaire used in this survey is shown in Table III, including both
the functional and dysfunctional forms.
3.4 Analyze phase results and sensitivity analysis
This research study set out to identify the 25 FRs that contribute to improving learning
outcomes from the perspective of the customer (students). We would like to test if the
relationship between the 25 FR and the 6 Kano Classifications (exciter or attractive,
must-be, one-dimensional, indifferent and reverse categories) are statistically significant
in the sense that it is too strong to happen by chance. We applied the chi-square test to
test the null hypothesis indicating there is no relationship between the two (25 FR and
6 Kano Classifications) categorical variables. The observed chi-square 2,258.521 and
p-value 0.0005; hence, we have an overwhelming evidence that the 25 FRs are
associated or related to the 6 Kano Classifications. The internal reliability tests indicated
strong Cronbach alphas between 0.72 and 0.95 when the sample of 170 students was
split randomly and recalculated.
This study used the varimax and quartimax factor analysis rotation methods to
generate the principal components (PCs). For the first trial (VarimaxEigen), eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 were selected to generate the PCs. Based on this rule, the functional
questions form established 11 PCs with a cumulative variance of 66.6 per cent as
depicted in Table AI.
The factor loadings are depicted in Table AV. For the second trial using the varimax
method and restricting the number of principal components to 11, the data produced the
same results as specified in the first trial depicted in Table AI. Similar trials were
conducted, varying the principal components to 7 and 13 for the varimax and quartimax
factor analysis rotation methods, respectively, using the names Varimax13, Varimax7,
QuartimaxEigen, Quartimax13 and Quartimax7. A similar method was applied to the
dysfunctional questions.
The PCs after Varimax13 rotation are depicted in Table AII. For the Varimax13
rotation, two components (12 and 13) were included that had less than 1 eigenvalues even
though the cumulative variance explained was 71.8 per cent. It will be recalled that only
factors with latent roots or eigenvalues greater than 1 are regarded as significant; those
less than 1 are insignificant and disregarded (Hair et al., 2005); hence, Varimax13
rotation method was disregarded.
The PCs after Varimax7 rotation are depicted in Table AIII. The PCs after
QuartimaxEigen, Quartimax13 and Quartimax7 rotation extracts are depicted in
Table AIV.

How do you feel if your teacher [. . .]

Table III.
Kano questionnaire

1 Navigator
Provides direction toward your vision,
mission and goal as a student (Functional
form of question)
DOES NOT provide direction toward your
vision, mission and goal as a student
(Dysfunctional form of question)

I like it It must be I am I can live with I dislike it

that way that way neutral it that way that way

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

The details of the PCs after QuartimaxEigen, Quartimax13, and Quartimax7 rotation
are similar to the results for the VarimaxEigen rotation method in Table AI.
Notwithstanding, the varimax rotation method minimizes the number of variables that
have high loadings on each factor which satisfies our main objective, and the quartimax
rotation method merely minimizes the number of factors needed to explain each
variable. Hence, we settled on the VarimaxEigen rotation method factor loadings as
depicted in Table AV. The component matrix in Table AV identifies the set of variables
that are highly correlated with the PC formed. A variable can belong to only one PC, and
this is determined by its loadings. The FR variable is allocated to a component where the
loading is the highest. The weight (wij) of level of importance of any variable is therefore
the product of its loadings and the percentage variance (in decimals) of the PCs that it
belongs to. For each FR, the mean of the satisfaction (yij), dissatisfaction (xij) and the
weight (wij) of level of importance were computed, satisfying equation (1). The Kano
indices were computed to obtain the configuration index for each FR as exciter or
attractive, must-be, one-dimensional or indifferent as depicted in Table AVI based on a
model proposed by Berger et al. (1993). Our assumption of using the factor analysis
method conformed to McNaught et al. (2007) testing the validity of the recovery
assessment scale (RAS). McNaught et al. (2007) used the application of factor analysis
with a rotation method to confirm the studies of Corrigan et al. (2004) that the factors of
the RAS are consistent with the consumer literature on mental patient recovery.
4. Conclusion
The main purpose of this research study is to use the Six Sigma methodology to identify the
25 FRs that contributed to improve learning outcome from the perspective of the customers
(students). Out of the 25 FRs, four out of the six (communicator, mentor, builder and
motivator) of the ASQ (2014) leadership attributes were found to be either exciters or
attractive and when applied by the university teacher would exceed customer (student)
expectation. Seven other FR from other studies were also found to excite the students.
However, nine other FRs [that is, university teacher presenting information in a
coherent way; ensures strict, firm and fair principles, practices and procedures;
understands and share the feelings of a student; encourages team work and
participation in class discussion; is willing to assist you when in need; is able to relate the
course to practical issues; encourages students to ask good and tangible questions; is
flexible (does not adhere to strict timeliness); and focuses more on knowledge
acquisition] are a must-be quality of a university teacher. These must-be qualities must
be taken into consideration to avoid dissatisfaction of the students.
4.1 Theoretical and practical implications
This study examined how to identify the university teachers attributes that need to be
exhibited in the classroom to improve the learning outcome from the perspective of the
students. The Kano results also corroborate with previous findings that students
perceive Fostering of Team Work, Expertise in Other Subject Areas, Variety of
Teaching Methods, Friendliness and Humor as Exciters or Attractive attributes
(Gruber et al., 2010).
University teachers may improve classroom experience knowing what their students
regard as satisfactory and dissatisfactory attributes or they may have a better

Six Sigma
methodology

29

JIEB
8,1

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

30

understanding of the students perspective (Davis and Swanson, 2001) are some of the
benefits from this study.
The Six Sigma methodology clearly defined the problem of the student university
teacher interaction, and using the Kano Model explored the critical elements or
attributes that are CTQs and the FRs of a teacher that will help improve the learning
outcome. For practical implications, and returning to our research problem statement of
Dr Baker predicting that only 50 per cent would pass his class Dr Baker would have to
change his attitude toward his students to improve the learning outcome (Schuller,
1993). This research study may recommend that the university teacher should exhibit
communicator, mentor, builder and motivator leadership attributes to improve the
learning outcome in a classroom setting.
4.2 Limitations and directions for further research
This study has demonstrated that using the Kano Model, university teachers could
identify attributes that satisfy students and improve learning outcome. However, the
study involved only a judgment sample of 170 undergraduate and graduate students
from two universities drawn in Accra, Ghana; hence, the outcome cannot be generalized
to the entire student population in Ghana as a whole. Notwithstanding, the findings
could provide valuable insights to improve learning outcome in tertiary institutions or
student university teacher interactions.
Further research could explore;
the student university teacher interaction from the perspective of the university
teacher as the author found out that some students are unwilling and unable to
acquire new knowledge;
what motivates students to study on their own without university teacher
intervention as (Seiler and Seiler, 2002) stated that undergraduate students
especially cannot know what university teachers should teach them and what
they have to learn; and
finally one could investigate the objectives of the administrators, university teachers,
and students to optimize the education system using a mathematical model.
References
American Society for Quality (ASQ) (2014), Human Development and Leadership Division of the
American Society for Quality, Higher Education.
Anderson, L. and Krathwohl, D.A. (2001), Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A
Revision of Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman, New York, NY.
Arambewela, R., Hall, J. and Zuhair, S. (2005), Postgraduate international students from Asia:
factors influencing satisfaction, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 105-127.
available at: www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Int-Loc/Leadership-Theories-andStudies.html (accessed 9 May 2013).
Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R.,
Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M. and Walden, D. (1993), Kanos method for understanding
customer-defined quality, Center for Quality of Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 3-35.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H. and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956), Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals; Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain, Longmans, Green, New York, NY.

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

Clayson, D.E. (1999), Students evaluations of teaching effectiveness: some implications of

stability, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 68-75.
Clift, E. (2011), From students, a misplaced sense of entitlement, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Students-Should-Check-Their/126890/
(accessed 20 September 2012).
Corrigan, P.W., Salzer, M., Ralph, R.O., Sangster, Y. and Keck, L. (2004), Examining the factor
structure of the recovery assessment scale, Schizophr Bull, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1035-1042.
Curran, J.M. and Rosen, D.E. (2006), Student attitudes toward college courses: an examination of
influences and intentions, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 135-148.
Davis, J.C. and Swanson, S.T. (2001), Navigating satisfactory and dissatisfactory classroom
incidents, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 245-250.
Delucchi, M. (2000), Dont worry, be happy: instructor likability, student perceptions of learning,
and university teacher ratings in upper-level sociology courses, Teaching Sociology,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 220-231.
Dunn, R. (1990), Rita Dunn answers questions on learning styles, Educational Leadership,
Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 15-19.
Evans, J. and Lindsay, W. (2012), Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence, Cengage
Learning, South-Western.
Gruber, T., Reppel, A. and Voss, R. (2010), Understanding the characteristics of effective
professors: the students perspective, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 175-190.
Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2005), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Prentice Hall, NJ.
Harnash-Glezer, M. and Meyer, J. (1991), Dimensions of satisfaction with collegiate education,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 95-107.
Harrison, C. and Killion, J. (2007), Ten roles for university teacher leaders, educational
leadership, available at: www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept07/vol65/
num01/Ten-Roles-for-University teacher-Leaders.aspx (accessed 18 April 2013).
Helgesen, . and Nesset, E. (2007), What accounts for students loyalty? Some field study
evidence, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 126-143.
Hill, Y., Lomas, L.L. and MacGregor, L. (2003), Students perceptions of quality in higher
education, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 15-20.
Hirzel, R.C. (2004), Leadership characteristics for quality performance, The Quality
Management Forum, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 3-4.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992), The Manual of Learning Styles, Ardingly House, Berkshire.
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1984), Attractive quality and must-be quality,
The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 39-48.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kolb, D.A. (1985), Learning Style Inventory, McBer & Company, Boston.
Likert, R. (1932), A technique for the measurement of attitudes, Archives of Psychology, Vol. 2
No. 140, pp. 1-55.
McNaught, M., Caputi, P., Oades, L.G. and Deane, F.P. (2007), Testing the validity of the recovery
assessment Scale using an Australian sample, Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 450-457.
Maringe, F. (2005), University marketing: perceptions, practices and prospects in the less
developed world, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 129-153.

Six Sigma
methodology

31

JIEB
8,1

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

32

Marshall, M.N. (1996), Sampling for qualitative research, Family Practice, Vol. 13 No. 6,
pp. 522-525.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres, M.P. (2005a), Measuring customer
satisfaction in summer courses, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres, M.P. (2005b), A new management
element for universities: satisfaction with the offered courses, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 505-526.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. and Rivera-Torres, M.P. (2005c), Determinants of satisfaction
with university summer courses, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 239-249.
Matzler, K. and Hinterhuber, H.H. (1998), How to make product development projects more
successful by integrating Kanos model of customer satisfaction into quality function
deployment, Technovation, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Meyer, J.H.F. and Malcolm, G.E. (2006), The approaches to teaching inventory: a critique of its
development and applicability, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 76,
pp. 633-649.
Moore, S. and Kuol, N. (2007), Retrospective insights on teaching: exploring teaching excellence
through the eyes of alumni, Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 133-143.
Narasimhan, K. (2001), Improving the climate of teaching sessions: the use of evaluations by
students and instructors, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 179-190.
Ormrod, J.E. (2008), Educational Psychology: Developing Learners, 6th ed., Upper Saddle River,
Pearson, NJ.
Pande, P., Neuman, P. and Cavanagh, R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parry, M. (2011), NYU Prof vows never to probe cheating again-and faces a Backlash, The
Chronicle of Higher Education, available at: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wired campus/
nyu-prof-vows-never-to-probe cheating (accessed 20 September 2012).
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. and Bjork, R. (2008), Learning styles: concepts and
evidence, A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 105-119.
Pozo-Munoz, C., Rebolloso-Pacheco, E. and Fernandez-Ramirez, B. (2000), The ideal university
teacher. Implications for student evaluation of university teacher effectiveness,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 253-263.
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1998), Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in
Higher Education, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1997), Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment
and approaches to teaching, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1,
pp. 25-35.
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999), Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in
Higher Education, SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Ravitch, D. (1995), National Standards in American Education: A Citizens Guide, Brookings
Institution, Massachusetts.
Schuller, R.H. (1993), Power Thoughts: Achieve Your True Potential Through Power Thinking,
Harper Collins.
Seiler, V.L. and Seiler, M.J. (2002), Professors who make the grade, Review of Business, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 39-44.
Swanson, S.R., Frankel, R. and Sagan, M. (2005), Exploring the impact of cultural differences,
Marketing Education Review Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 37-48.

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

The Yale Graduate School (2013), available at: www.yale.edu/graduateschool/teaching/index.

html (accessed 13 April 2013).
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1991), Relating learning approaches, perceptions of context and learning
outcomes, Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 251-266.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1996), Congruence between intention and strategy in science
university teachers approach to teaching, Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 77-87.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. (1999), Relations between university teachers
approaches to teaching and students approaches to learning, Higher Education, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 57-70.
Voss, R., Gruber, T. and Szmigin, I. (2007), Service quality in higher education: the role of student
expectations, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 949-995.
Wassenaar, H.J., Chen, W., Cheng, J. and Sudjianto, A. (2005), Enhancing discrete choice demand
modeling for decision-based design, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 127 No. 4,
pp. 514-523.
Watson, S. (2003), Closing the feedback loop: ensuring effective action from student feedback,
Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 145-157.
Xu, Q., Jiao, R.J., Yang, X. and Helander, M. (2009), An analytical Kano model for customer need
analysis, Design Studies, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 87-110.
Further reading
Harvey, L. and Knight, P.T. (1996), Transforming Higher Education, The Society for Research into
Higher Education, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Prosser, M. and Millar, R. (1989), The how and what of learning physics, The European Journal
of Psychology of Education, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 513-528.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. and Taylor, P. (1994), A phenomenographic study of academics
conceptions of science learning and teaching, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 217-231.
Sireli, Y., Kauffmann, P. and Ozan, E. (2007), Integration of Kanos model into QFD for multiple
product design, IEEE Transport Engineering Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 380-390.
Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J.F. (2007), A conceptual overview of a holistic model for quality in
higher education, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 173-193.
Swanson, S.R. and Frankel, R. (2002), A view from the podium: classroom successes, failures, and
recovery strategies, Marketing Education Review Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 25-35.
Taylor, E.W. (2008), Transformative learning theory, New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, Vol. 119, pp. 5-15.
Trigwell, K. (1995), Increasing faculty understanding of teaching, in Wright, W.A. (Ed.),
Successful Faculty Development Strategies, Anker Publishing, Boston, pp. 76-100.
Corresponding author
Godson Tetteh can be contacted at: tettehgo@yahoo.com

Six Sigma
methodology

33

JIEB
8,1

Appendix

Component

Initial eigenvalues
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

Extraction sums of squared

loadings
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

Rotation sums of squared

loadings
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

7.259
2.231
2.043
1.880
1.852
1.704
1.521
1.340
1.225
1.153
1.103

7.259
2.231
2.043
1.880
1.852
1.704
1.521
1.340
1.225
1.153
1.103

3.375
2.697
2.372
2.187
2.158
2.047
2.002
1.659
1.654
1.647
1.513

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

34

Table AI.
The details of the 11
PCs after
VarimaxEigen
rotation

20.741
6.374
5.838
5.371
5.292
4.869
4.346
3.827
3.499
3.293
3.151

20.741
27.115
32.953
38.324
43.616
48.486
52.831
56.659
60.158
63.451
66.603

20.741
6.374
5.838
5.371
5.292
4.869
4.346
3.827
3.499
3.293
3.151

20.741
27.115
32.953
38.324
43.616
48.486
52.831
56.659
60.158
63.451
66.603

9.643
7.705
6.776
6.249
6.166
5.848
5.720
4.739
4.727
4.706
4.323

9.643
17.348
24.124
30.374
36.539
42.388
48.108
52.847
57.574
62.279
66.603

Total variance explained

Table AII.
The details of the 11
PCs after Varimax13
rotation

Table AIII.
The details of the
PCs after Varimax7
rotation

Component

Initial eigenvalues
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

Extraction sums of squared

loadings
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

Rotation sums of squared

loadings
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

7.259
2.231
2.043
1.880
1.852
1.704
1.521
1.340
1.225
1.153
1.103
0.959
0.880

7.259
2.231
2.043
1.880
1.852
1.704
1.521
1.340
1.225
1.153
1.103
0.959
0.880

2.805
2.405
2.241
2.138
2.079
1.999
1.935
1.815
1.740
1.655
1.516
1.442
1.380

20.741
6.374
5.838
5.371
5.292
4.869
4.346
3.827
3.499
3.293
3.151
2.741
2.514

20.741
27.115
32.953
38.324
43.616
48.486
52.831
56.659
60.158
63.451
66.603
69.343
71.857

Total variance explained

Initial eigenvalues
(%) of
Cumulative
Component
Total
variance
(%)

Total

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

7.259
2.231
2.043
1.880
1.852
1.704
1.521

7.259
2.231
2.043
1.880
1.852
1.704
1.521

20.741
6.374
5.838
5.371
5.292
4.869
4.346

20.741
27.115
32.953
38.324
43.616
48.486
52.831

20.741
6.374
5.838
5.371
5.292
4.869
4.346
3.827
3.499
3.293
3.151
2.741
2.514

20.741
27.115
32.953
38.324
43.616
48.486
52.831
56.659
60.158
63.451
66.603
69.343
71.857

Loadings
(%) of
Cumulative
variance
(%)
20.741
6.374
5.838
5.371
5.292
4.869
4.346

20.741
27.115
32.953
38.324
43.616
48.486
52.831

Total
3.514
3.269
2.716
2.503
2.452
2.042
1.995

8.015
6.871
6.402
6.109
5.941
5.712
5.527
5.186
4.971
4.727
4.333
4.120
3.942

8.015
14.886
21.288
27.397
33.337
39.049
44.577
49.763
54.734
59.461
63.794
67.914
71.857

Loadings
(%) of
Cumulative
variance
(%)
10.039
9.339
7.761
7.152
7.006
5.833
5.701

10.039
19.378
27.140
34.291
41.297
47.131
52.831

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

Total variance explained

Component

Initial eigenvalues
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

Extraction sums of squared

loadings
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

Rotation sums of squared

loadings
(%) of
Cumulative
Total
variance
(%)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

7.259
2.231
2.043
1.880
1.852
1.704
1.521
1.340
1.225
1.153
1.103

7.259
2.231
2.043
1.880
1.852
1.704
1.521
1.340
1.225
1.153
1.103

3.852
2.599
2.338
2.081
2.048
2.040
1.941
1.657
1.648
1.602
1.505

20.741
6.374
5.838
5.371
5.292
4.869
4.346
3.827
3.499
3.293
3.151

20.741
27.115
32.953
38.324
43.616
48.486
52.831
56.659
60.158
63.451
66.603

20.741
6.374
5.838
5.371
5.292
4.869
4.346
3.827
3.499
3.293
3.151

20.741
27.115
32.953
38.324
43.616
48.486
52.831
56.659
60.158
63.451
66.603

11.006
7.424
6.680
5.946
5.851
5.830
5.547
4.734
4.709
4.577
4.299

11.006
18.430
25.111
31.057
36.908
42.737
48.284
53.019
57.727
62.304
66.603

Six Sigma
methodology

35
Table AIV.
The details of the
PCs after
QuartimaxEigen,
Quartimax13 and
Quartimax7 rotations

Rotated component matrixa

FR
a1
a3
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9
a10
a11
a12
a13
a14
a15
a16
a17
a19
a20
a21
a22
a25
a27
a29
a30
a31
a32
a33
a34
a35

1st
loading

2nd
loading

3rd
loading

4th
loading

5th
loading

Component
6th
7th
loading loading

8th
loading

9th
loading

10th
loading

11th
loading

0.774
0.658
0.802
0.762
0.772
0.652
0.652
0.667
0.651
0.663
0.791
0.628
0.768
0.742
0.751
0.532
0.712
0.591
0.640
0.548
0.739
0.520
0.691
0.553
0.693
0.783
0.602
0.587

Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization;
converged in 19 iterations. FRs with less than 0.500 loadings are deleted

Rotation

Table AV.
The factor loadings
for VarimaxEigen

JIEB
8,1

36

How do you feel if your lecturer [. . .] (FR)

Kano classification

a03

Attractive

a05
a07
a08
a11
a14

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

a15
a16
a17
a20
a31
a33
a34
a01
a02
a06
a09
a10
a28
a30
a04
a12
a18
a19
a23
a24
a26

Table AVI.
Kano Model of FRs
classifications for
lecturer

a27
a29
a13
a21
a22
a25
a32
a35

Responds clearly and explains issues effectively to your

understanding
Fosters honest and good communication with you
Is someone that students or you look up to
Provides career guidance and future oriented
discussions
Constantly outlines best learning practices, to achieve
educational goals
Motivates and inspires students to learn and to achieve
their goals
Is approachable
Always prepares for the class session
Has good presentation skills
Has passion, interest in what he or she teaches
Is well-organized
Appreciates and uses new technology in teaching
Is sympathetic, and caring to your needs
Provides direction towards your vision, mission and
goal as a student
Possesses good communication skills
Guides you as a student in your actions
Continuously develops his or her personal knowledge,
skills, and abilities
Acknowledges when he or she makes a mistake
Treats each student as an individual
Encourages rote learning (chew, pour, pass and forget)
Presents information in a coherent way that engages
you
Ensures strict, firm and fair principles, practices and
procedures
Understands and share your feelings as a student
Encourages team work and participation in class
discussion
Is willing to assist you when in need
Is able to relate the course to practical issues
Encourages students to ask good and tangible
questions
Is flexible (does not adhere to strict timeliness)
Focuses more on knowledge acquisition
Provides adequate assignments and feedbacks
Is open, sincere, and ethically upright
Is fair, firm and friendly
Is reliable, punctual and regular in class
Shows willingness to answer good and tangible
questions
Chooses teaching methods from a variety of teaching
tools, e.g. case studies

Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Attractive
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Must be
Must be
Must be
Must be
Must be
Must be
Must be
Must be
Must be
One-dimensional
One-dimensional
One-dimensional
One-dimensional
One-dimensional
One-dimensional

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 23:48 16 May 2016 (PT)

1. Dr Madhav Sinha Godson Ayertei Tetteh GIMPA, Accra, Ghana . 2015. Assessing indicators of
motivation for learning in a TQM class. The TQM Journal 27:4, 412-434. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]