As currently applied within instruction, higher education (HE) variables for foundational improvement include six determinants of service quality of HE (educator quality, educational services, activities, technology, continuous improvement, and educational leadership) and IEP as the criterion variable (Latif et al., 2019). Additional variables for teaching effectiveness include strategic objectives of the institution, the importance, variables, and hindrance of implementing professional development network and support systems (Lu et al., 2017). As a result, the central theme of this research is to strengthen the application and foundation of Intentional Education Practice (IEP) utilizing Intentional Change Theory (ITC) (Boyatzis, 2008). Study findings may add to the body of knowledge that currently exists to determine what improvements can occur if educational institutions incorporate intentional education practices in graduate educational leadership programs (El-Amin, 2021a).
Research Paradigm
The quantitative method is appropriate for this study to validate findings. As a result, a quantitative survey methodology was administered by querying graduate higher education leaders and instructors. The quantitative method is appropriate for this study as it provides useful information regarding the psychometric properties of specific variables (Neuman, 2019). The method rationale is based upon the Latif et al. (2019) study, which noted quantitative analysis is the best approach to analyze this research because correlating the variables yield Pareto data, which delineates which variables are most applicable to intentional education practice.
Research variables strongly influenced by each variable may strongly influence other items intended to measure the same construct suggest that variables may be affectively capturing their intended construct (Neuman, 2019). The generalized results of the participants may be that their responses will have a cross-sectional outcome based on individual and institutional experiences. The dependent variable is known as the outcome variable, IEP. The six predictor and one criterion variable were measured by survey responses.
This study highlights a paradigmatic perspective used for the development of a transformative research paradigm for this study. As a result, the nature of this study necessitates a paradigmatic perspective that involves a compilation of rationally linked theories and propositions that provide a conjectural perspective to guide the research methodology (Neuman, 2019). Additionally, the transformative research paradigm permits a methodical worldview for the measures of the research design (Hurtado, 2015). The study paradigm consists of meta-theoretical assumptions such as axiological, epistemological, methodological, and ontological. The theoretical framework for this study includes the principles of andragogy, intentional change theory, transformational learning theory, and innovation theory. Additionally, Hein (1991) and Piaget’s (1950) models of constructivism with relation to how and why learners apply information support the theoretical constructs of this study. The theoretical framework enhances the transformative paradigmatic perspective in accordance with the phases enumerated within this study. Thus, a transformative worldview justifies the research problems within this study.
Further, the transformative worldview provides a basis that educational institutions need alternative or different institutional development practices to improve performance (Hurtado, 2015; Neuman, 2019). Ethical implications in quantitative methods studies pivot on the counsel of The Belmont Report, expressed by federal regulations, as “systematic investigations including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalized knowledge” (National Commission, 1979, p. 1). However, regardless of federal regulations, the researcher has accountability to maintain integrity and validity in conducting research.
The aim of this chapter addressed the nature of the study. The study involved six predictor variables of service quality of higher education include educator quality (P1), educational services (P2), activities (P3), technology (P4), continuous improvement (P5), and graduate educational leadership (P6) are associated with or predict the criterion variable, IEP (teaching style) using the pre-validated HiEduQual scale (Latif et al., 2019). Data analysis for hypothesis testing employed Pearson’s correlation and linear regression analysis.