The present formative evaluation research was conducted in 2009-2010 in the fourth largest higher education institution of Latvia – Turiba University

The shift from the centralized, planned economy to market economy has been exposed not only in the economy of Latvia but also in education. During the twenty years a network of private educational institutions has developed. In 2010 there were 18 state funded and 13 privately funded higher education institutions. Majority of them, including Turiba University, adopting the curricula developed by other European universities, has taken over their best practice in organizing studies. Tourism programme of Turiba University incorporated the experience of Ireland, Switzerland and the USA. International dimension is secured by Legislation of Latvia (Law on Institutions of Higher Education, 1995), which requires comparison of the curriculum with similar curricula in other European countries, the national and international accreditation the programme has undergone and the awarded UNWTO TedQual certificate.

Creating a curriculum we face a dilemma of what kind of personalities we are going to educate. This forms the basis of the programme’s objectives. Tourism Education Futures Initiative has formulated a set of five values-based principles that tourism students should embody upon graduation to become responsible leaders and stewards in their field: ethics, stewardship, knowledge, professionalism, mutuality (TEFI, 2009). TEFI emphasizes that improvements are needed in the spheres of learning and teaching environment, curricula revision and development.

The goal of the research: to study the existing curriculum and find opportunities for its development in order to educate responsible, creative leaders for tourism industry. The tasks:to analyze curriculum theory and leadership theory; to conduct stakeholders’ (employers, students, graduates) survey in order to determine their needs and evaluate the existing curriculum; to elaborate suggestions on how to improve the curriculum so that it could facilitate the development of future managers-leaders.

Theoretical framework is formed by the curriculum theory (Markee, 2002; Moon, 2002; Pinar, 2004; Žogla, 2006) perceiving curriculum in its wider sense as educational philosophy, the study programme, all the planning processes, programme implementation, programme evaluation, the creation of a favourable learning environment, promotion of students’ learning.

Learning environment comprises pedagogical, social, psychological, informative, physical environment (Burceva, 2007) and it has to focus on technical performance and pedagogical performance or effectiveness (Fisher, 2005) and evaluate the impact of power distance on the environment (Hofstede, Soeters, 2002).

Theoretical framework also comprises the leadership theory. Leadership is interpreted as mutual relationship between the leader and team members (Daft, 2008), whose core is emotions, their skillful controlling, openness, cooperation, creative attitude to work (Goleman, et.al., 2002; Covey, 2003).

The research questions: Which factors and in what way form a favourable learning environment and effective study process in a higher education institution? What curriculum improvements are needed to enhance students’ leadership skills?

Thehypothesis: the development of students’ leadership skills is facilitated in the studies whose curriculum is designed considering stakeholders’ needs and interests and if the created learning environment is inclusive, safe and dynamic, provides an atmosphere of mutual respect and support and small power distance is ensured.

Burceva, R. (2007) Vide kā izglītības kvalitātes aspekts augstākās izglītības iestādē.//Society, Integration, Education. Rezekne: Rezeknes Augstskola, 50-58. Cohen, L., Manion, L. (2003) Research Methods in Education. London, New York: Routledge/Falmer Taylor&Francis Group, 3-45. Covey, S.R. (2003) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon&Schuster. Fisher, K. (2005) Research into Identifying Effective Learning Environments.//Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities. OECD/PEB, 159-167. Daft, R.L. (2008) The Leadership Experience. Thomson, South-Western. Goleman,D., Boyatzis, R., McKee, A. (2002) Primal Leadership. Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Boston, Massachussets: Harvard Business School Press. Hofstede, G., Soeters, J. (2002) Consensus Societies with their own Character.//Comparative Sociology, 1(1). Kelle, U., Erzberger, C. (2004) Qualitative and Qunatitative methods: Not in Opposition.//A Companion to Qualitative Research. (Flick, U., vonKardoff, E., Steinke, I.) London: Sage Publications, 172-177. Leuven Communiqué (2009) The Bologna Process 2020 – The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade. Lynch, M. (2007) Discourse Analysis.//SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (Outhwaite, W., Turner, S.P.), SAGE Publications, 499-515. Markee, N. (2002) Managing Curricular Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moon, B. (2002) Understanding the Context of Curriculum. London, New York: The Open University, 191-203. Mugo, F.W. (2004) Sampling in Research.//Sampling and External Validity. Social Research Methods. Cornell University, USA. O’Leary, Z. (2010) The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Pinar, W.F., Reynolds, W.M., et.al. (2004) Understanding Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang. Scriven, M. (2007) Evaluation Research.//SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (Outhwaite, W., Turner, S.P.) London, New Delhi, Singapore: SAGE Publications Ltd., 523-533. TEFI. (2009) A Values-based Framework for Tourism Education: Building the Capacity to Lead. The Law on Institutions of Higher Education. (1995) Trochim, W. (2006) Research Methods Knowledge Base. Cornell University, USA. Žogla, I. (2006) Curriculum jēdziens definīcijās un salīdzinājumā. LU.