5.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICE IN ETHIOPIAN HIGHER LEARNING INSTITUTIONS
5.5.2 Quantitative data analysis and survey results
Further analysis of the quantitative data was carried out to understand the extent to which instructors and students were familiar with the existence of the quality assurance system and office, its effectiveness, and the support given by the leadership in their respective universities. To understand these factors, a list of possible rating scales was administered to students and academic staff members. The findings (see Table 5.13) show that a majority of the academic staff (79%) respondents from the four universities were acquainted with the existence of the quality assurance system and
154
office, whereas 21% of academic staff and 66% of student respondents were not aware of the existence of the quality assurance unit. The Chi-square test was run to see whether there were differences in the ratings of academic staff and student respondents among the four HLIs.
Table 5.13: Awareness of academic staff and students of existence of quality assurance system and office in their institution
HLI
Instructors
2 Students
2
Yes Total Yes Total
ADU 29 (97%) 30
16.8*
P = 0.01
6 (20%) 30
10.8 P = 0.1
AMU 35 (78%) 45 13 (30%) 43
HRU 21 (84%) 25 16 (57%) 28
WKU 33 (66%) 50 16 (33%) 49
Total 118 (79%) 150 51 (34%) 150
*P<0.05: Unlike student respondents, there is a significant difference in the rating of academic staff respondents across the four HLIs.
The establishment of a quality assurance office does not, in itself, assure quality education. Rather, it should function efficiently and be supported by external and internal stakeholders. Effective implementation of a quality assurance system requires ownership and a sharing of quality values and beliefs among all stakeholders who are involved in the educational process (Ganseuer & Pistor, 2018). An internal quality assurance is said to be efficient if it is communicated, owned, and supported by all stakeholders. It should also be helpful in enhancing the quality of student learning and related to the goal and mission of the HLI. Those respondents with knowledge of the existence of quality assurance systems and offices in their institutions, were asked to rate the efficiency of the office and the support given by the leadership to the office.
As can be seen in Table 5.14, the majority (42%) of instructors assumed the office was moderately efficient, while a majority (43%) of students considered the office as not efficient (see Table 5.15). According to academic staff perceptions as detailed in Table 5.16, 42% of the respondents believed that the office of quality assurance is moderately supported by the leadership, with no significant difference in respondents’
rating across the four HLIs.
155
Table 5.14: Efficiency of quality assurance system as perceived by academic staff
HLI Ratings Total
respond- ents
2 Strongly
efficient Efficient Moderately
efficient Not efficient Strongly not efficient
ADU 3(10%) 14(48%) 10(35%) 2(7%) 0(0%) 29
37.7*
AMU 4(11%) 12(34%) 13(37%) 5(14%) 1(3%) 35
HRU 0(0%) 0(0%) 17(81%) 4(19%) 0(0%) 21
WKU 7(21%) 8(21%) 10(30%) 9(27%) 0(0%) 33
Total 14 (12%) 33(28%) 50(42%) 20(17%) 1(1%) 118
*p<005: There is a significant difference in the rating of respondents across the four universities
Table 5.15: Efficiency of the quality assurance system as perceived by students
HLI Ratings
Total respond- ents
2 Strongly
efficient Efficient Moderately
efficient Not
efficient Strongly not efficient
ADU 1(17%) 3(50%) 1(17%) 1(17%) 0(0%) 6
17.0*
AMU 0(0%) 2(15%) 1(8%) 9(69%) 1(8%) 13
HRU 3(19%) 7(44%) 3(19%) 3(19%) 0(0%) 16
WKU 2(13%) 3(19%) 2(13%) 9(56%) 0(0%) 16
Total 6 (12%) 15
(29%)
7(14%) 22(43%) 1(2%) 51
*p>0.05: There is no significant difference in the rating of respondents across the four universities
Table 5.16: Support given by the leadership to quality assurance office as perceived by academic staff
HLI Ratings
Total 2
Very high High Moderate Low Very low
ADU 6(21%) 13(45%) 6(21%) 3(10%) 1(3%) 29
19.2*
AMU 3(9%) 12(34%) 14(40%) 4(11%) 2(6%) 35
HRU 0(0%) 4(19%) 13(62%) 4(19%) 0(0%) 21
WKU 2(6%) 9(27%) 16(48%) 4(12%) 2(6%) 33
Total 11(9%) 38(32%) 49(42%) 15(13%) 5(4%) 118
* p>0.05
Various scholars (Harvey & Newton, 2007; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003; Rowlands, 2017) argue that the commitment and engagement of various education sector stakeholders in quality assurance activities of HLIs contribute to, enhance, and maintain the quality of students learning. In relation to this, participants were asked to detail their level of satisfaction regarding the participation of the different stakeholders in the quality assurance activities of their institutions. The ratings of academic staff and students are presented in Tables 5.17 and 5.18.
156
Table 5.17: Academic staff satisfaction regarding participation and contribution of various stakeholders in assuring quality of higher education
S.N Item
HLI
2
% Satisfied
ADU AMU HRU WKU Total 1 Leadership commitment to having
strong institutional quality assurance system
63 42 60 38 48 18.2
2 Academic staff commitment to
quality education enhancement 73 69 56 56 63 18.4 3 Academic staff participation in
quality assurance practices 43 44 48 46 45 13.0 4 Support of ETA for educational
quality improvement 27 40 56 36 39 12.9
5 Support of industry / employers for
educational quality improvement 27 33 40 32 33 5.6 6 Support of professional associations
for educational quality improvement 17 33 40 32 31 11.1 7 Coordination and collaboration
among different actors (leadership, staff and students) in quality assurance implementation
47 47 48 36 43 13.0
8 Student engagement in quality
assurance activities 27 27 24 24 25 9.3
9 Efforts made by internal quality assurance office in assuring quality of education
53 49 60 44 50 10.6
p>0.05
Table 5.18: Student satisfaction regarding participation in and contribution of various stakeholders in assuring quality of higher education
S.N Item or issue
HLI
2
% Satisfied
ADU AMU HRU WKU Total 1 Leadership commitment to
educational quality improvement 47 38 36 41 40 6.3 2 Academic staff commitment to
quality education enhancement 53 44 39 45 44 9.3 3 Support of institutional leadership for
educational quality improvement 30 42 36 51 43 12.6 4 Student engagement in quality
assurance activities 47 49 36 47 45 7.2
5 Coordination and collaboration among different actors (leadership, staff and students) in quality assurance implementation
27 42 36 39 37 3.8
p>0.05, degree of freedom = 149
157
Tables 5.17 and 5.18 demonstrate a low level of satisfaction of the majority of the academic staff and student respondents with the participation and collaboration of the various stakeholders in the quality assurance activities across the sampled HLIs.
However, as can be seen in Table 5.17, the majority of academic staff were satisfied with item 2 (academic staff commitment to quality education enhancement). Likewise, academic staff respondents from ADU and HRU were satisfied with items 1 and 9.
Unlike the other three universities, academic staff respondents from HRU were satisfied with item 4 (support of ETA). There is no significant difference in the ratings of academic staff and student respondents across the four HLIs.
Participants were questioned further about their satisfaction with the effectiveness of the quality assurance activities of their institutions. The results from Tables 5.19 and 5.20 indicate that, apart from item 6 (the existence of quality assurance systems), a majority of both student and academic staff respondents from the four HLIs were not satisfied with all the aspects of the effectiveness of the quality assurance activities of their institutions. In comparison, unlike the other two universities, academic staff from ADU and HRU were satisfied with items 5 and 8.
Table 5.19: Satisfaction of academic staff with quality assurance activities of their institutions
S.N. Statement
HLI
2
% Agreement
ADU AMU HRU WKU Total 1 Activities for assuring educational
quality at institutional, college, or department level can be described as participatory.
47 40 52 42 44 13.4
2 The quality assurance system is
strong. 47 42 48 38 43 16.1
3 The quality assurance system is
clearly understood by staff members. 43 40 48 36 41 7.9 4 Your institution has sufficient financial
resources to ensure quality of teaching and learning.
43 36 44 18 33 25.8*
5 Motivation of academic staff to improve quality of academic programmes is high.
57 40 56 42 47 15.9
6 There exists quality assurance systems (policy, guidelines, methods, standards, and instruments) in your institution.
67 60 72 54 61 21.9*
158 7 These quality assurance systems are
well communicated among staff members.
47 40 44 40 42 28.1*
8 Existing quality assurance systems are helpful to enhance student learning.
53 44 52 46 48 16.9
p*<0.05
Table 5.20: Satisfaction of students with quality assurance activities of their institutions
S.N. Statement
HLI
2
% Agreement
ADU AMU HRU WKU Total 1 A strong quality assurance system
exists. 43 40 50 27 38 22.3*
2 The quality assurance system is
clearly understood by students. 43 33 46 33 37 26.6*
3
The existing quality assurance systems are helpful in the enhancement of student achievement.
47 44 43 37 42 15.0
Degree of freedom = 12, p*<0.05
To determine the perception differences among the students and academic staff across the four HLIs, the Chi-square was calculated. The results in Tables 5.19 and 5.20 show that significant differences were observed among the four HLIs in relation to item 4, 2 (12, N = 149) = 25.8; p <.05), item 5,2 (12, N = 149) = 21.9; p <.05), item 7 2 (12, N = 149) = 28.1; p <.05), for academic staff; and item 1 2 (12, N = 149) = 22.3; p <.05), item 2 2 (2, N = 149) = 26.6; p <.05), for students. However, a significant difference was not observed in the remaining results from the HLIs, as perceived both by the students and academic staff respondents (p>0.05).
In order to determine the extent of academic staff and student satisfaction regarding the stakeholders’ contribution and quality assurance activities of their institution, they were asked to rate their level of satisfaction on a five-point scale (1 = Very dissatisfied / Strongly disagreed, 2 = Dissatisfied / Disagreed, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied / Agreed, 5 = Very satisfied / Strongly agreed). The middle value 3 (Neutral) of the five‐point scale is considered as a hypothesised mean against which the mean ratings of the academic staff and students are checked for their significance using the one-sample t- test. If the mean ratings of the academic staff and students are significantly higher than the hypothesised mean (3), then it can be assumed that they are satisfied with the
159
particular item or issue, and vice versa. Based on these assumptions, the findings of the t-test are presented in the following tables.
Table 5.21: Academic staff satisfaction with participation and contribution of various stakeholders in assuring quality of education (t-test analysis)
S.
N. Item / actor for quality education
Test value = 3
Mean SD t-test Sig. (2- tailed) 1 Leadership commitment to having strong
institutional quality assurance system 3.18 1.21 1.82 0.070 2 Academic staff commitment to quality
education enhancement 3.47 1.10 5.18* 0.000
3 Academic staff participation in quality
assurance practices 3.11 1.13 1.15 0.252
4 Support of ETA (then HERQA) for educational
quality improvement 2.87 1.14 -1.37 0.172
5 Support of industry / employers for educational
quality improvement 2.72 1.05 -3.27* 0.001
6 Support of professional associations for
educational quality improvement 2.71 1.11 -3.15* 0.002 7 Coordination of and collaboration among
different actors (leadership, staff and students) in quality assurance implementation
3.06 1.20 0.61 0.541 8 Students engagement in quality assurance
activities 2.69 1.06 -3.54* 0.001
9 Efforts made by internal quality assurance
office in assuring quality of education 3.24 1.09 2.70* 0.008 Degree of freedom =149, p*<0.05
Table 5.22: Student satisfaction with participation and contribution of various stakeholders in assuring quality of education (t-test analysis)
S.
N. Item / actor for quality education
Test value = 3
Mean SD t-test Sig. (2- tailed) 1 Leadership commitment for educational quality
improvement 2.88 1.24 -1.199 0.232
2 Academic staff commitment for quality
education enhancement 3.01 1.20 0.136 0.892
3 Support of the institutional leadership for
educational quality improvement 3.05 1.32 0.497 0.620 4 Students engagement in quality assurance
activities 3.03 1.30 0.251 0.802
5 Coordination of and collaboration among different actors (leadership, staff and students) in quality assurance implementation
2.93 1.35 -0.665 0.507 p>0.05
160
As shown in Table 5.21 above, the instructors’ response mean scores for items 2 and 9 were significantly higher than the hypothetical mean of 3 (neutral), signifying that instructors were satisfied with these two items. The mean scores for items 5, 6, and 8 were significantly lower than the hypothetical mean 3 (neutral), which implies that instructors were dissatisfied with the three items.The remaining items (1, 3, 4, and 7) were not significantly different from the test value = 3. This suggests that instructors appeared to be ambivalent with regard to the abovementioned issues. Also, in Table 5.22 it can be observed that the students’ mean scores for all the items were not significantly different from 3 (neutral). This implies that students were unsure about stating their level of satisfaction with the listed items.
Table 5.23: Academic staff satisfaction with quality assurance activities of their institutions (t-test analysis)
S.
N. Statements
Test value = 3
Mean SD t-test Sig. (2- tailed) 1 Activities for assuring educational quality at
institutional, college, or department level can be described as participatory.
2.99 1.10 -0.074 0.941 2 The quality assurance system is strong. 2.95 1.09 -0.598 0.551 3 The quality assurance system is clearly
understood by staff members. 2.93 1.09 -0.821 0.413 4 Your institution has sufficient financial
resources to ensure quality of teaching and learning.
2.64 1.22 -3.608* 0.000 5 Motivation of academic staff towards
improving the quality of academic programmes is high.
3.02 1.25 0.196 0.845 6 There exists quality assurance systems
(policy, guidelines, methods, standards, and instruments) in your institution.
3.49 1.29 4.625* 0.000 7 These quality assurance systems are well
communicated among staff members. 2.95 1.15 -0.570 0.569 8 The existing quality assurance systems are
helpful to enhance student learning. 3.10 1.18 1.038 0.301 Degree of freedom = 149, P*<0.05
Table 5.24: Students’ satisfaction with quality assurance activities of their institutions (t-test analysis)
S.
N. Statements
Test value = 3 Mean SD t-test Sig. (2-
tailed) 1 A strong quality assurance system exists. 2.81 1.24 -1.845 0.067 2 The quality assurance system is clearly
understood by students. 2.81 1.26 -1.884 0.062
161 3 The existing quality assurance systems are
helpful in the enhancement of student achievement.
2.91 1.29 -0.823 0.412 p>0.05
As shown in Table 5.23 above, instructors were satisfied with item 6, and dissatisfied with item 4, because the mean scores were significantly different from 3 (p*<0.05).
They were ambivalent about the remaining aspects of quality assurance (items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8), as the mean scores were not significantly different from 3 (p>0.05). The t- test results for students’ perceptions (see Table 5.24) indicate that they were ambivalent about judging the effectiveness of the aspects of quality assurance, as the mean scores were not significantly different from 3.
Instructors were asked if they have regular staff meetings to discuss the quality of education and student learning and if all instructors shared quality culture and values.
The reflections of academic staff members on the two issues are presented in the following tables.
Table 5.25: Instructors’ perceptions about existence of regular meetings to discuss quality of education and student learning
HLI Perception
2
Yes No I don’t know Total
ADU 15 (50%) 12 (40%) 3 (10%) 30
5.4 p>0.05
AMU 18 (40%) 19 (42%) 8 (18%) 45
HRU 12 (48%) 10 (40%) 3 (12%) 25
WKU 14 (28%) 27 (54%) 9 (18%) 50
Total 59 (39%) 68 (45%) 23 (15%) 150
Table 5.26: Instructors’ perceptions about existence of shared quality culture and values
HLI Perception
2
Yes No I don’t know Total
ADU 15 (50%) 8 (27%) 7 (23%) 30
12.2
AMM 16 (36%) 23 (51%) 6 (13%) 45
HRU 12 (48%) 13 (52%) 0 (0%) 25
WKU 14 (28%) 27 (54%) 9 (18%) 50
Total 57 (38%) 71 (47%) 22 (15%) 150
P>0.05
In Tables 5.25 and 5.26, it can be observed that the majority (45%) of the 150 respondents believed that instructors did not have regular meetings to discuss issues regarding the quality of education, and 47% of the respondents assumed an absence of shared quality culture and values.
162
It can be concluded from these findings that the private and public HLIs have formal and functional internal quality assurance systems to enhance the quality of their education. However, these systems are not effective in improving the competency of students. The participation of internal and external stakeholders is minimal and the support given by the leadership is low. Therefore, the leadership needs to act persistently to improve quality assurance activities. There is no significant difference between private and public HLIs in terms of the effectiveness of their quality assurance systems and practice. However, the older HLIs (ADU and AMU) have relatively adequate human resource in comparison to the new HLIs (HRU and WKU).
The implementation of quality assurance systems in the HLIs is constrained by a multitude of problems such as low participation of academic staff and students and other stakeholders. The quality assurance office receives only mediocre support from the HLI leadership. Under such conditions, it is difficult to expect effective implementation of the quality assurance system. The leadership need to give much more attention to the office and mobilise all stakeholders to contribute their share in facilitating higher education quality assurance activities.
5.6 CHARACTERISTICS AND ASPECTS OF LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER