5.3 CHALLENGES TO HIGHER LEARNING INSTITUTION LEADERSHIP IN ASSURING QUALITY OF EDUCATION
5.3.2 Unsatisfactory teaching and learning practice
139
leadership in their endeavour to assuring the quality of higher education (PRF1).
The overall findings of the above analyses highlight that the competence of incoming students from the pre-higher education classes is likely to have an implication for students’ achievement levels in HLIs. It is also noteworthy that such situations may cause a serious challenge to HLIs’ leadership in assuring the quality of education in their institutions. Therefore, to attain quality education at the higher education level, it is vital to give attention to improving the quality of general education.
140
to the teaching and learning process. It was reported that the lack of teaching methodology skills on the part of inexperienced teachers, when combined with high student–staff ratios, poor engagement capacity of students in the teaching and learning process and inadequate facilities, made it difficult to implement the student- centred approaches effectively. Similarly, the dominant method of teaching and learning in the sampled private HLIs was the lecture (teacher-centred) method.
Academic staff, students, and the leadership in the four sampled HLIs were asked about their level of satisfaction regarding the overall quality of the teaching and learning process. Their responses indicated low satisfaction with the quality of teaching and learning, because the mode of delivery was not practice-orientated or up-to-date, and students were not particularly engaged in the process. The majority of respondents reported that the current teaching and learning practice was hindered by a shortage of teaching facilities and resources, especially in the public HLIs. In this connection, an interviewee described the situation:
We are applying the nationally harmonised curriculum; but owing to lack of adequate laboratories, workshops and workplaces for practical learning, implementing the practical aspect of the teaching and learning is difficult (AS4).
An interviewee from HRU explained:
It is believed that teaching and learning without student engagement can’t be considered effective learning; even though our academic staff members are committed to enhancing the capacity of students, they are disappointed by the low participation of students during class time (MLL1).
During the discussion with student representatives, it was noted that teaching and learning activities are also affected by the low engagement and motivation of students towards their learning (FGS2, FGS3, & FGS4). One interviewee reported that
the existing low employability rate of graduate students has an implication for students’ engagement and motivation in the learning process, because most students aren’t confident about securing their future careers (ST2).
Another interviewee added:
As we hear from different reliable news sources and our graduated friends and relatives, a significant number of the previously graduated students, in some cases even those who graduated before five or six years, have not secured jobs. So it’s obvious that such statistics discourage student motivation (ST3).
In support of these views, an interviewee noted that
141
nowadays the number of graduated students who have not secured a job is overwhelming. Comparatively, the figure is higher among engineering graduates. Even in most cases, those who secured jobs are working in a field other than their profession; if the trend continues like this, it would be a loss not only for the students but also for the country at large (PRF1).
Another factor for low motivation of students’ learning is dissatisfaction with their field of study:
As you know, in public HLIs, if you want to join your preferred HLI and programme, you need to score a high grade in the exam. If not, you will be forced to join any HLI or programme that may not suit you. Learning a field of study without your interest has definitely an implication for student motivation (ST2).
The student representatives of WKU expressed similar views that students who are admitted to a programme which is not their preference are not actively engaged in the teaching and learning process (FGS4). On the other hand, respondent ST4 argued that there are many students who joined a field of study other than their choice;
however, they had scored well in their exams.
To improve the quality of education, it is necessary to assess the teaching and learning process continuously, and take corrective measures by identifying the gaps. In this regard, AS3 pointed out that
in order to improve the quality of education, the teaching and learning process should be supported by research. However, in most HLIs including my institution, it is rare to find a research-based solution to the problem of the teaching and learning aspects. This problem is attributed to the professional incompetency and inadequacy of academic staff in undertaking research (AS3).
Another respondent expressed a related idea:
We know most of the challenges and problems of the teaching and learning of our institution because they appear in our day-to-day teaching activities. We inform the leadership, but they aren’t committed to solving the problems promptly. Some of the issues might be beyond the capacity of the leadership;
they are supposed to be solved by the government or the Ministry of Education.
However, it needs close follow-up for its implementation by the leadership (AS4).
As reported by many of the interviewees, there is no proper balance in public HLIs between theory and practice in the teaching and learning process, particularly in the areas of natural sciences, engineering, and health sciences. In connection to this, a
142
student interviewee said that “owing to the mismatch between the increasing number of students and the available equipment and laboratory facilities, students learn more theoretical than practical aspects of the courses” (ST2). Another interviewee added that “lectures without adequate practical sessions are common in the teaching process; we lack practical knowledge” (ST4). Academic staff respondents from AMU and WKU held a similar view that in most programmes, practice-orientated methodology of teaching and learning is deficient due to the shortage of lab facilities (AS2 and AS4).
Academic staff members are expected to fully engage in their teaching and learning activities and provide academic advice and support to their students. But the leadership interviewees from the sampled HLIs cited a lack of staff engagement and commitment as a serious problem in implementing efficient teaching and learning and academic counselling (TLL2, MLL2, TLL3, TLL4, MLL4). To generate additional income, some academic staff members are engaged in moonlighting – with or without the knowledge of the employer HLI. Such extra work may hamper the teaching and research activities, as well as students’ academic advice services. The main cause of moonlighting is the low remuneration scale of academic staff. An interviewee explained that
the existing low salary scale and incentive mechanisms of HLIs forced most academic staff members to work in private HLIs as part-time workers to generate additional income for their survival. This will obviously compromise the quality of teaching and learning. However, stopping or controlling such part-time jobs of instructors may cause the loss of many experienced academic staff members (MLL2).
Student representatives from AMU and WKU were not happy with the academic advice services provided in their universities (FGS2, FGS4). An academic staff interviewee confirmed that “adequate academic advice is not given to students. Because of the large student class sizes and high workload of instructors, providing proper academic advice and follow-up becomes difficult” (AS2). A student interviewee explained the situation in more detail:
We are not comfortable visiting our instructors’ offices to get academic advice; the staff office seating arrangements are discouraging. Most academic staff offices accommodate about four to seven staff members. And even though the timetable for consultation hours is posted on the door of
143
some instructors’ offices, most of the time they are not available in their office at the scheduled time (ST4).
During observation, the researcher also noticed that many staff members did not have private offices. As noted during interviews with academic staff and students, none of the sampled HLI offered organised, consistent or planned tutorial services to students with academic deficiencies. An interviewee from the top leadership pointed out:
Students with low academic performance are not supported as they should be. We arranged tutorials for those students; however, this arrangement incurs additional payment for instructors which involves a lot of cost for the institution; therefore, we failed to materialise our plan (TLL2).
The major challenges noted in the four sampled HLIs regarding the teaching and learning process can be summarised as 1) lack of pedagogical skills and teaching experience on the part of some academic staff members; 2) frequent exercise of teacher-centred teaching methodology by most of the instructors; 3) inadequacy of teaching and learning facilities and resources; and 4) lack of inspiration for teaching and learning on the part of instructors and students. The lack of continuous supervision and follow-up by HLI leadership in the teaching and learning process also raises questions about the efficiency of the leadership.