Volume 07 Issue 07 July 2024
1Mr Mthuthukisi Ncube, 2Dr Funa Moyo, 3Dr Tumelo Tumza Mathe, 4Mr Vusisizwe Ncube
1Institute of Development Sciences, National University of Science and Technology Bulawayo, Zimbabwe ORCID: 0000-0002-7178-5955
2Institute of Development Sciences, National University of Science and Technology Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
ORCID: 0000-0002- 7870-0133
3University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa ORCID: 0000-0002-5258-5632
4Lupane State University, Lupane, Zimbabwe ORCID: 0000-0001-8488-2546
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i07-53Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
Background, the context and purpose of the study: Higher education is shifting from institutional success factors to student-centred learning, focusing on research-based methods and student involvement. This shift emphasizes the importance of holistic education based on intended learning outcomes and suitable processes. Using the pragmatic research paradigm, the study sought to identify stakeholder attitudes and feelings regarding student involvement vis-à-vis quality assurance processes and outcomes. The study targeted 15 quality assurance officers and Student Representative Council members per institution.
Results, the main findings: Findings underscore that to a large extent, this is not the case among higher education institutions, buttressing the need for student-involvement in quality-assurance and promotion initiatives. Higher education institutions should balance student-involvement in quality-assurance processes without compromising the same desired quality. Faced with the paradox, higher education institutions tend to involve students only peripherally in important academic quality-assurance processes short-changing them thereby. Correspondingly, trends should move from university-centred evaluation of teaching and learning towards student-centred evaluation of teaching and learning.
Conclusions, brief summary and potential implications: Consistently followed, evidence indicates universities that have reacted to student feedback through enhancing their participation have student-satisfaction, closely related to clear, tangible action taken. Students of STEM can, and should be engaged as ‘producers and products’ at all levels of quality assurance processes, from academic boards to working with staff developing innovative teaching materials.
KEYWORDS:Student involvement trends, quality assurance, STEM, higher education
REFERENCES1) Abdous, M. 2009. E-learning Quality Assurance: A process-oriented lifecycle model. Quality Assurance in Education, 2009, 17 (3), 281-295
2) Akubuilo, F. 2013. Sustainability of Tertiary Education through Quality Assurance and Development in Nigeria, Journal of Education and Practice, ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.4, No.15, 2013, www.iiste.org
3) Anugwom, E.E., 2009. Women, Education and Work in Nigeria. Educational Research and Review. Vol. 4. No 4 pp. 127-134. April. Accessed online at www.academicjournaly.org
4) Ayeni, M.A. and Dada, M.A., 2011. An Exploration into the Education Innovations in Nigeria in the Last two Decades, Journal of Emerging Trends In Educational Research and Policy Studies Vol.No 4 www.jeteraph.scholarlinkresearch.org.
5) Dabalen, A., Oni, B., and Adekola, O., 2001. Labor Market Prospects for University Graduates in Nigeria. Higher Education Policy vol. 14 PP 141-159
6) Dondi, C., Moretti, M., Nascimbeni, F., Quality of e-learning: Negotiating a Strategy, Implementing a Policy. In: Ehlers, U.D. & Pawlowski, J. M. (Eds.) 2006. Handbook on Quality and Standardization in e-learning (pp. 31–50). Berlin: Springer.
7) European Commission. 2018. Quality Assurance for School Development Guiding Principles for Policy Development on Quality Assurance in School Education, ET 2020 Working Groups.
8) European Commission. 2018. Promoting the Relevance of Higher Education, Brussels: European Commission.
9) Fontaine, C., Haarman, A. and Schmid, S., 2006. The Stakeholder Theory, Stakeholder Theory of the MNC
10) Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B. and de Colle, S., 2010. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11) Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Friedman, A.L., Miles, S. 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press.
12) Giertz, B. 2001. Anything goes? The Concept of Quality Revisited. Paper presented at The Sixth QHE Seminar, Birmingham, May 25-26, 2001. Retrieved 16 Jun 2016, from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/papers/giertz.pdf.
13) Gover, A., Loukkola, T., Peterbauer, H. 2019. REPORT- Student-centred Learning: #Approaches to Quality Assurance, European University Association.
14) Harrison, J.S. 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory. Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press.
15) Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A. and Phillips, R.A., 2010. Managing for Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions and Competitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58-74.
16) Harvey, L., Green, D. 1993. Defining Quality, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 1993, 18(1), 9-34.
17) Haverland, M., Yanow, D. 2012. “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Public Administration Research Universe: Surviving Conversations on Methodologies and Methods.” Public Administration Review 2012, 72 (3): 401–408.
18) Hénard, F., Mitterle, A. 2009. Governance and Quality Guidelines: A Review of Governance Arrangements and Quality Assurance Guidelines.
19) Jensen, M.C., 2002. Maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective, Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2), 235 256
20) Jones, D.H. 1974. An Analysis of Students’ Perception of their Role in Governance at Gaston College. Practicum presented at the Nova University in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for Doctor of education Degree.
21) Jung, I. 2011. The Dimensions of e-learning Quality: from the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2011, 59(4), 445–464.
22) Jung, I.S., Latchem, C. 2007. Assuring Quality in Asian Open and Distance Learning. Open Learning, 2007, 22(3), 235–250.
23) Kažoka, A. 2014. Quality and Quality Assurance of Student-Centred Learning. Vilnius, Lithuania: European Students’ Union, 3 – 4 December 2014.
24) Kelle, U. 2006. “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research Practice: Purposes and Advantages.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006, 3 (4): 293–311.
25) Klemenčič, M. 2012. The Changing Conceptions of Student Participation in HE Governance in the EHEA In Curaj, A.et al. (eds.), European Higher Education at the Crossroads: between the Bologna Process and National Reforms.
26) Little, B., Locke, W., Scesa, A., Williams, R. 2009. Report to the HEFCE on Student Engagement. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
27) Luescher-Mamashela, T.M. 2013. Student representation in university decision making: good reasons, a new lens?, Studies in Higher Education, 2013,38:10,1442-1456,DOI:10.1080/03075079.2011.625496, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.625496
28) Luescher-Mamashela, T.M., Kiiru, S., Mattes, R., Mwollo-Ntallima, A., Ng’ethe, A., Romo, M. 2011. The African University and Democratic Citizenship: Hothouse or training ground? Cape Town: African Minds.
29) Majoni, C. 2014. Challenges Facing University Education in Zimbabwe, Greener Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2014, Vol. 2 (1), pp. 020-024, Research Article, March 2014. www.gjournals.org.
30) Maurício, J. and Boaventura, G., 2015. Stakeholder Theory as an Ethical Approach to Effective Management: Applying the Theory to Multiple Contexts, Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 17, No. 55, pp. 858-869, Special Edition 2015, DOI:10.7819/rbgn.v17i55.2647
31) May, W.P. 2010. The History of Student Governance in Higher Education In College Student Affairs, 2010, vol 28, no 2.
32) Mertens, D., Hesse-Biber, S. 2013. “Mixed Methods and Credibility of Evidence in Evaluation.” New Directions for Evaluation 2013: 5–13.
33) Moore, J. and Others. 1998. Why Involvement Matters: A Review of Research on Student Involvement in the Collegiate setting. In College Student Affairs Journal, 1998,Vol 17, No 2.
34) Mohamedbhai, G. 2014. Quality in Higher Education Sacrificed for Quantity. [online].
35) Masoumi, D., Lindstrom, B. 2012. Quality in e-learning: a framework for promoting and Assuring Quality in Virtual Institutions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2012, 28(1), 27–41.
36) Mahdiuon, R., Masoumi, D., Farasatkhah, M. 2017. Quality Improvement in Virtual Higher Education: A Grounded Theory Approach, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE January 2017, Volume: 18 Number: 1 Article 8
37) Oliver, R. 2005. Quality Assurance and e-learning: Blue Skies and Pragmatism. Research in Learning Technology, 2005, 13(3), 173–187.
38) Persson, A. 2004. Student Participation in the Governance of Higher Education in Europe: Results of a Survey. In The university as res publica: Higher Education Governance, Student Participation and the University as a Site of Citizenship, ed. S. Bergan, 2004. 31–82. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
39) Schwartzman, R. 2013. Consequences of Commodifying Education. Academic Exchange Quarterly. Fall 2013 Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1-7
40) Tapera, J., Kuipa, P. 2017. Promoting Quality Assurance in Zimbabwean Higher Education Institutions; Concepts, Systems and Processes Conference Paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311186790
41) Tamrat, W. 2016. Student Participation in Higher Education Governance: Trends and Practices in Ethiopian Public Universities, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: St. Mary’s University The Teacher, 2016, Vol. 7, No 14.
42) Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43) Warming, R., Frydensberg, P. 2017. Principal in Own Learning – Student Centred Learning Viewed Through the Eyes of an External Quality Assurance Agency. EQAF Paper, 2017. http://bit.ly/2LJ6XFl (accessed 05/07/2019).
44) Wong, A. 2016. The Commodification of Higher Education, [online], 2016. Available at http://www.theatlantic.com Accessed 07 November 2016