Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) Mechanism: Awareness and Involvement of Staff and Students: A case of Marist International University College (MIUC). (original) (raw)

2019, The Agakhan University

According to Lyamtane (2015) the survival of a given higher education institution depends very much on the way it strives to improve its modes of delivering the services to the customers and modes of carrying out all its activities or operations. Lyamtane (2015) continues to assert that attempts to ensure provision of quality education in any type and level of education cannot be realized if those vested with the task of facilitating the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values and attitudes by learners, supervising at different levels and supporting operations of educational institutions in a given country are not informed and well prepared. This paper investigates Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) mechanism: awareness and involvement of staff members and students, a case study of Marist International University College (MIUC). The reviewed literature indicates that the quality of the products given by higher institutions depends to a great extent on the assessment mechanisms in place. Thus, each university is responsible for IQA and knowledge about IQA mechanisms is an essential element that affects the welfare of the institutions Top management, Deans, Directors, Departmental heads, students, other shareholders, trading partners, auditors and society at large. The study targeted all MIUC staff members and students. The research was carried out through a survey. Simple random sampling procedures were used to obtain a total of 47 staff members (teaching and non-teaching) and 60 students that participated in the study from a total population of 99 staff members and 472 students at the time of the study (MIUC Registry, March 2018). A questionnaire with both open ended and closed ended questions was used to collect data. Quantitative data was eyed in the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 21.0 analyzed using descriptive statistics whereby frequencies and percentages were calculated. The qualitative data was summarized and analyzed in accordance with the research questions. The findings of the study revealed that 32 (68.1%) staff members and 28 (46.7%) of the student’s participants were aware of some of the IQA mechanism available at MIUC. A good number of students 31 (51.7%) were not aware of the IQA mechanism available at MIUC. However, majority of the respondents mentioned mid and end of semester lecturers evaluation form, lecture attendance sign sheet, examination and semester results moderation as the available IQA mechanisms at MIUC. Most of the students indicated that they are involved in implementing IQA through evaluating lecturers and signing of the lecturer attendance sheet. A good number of staff members on the other hand highlighted that they are involved in the implementation of IQA through moderation of examination and semester results. Although the findings show that some responded were aware and involved, the level of involvement is rated to be low. This is because from all the listed involvement activities the respondents were aware only three (27.3%) IQA mechanisms out of the eleven outlined in the MIUC QA policy (2012). Both staff and students recommended that MIUC should implement lecturer evaluation feedback, provide suggestion box for students and continuously train and develop staff on QA matters. The researcher recommends that institution of higher learning should expose all their staff members and student to their IQA mechanisms. Exposure shall enable the staff members and students to know what IQA mechanisms exist in their institutions and there expected level of participation in implementation. The researcher also recommends that discussions on quality matters in higher learning institutions should be brought down to the level of staff members and students. This is because the quality, efficiency, effectiveness and in general good health of an institution are dependent on upon the people who make it up (Waweru, 2007). Those actively involved in the day to day operations at all levels in universities. Key words: quality, internal quality assurance mechanism, staff members, students, awareness, involvement, implementation