The Impact of Involving Students in Managing the Quality of Higher Education Provision

Abstract

This study was aimed at exploring the power of student involvement in improving quality of higher educational provision in private higher education instititions in Zimbabwe. A longitudinal approach involving two separate surveys and covering a period of three years was used. A preliminary survey aimed at assessing the issues that impact negatively on teaching and learning in five private universities was made from June 2011 to May 2012. In 2013, a follow-up survey was carried out to check whether the pertinent issues raised by students had been addressed promptly and adequately. Data collection included semi-structured self-administered questionnaires as well as focus group discussions with students and academic staff. The sample represented ten per cent of the enrolments of students at each university. The sample was representative of gender, study discipline and level of study. The issues that were prioritised as adversely affecting quality of teaching and learning were limited reading material; poorly qualified Lecturers; sub-standard teaching venues; inadequate assignments; part-time lecturers who abscond; sexual harassment and inadequate field trips and practical work. During the second survey, results showed that students were satisfied by the fact that all five higher education institutions had addressed most of the students' concerns. However, continued increase in student enrolments perpetuated the problem of poor teaching venues. Part time lecturers continued to contribute negatively to the quality of teaching and learning. The study points to the need to continuously involve students as an effective way of improving quality of educational provision.

Exploring the prevalence of the sexually transmitted marks phenomenon in higher education institutions

“…Results show that STM exists in all IHLs in this study in varying degrees and feeds off student vulnerability as lamented by the sociocultural model as a result of power imbalances between women and men in society. Garwe 32 cited major reasons given by students as drivers of STM as securing a place at university, awarding of undeserved marks, provision of financial and material support, as well as other favours.…”

“…Students denoted this practice as 'a thigh for a mark' or sex for grades. [31][32][33] On rights-holders and duty-bearers regarding STM, both were found as equal actors of STM in IHLs. What determined who, between lecturers and students, would initiate was the currency value held by the one and the extent to which another one sought it.…”

“…Staff members 32,33 argued, 'Some female students blatantly parade parts of their bodies by wearing skimpy clothes thereby exposing themselves to sexual harassment.' This view by staff on causes of STM echoes others 32.33 who lament the way female students conduct themselves in terms of behaviour and dressing as influencing their vulnerability to sexual harassment.…”

“…23 This study dispels the notion of female students always being the victims in such transactions and brings to light the downside inherent in transactional sexual engagements 'justified' on the basis of consenting adults. Some studies [31][32][33] have highlighted an increase in cases of sexual harassment, blamed, by the respondents in those studies, on what women wear. Lack of awareness as a causal factor is attributed to many students and academic, administrative and support staff not knowing various university policies and regulations against sexual harassment 33 , with few having actually read it, translating to the policy evaporation lamented by Longwe 34 , Risby 35 and Macdonald 36 .…”

The Inter-Jurisdictional Language of Quality Assurance: Comparing Theory and Practice

“…After relatively little discussion, focus group participants themselves recognized that the term "student engagement" was being used in two different ways. One saw student engagement as a means of engaging students as stakeholders in the design and administration of the process of assuring quality (Coates, 2005;Garwe, 2015). In this sense a relatively small number of students are engaged collectively to represent student interests and views at large, and to contribute to improvement of the process, for example by specifying how students should be engaged based on their direct experience at the program level, in advising on identifying the best means by which student experience could be brought into the process.…”