Quality Assurance of
HEI’s in public sector
MSTQM- 72-17F : Jawad Majeed
MSTQM- 92-17F : Bilal Akram
MSTQM- 82-17F : M. Ahmed Sheikh
MSTQM- 80-17F : [Link] Haris
MSTQM- 70-17F : Hafiz Nawaz
MSTQM- 90-17F : Shahid Shamsher
Introduction:
The higher education sector in Pakistan has been undergoing profound transformation
during last decade. Many new institutions have been set up and enrolments are also on
the higher side. Government has provided numerous incentives to both students and
faculty with the collaboration of local and international institutions. The establishment of
higher education commission of Pakistan (HEC) is a mammoth milestone in this regard.
Higher Education Commission not only encourages students for higher studies but also
equips universities for providing quality education. These education reforms have
already led to a remarkable growth and competition in higher education sector of
Pakistan. Although this is a positive sign for a developing country like Pakistan that the
institutions are meeting the demand of the market for qualified individuals with
specialization in various fields as a result of industrial growth in the country. However,
increased costs and greater competition among institutions require at national and
international level that they should adopt a market orientation strategy to differentiate
their services from the competitors in order to increase enrolments and attract students.
However, increasing enrolments is not the only answer to survival, they also have to
properly manage and retain these students. In Pakistan, the focus on quality in higher
education is comparatively recent and the subject of student satisfaction has not been
explored much. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the level of student
satisfaction to different services provided by the public sector universities in Pakistan.
Parameters:
We have taken following parameters:
1. Teacher Satisfaction
2. Institute Ranking
3. Globalization
4. Adequate Funding
Instrument:
The impact of internal and external quality assurance mechanism on Higher Education
Institution assured using well defined questionnaires. On the basis of pilot testing of
questionnaire, 24 items for teacher were finalized. These questionnaires were used for
data collection from the respondents. All questions were developed on a 5-point Likert
scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) and these were coded from 5 to To measure
the impact of Quality assurance mechanism in Higher Education Institutions the items of
the questionnaire has been divided into four constructs it have also carried out the
statistical analysis on the multiple choice examination questions.
Q1 : Teachers are in HEI's selected on merit
Q2 : Work is distributed according to their merit.
Q3: Their intellectual contributions are appreciated by organizations
Q4: Teacher enjoys adequate research facilities.
Q5: Teachers are satisfied with their job.
Q6: All teaching & learning facilities provided to teachers.
Q7: Research output are signifacnlty impact on ranking of Universities.
Q8: HEI has key performance indicators to measure their performance.
Q9: Ranking is self motivatedtool for universities.
Q10 : Ratio of PhD faculty is sufficiecnt.
Q11: Teachers are given manageable population of students in classrooms.
Q12 : Ranking system of universities accelerated the academic department of
universities.
Q13: Faculty members have proper access to digital library computer lab and internet
websites.
Q14: Teachers provides incentives and opportunities for publication and research wing.
Q15: Budget allocation is sufficient and transparent for the academic activities.
Q16: Transport facilities are available for the students and staff.
Q17 : Class room labortaries are sufficient and well equipped with latest technology.
Q18: University invests much on faculty development.
Q19: The program offerings meet the specific needs of global market.
Q20: The Program offerings meet the specific needs of global market.
Q21: HEI’s are promoting national spirit.
Q22: HEI’s are promoting global citizenship.
Q23: HEI’s are relevant to the cultural needs of society.
Q24: Develop and inculcate proper values for the survival of the individual and society.
Q25: Develop the intellectual capacity of individuals to the understand and appreciate
their local and external environments.
Reliability Test (Cronbach’s alpha):
S. No Construct Items Cronbach’s alpha
1 Teacher’s satisfaction 6 0.82
2 Ranking 6 0.83
3 Globalization 6 0.80
4 Budget Allocation 6 0.84
The validity of the instrument is measured by Cronbach alpha. The reliability value of
the construct 1 which consists 6 items and represents the teacher satisfaction level to
the facilities provided in the Higher Education Institutions is found to be 0.82 shows the
high internal consistency among the items. Similarly construct 2 Consist of 6 items. It
measured the factors that enhance the ranking of a university among other universities
its reliability value is 0.83. Another quality indicator of Higher Education Institutions is
globalization; its reliability value is found to be 0.80. Construct 4 explain inadequate
funding with 6 items and having reliability value 0.84.
Correlation Test (P- Value):
S. Chi – P-
No Statement Square Value
1 Teachers are in HEI's selected on merit 9.07 0.000
Work is distributed according to their
2 merit. 12.35 0.000
Their intellectual contributions are
3 appreciated by organizations. 1.34 0.195
Teacher enjoys adequate research
4 facilities. 8.34 0.034
5 Teachers are satisfied with their job. 20.32 0.000
All teaching & learning facilities provided
6 to teachers. 12.02 0.15
Research output are significantly impact
7 on ranking of 14.53 0.580
Universities
HEI has key performance indicators to
8 measure their 4.56 0.56
performance.
Ranking is self-improvement tool for
9 universities. 24.76 0.000
Ratio of PhD faculty to total faculty is
10 sufficient 2.76 0.314
Teachers are given manageable
11 population of students in classrooms 30.67 0.000
12 8.98 0.156
Ranking system of universities
accelerated the academic departments
of universities.
Faculty members have proper access to
13 digital library, computer 36.8 0.000
lab and internet websites
Teachers provides incentives and
14 opportunities for publication & 6.261 0.161
research writing
Budget allocation is sufficient and
15 transparent for the academic 24.65 0.000
activities.
Transport facilities are available for the
16 students and staffs. 39.56 0.000
Class room and laboratories are
sufficient and well equipped with latest
17 technology 58.0 0.000
University invests much on faculty
18 development. 21.5 0.000
The program offerings meet the specific
19 needs of global market 9.8 0.131
20 HEI's are promoting national spirit. 12.41 0.735
21 HEI's are promoting Global citizenship. 27.06 0.037
HEI's are relevant to the cultural needs
22 of society. 18.87 0.032
Develop and inculcate proper values for
23 the survival of the 14.68 0.000
individual and society.
Develop the intellectual capacity of
24 individuals to understand and 24.92 0.000
appreciate their local and external
environments.
Conclusions:
The Chi- square test of independence and median values of each items revealed that
teacher were opinion that satisfaction level of teacher were high in public sector
institutions compare to private sector universities. While teachers believe that private
sector institutions were better in terms of infrastructure, research facilities, ranking
practices and allocation of budget.
The results of mean, standard deviation and independent t-test of each construct i.e
teacher satisfaction, ranking, globalization and allocation of budget also revealed the
same fact that there was statistically significant difference among public and private
universities teacher’s perceptions.
However, the results of factor analysis indicate that factors with items of high positive
loading that represent quality indicators emerges more consistently in private sector
institutions. On the other hand factors with items with negative high loading appeared
more in public sector universities. This can be interpreted that teachers of private sector
universities were more satisfied with quality assurance practices in their institutions.
In the view of research findings it may be concluded that quality in higher education is
directly related to the teacher satisfaction to the facilities provided by them, ranking of
universities, globalization and allocation of budget.
Overall this study explored and identified trends and best practices in Quality
Assurance Mechanism in Higher Education Institutions. The study highlights, that
Quality Assurance Mechanism should employ all new tools and practices to accelerate
development in Higher Education Institutions. Future studies about impact of quality
assurance mechanism on HEC, globalization, internal and external quality assurance
can study conceptual or methodological weaknesses of Quality Assurance Mechanism
process in universities. The study suggests that Quality Assurance Mechanism highly
impacts on improving the quality of education imparted in the higher education.
