THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL AUDITS ON THE QUALITY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Introduction and brief background to the study

Institutional audits constitute one of the ways through which South Africa‟s Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) executes its quality assurance mandate. The HEQC is a permanent sub-committee of the Council on Higher Education (CHE). The CHE is an independent statutory body that was instituted in accordance with the Higher Education Act (Act No 101 of 1997) as amended and serves as the quality council for higher education in South Africa (CHE, 2004a). Many countries use institutional audits as a quality assurance mechanism aimed at improving and enhancing quality in their higher education (CHE, 2004a). Concomitantly, the main purpose of institutional audits is to evaluate the effectiveness of the quality management systems that have been established by higher education institutions to manage quality of their core functions, and identify strengths and weaknesses (CHE, 2007a). The ultimate outcome of institutional audits is continuous quality improvement and development.
It is thus essential to establish the extent to which institutional audits have led to quality improvement and enhancement. Studies about the effects of the HEQC‟s institutional audits and their role in quality improvement and enhancement in South African higher education have been scant. In the light of the above, this study aims to investigate the effect of the HEQC‟s institutional audits on the quality of relevant aspects of teaching and learning, support functions, and student experience across different types of higher education institutions. Due to its historical legacy, South Africa has been characterised by disparities on many fronts. On the social front, there are glaring inequalities that spring directly from the apartheid legacy. According to Statistics South Africa‟s Income and Expenditure Survey (2005/2006), there is a high prevalence of inequality between different population groups and within individual population groups. South Africa‟s Gini coefficient1 , which takes into consideration disposable income derived from work and social grants for the entire country was 0.72 (Statistics South Africa, 2008). Of all racial groups in the country, black African households had the highest Gini coefficient score of 0.63, while for the other population groups it ranged between 0.56 and 0.59. In fact, if social grants and taxes were not considered, the entire country‟s Gini coefficient would increase to 0.80 instead of 0.72; this means using redistributive policies as a mechanism to reduce inequality results in a reduction of the Gini coefficient by eight percentage points (Statistics South Africa, 2008). Disparities in the education sector, which were strategically orchestrated by the apartheid government, played a pivotal role in further creating varied forms of social injustice. The quality of education for black people was carefully planned to be inferior to that of whites both in terms of content and resources. Higher education makes these disparities even more conspicuous as it lies at the interface of formal schooling and preparedness for employment. It is undeniable that there are differences in the quality of South Africa‟s public higher education institutions as the historically white institutions were better funded than historically black institutions. Indeed, the apartheid government‟s University Extension Act of 1959 extended racial discrimination to the higher education sector and resulted in historically black universities being under-privileged institutions in terms of resources (Ilorah, 2006). At the same time, historically white Afrikaans universities, during the apartheid government, received a disproportionately high percentage of state funding and also enjoyed some of the best academic facilities in South Africa (Mabokela, 2007). What exacerbated the situation for the historically black universities were the constant student protests which caused disruptions in academic programmes, as these politically fuelled activities were often violent. The quality difference among South Africa‟s public higher education institutions has been demonstrated partly by employers who tend to prefer graduates from certain higher education institutions and not others. Often these preferences were more in favour of historically white institutions than historically black institutions due to employers‟ stereotypes about the former„s superiority and the latter‟s inferiority.
These educational disparities were not only between institutions, they were also within institutions (Ogude, 2001). It is the function of a national quality assurance agency to alleviate these educational disparities by putting in place measures to ensure an equivalent quality provision across the national higher education landscape. Moreover, an external quality assurance agency must provide accountability for public money and private resources invested in higher education by encouraging institutions to reflect on their own practices (Randall, 2001). This view is corroborated and taken a step further by Brennan and Shah (in Stensaker, 2003) whose empirical research suggests that quality assurance agencies have resulted in positive changes in higher education such as ensuring increased accountability using public funds, improving the quality provided by higher education institutions, ensuring that students and employers are kept informed about pertinent developments, stimulating competitiveness between and within institutions, enhancing student mobility, and making comparisons with international institutions and higher education systems due to increased cross-border movement of students and staff. In its endeavour to address the quality issues in the South African higher education, the CHE was established in May 1998 in accordance with the Higher Education Act, No 101 of 1997 (Higher Education Act 101 of 1997). The main responsibilities assigned to the CHE by the Higher Education Act and the Education White Paper 3 of 1997 were to give advice to the minister of higher education on higher education policy matters and to be responsible for quality assurance and quality promotion in South African higher education (Department of Education, 1997). The CHE‟s quality assurance functions are carried out by the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) – its permanent sub-committee.
The HEQC was mandated to conduct institutional audits on the country‟s higher education institutions within the context of ongoing reform and restructuring with the goal of producing a high quality and transformed national higher education system, which can address South Africa‟s intricate knowledge and development needs (CHE, 2007a). The HEQC‟s institutional audits took cognisance of the continuing disparities that were prevalent in South Africa‟s higher education sector, and the institutional audits are in line with the principles underpinning restructuring (CHE, 2007a). The HEQC‟s institutional audits ran from 2004 to 2011. These audits focused on institutional policies, systems, procedures, strategies and resources for managing the three core functions of teaching and learning, research, and community engagement as well as support services for the university‟s functions (CHE, 2007a). This study focuses on the effect of the HEQC‟s institutional audits on relevant aspects of teaching and learning, support functions, and student experience. It utilises executive summaries of institutional audit reports and interview data to establish this effect.

Problem statement and rationale for the study

The primary purpose of the HEQC‟s institutional audits is to facilitate systematic and continuous improvement and development of quality in higher education and enhance the capacity of higher education institutions to plan, act and report on quality-related objectives and achievements (CHE, 2004a). The HEQC‟s institutional audit process requires that, after receiving an institutional audit report, institutions should develop and implement a quality improvement plan which responds to the recommendations made in the audit reports (CHE, 2004a). Although the HEQC monitored progress in the implementation of the improvement plans by analysing the progress reports from the audited higher education institutions, three years after conducting the institutional audit, the process is primarily paper-based and, except for very few exceptional cases of concern, institutions are not subjected to follow-up visits to verify what is said in the progress reports (CHE, 2004a). In addition, the HEQC‟s monitoring mechanisms focus on engagements with the institutions‟ senior management members. Further, since the institutional audits were concluded in 2011, there have hardly been any studies that sought to establish the effects of institutional audits on South African‟s higher education institutions.
Various international studies point to a mixed bag of both positive and negative effects of institutional audits on higher education. Some studies have found that external quality assurance mechanisms, including institutional audits, have facilitated quality improvement (Kristensen, 2010; Nilsson & Wallen, 2000; Ewell, 2010; Askling, Lycke & Stave, 2004; Shah, Nair & Wilson, 2011). Other studies, however, point out that external quality assurance interventions engender negative and unintended consequences (Stephenson, 2004; Newton, 2002; Mohrman, 2011; Cheng, 2009; Jones & De Saram, 2005; Hoecht, 2006; Mammen, 2006; and Minelli, Rebora, Turri & Huisman, 2006). For example, Stephenson (2004) points out that quality assurance systems usually start with good intentions but in many cases they end up engendering a compliance or „tick-box‟ mentality, which further leads to the disillusionment of many academics and causing damage to the public standing of the higher education sector. Stephenson‟s assertion is consonant with Newton (2002) who notes that those who were subjected to external quality assurance were mainly preoccupied with learning the rules of the game, that preparations for external quality assessments were often aimed at shielding reality from the view of external assessors. Newton (2002) adds that by the late 1990s there had been increased doubts and resistance from many academics regarding quality assurance interventions
Studies that have been conducted about the institutional audits in South Africa have focused primarily on the audit process rather than the effects of the audits. This study therefore attempts to fill this void as it seeks to establish the effect of the Higher Education Quality Committee‟s institutional audits on the quality of relevant aspects of teaching and learning, support functions, and student experience The study also includes representation from each of South Africa‟s three university types: a traditional university, a comprehensive university, and a university of technology. A more comprehensive discussion on the three university types is done in section 2.1. The study sought the opinions of students and staff at these universities on the performance of their institutions regarding various areas pointed out in the HEQC‟s institutional audit reports. The juxtaposition of feedback from these participants and the recommendations made in the audit reports of their institutions could shed light on the effects of institutional audits.

Table of Contents :

• Declaration
• Dedication
• Acknowledgement
• Abstract
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
• CHAPTER INTRODUCTORY ORIENTATION
  • 1.1 Introduction and brief background to the study
  • 1.2 Problem statement and rationale for the study
  • 1.3 Research aims and questions
  • 1.4 Research methodology
    • 1.4.1 Case study design
    • 1.4.2 The unit of analysis
    • 1.4.3 Research paradigm
    • 1.4.4 Population and sampling
    • 1.4.5 Data collection
    • 1.4.6 Data analysis
    • 1.4.7 Research ethics
  • 1.5 Delimitations of the study
  • 1.6 Clarification of terminology and concepts
  • 1.7 Overview of the study

• CHAPTER QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN AND GLOBAL HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXTS

  • 2.1 Introduction and background
  • 2.2 The emergence of quality assurance
  • 2.3 The global emergence of quality assurance
  • 2.4 South Africa‟s movement towards quality assurance
  • 2.5 Institutional audit methodologies in different countries
    • 2.5.1 The Australian Universities Quality Agency
    • 2.5.2 Quality assurance in India‟s higher education
    • 2.5.3 Quality assurance in England‟s higher education
    • 2.5.4 South Africa‟s institutional audits methodology
    • 2.5.5 Drawing parallels among the different quality assurance systems
  • 2.6 Conclusion
• CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Changes in the context of higher education
  • 3.3 The concept of „quality‟
  • 3.4 Quality assurance in higher education
  • 3.5 The effect of external quality assurance on higher education
  • 3.6 The role of self-evaluation in institutional audits
  • 3.7 The effect of the HEQC‟s self-evaluation process on higher education institutions
  • 3.8 The perceptions of quality assurance mechanisms by senior managers, academics and students
  • 3.9 The effect of external quality assurance on teaching and learning policies, practices and behaviours
  • 3.10 The effect of external quality assurance on support functions
  • 3.11 The effects of external quality assurance on student experience
  • 3.12 Perceptions and effect of quality assurance in South Africa
  • 3.13 Theoretical underpinnings of this study
    • 3.13.1 Total Quality Management
    • 3.13.2 The systems approach to quality assurance in South African higher education
    • 3.13.3 The nexus between TQM and the systems approach
    • 3.13.4 The link betweenTQM and teaching and learning
    • 3.13.5 The concept of „customer‟ in higher education
    • 3.13.6 The implementation of TQM
    • 3.13.7 The nexus between the HEQC‟s institutional audits and TQM
    • 3.13.8 The nexus between the HEQC‟s institutional audits and the systems approach
  • 3.14 Emerging issues from literature review and identification of themes
  • 3.15 Conceptual Framework
  • 3.16 Specific research questions
  • 3.17 Conclusion
• CHAPTER RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2 The paradigm underlying this study
  • 4.3 Research design and methodology
    • 4.3.1 Case study design
    • 4.3.2 The unit of analysis
    • 4.3.3 Sampling of universities and participants
    • 4.3.4 Data collection strategies
    • 4.3.5 Data collection
    • 4.3.6 Data analysis
  • 4.4 Methodological norms
    • 4.4.1 Credibility
    • 4.4.2 Transferability
  • 4.5 Research ethics
  • 4.6 The role of the researcher
  • 4.7 Conclusion
• CHAPTER THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL AUDITS ON THE QUALITY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
  • 5.1 Introduction
  • 5.2 Challenges regarding the assessment of students and security of exams
  • 5.3 Postgraduate education
  • 5.4 Private work by and professionalism of academics
  • 5.5 The management of short courses
  • 5.6 Management of work integrated learning
  • 5.7 Teaching of large classes
  • 5.8 Conclusion
• CHAPTER THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL AUDITS ON THE QUALITY OF SUPPORT FUNCTIONS, AND STUDENT EXPERIENCE
  • 6.1 Introduction
  • 6.2 The crafting and communication of the mission and vision
  • 6.3. The self-evaluation process
  • 6.4 Resource allocation
  • 6.5 Support given to black and female staff
  • 6.6 The effect of institutional audits on student experience
  • 6.7 Conclusion
• CHAPTER SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • 7.1 Introduction
  • 7.2 Summary of the study
  • 7.3 Summary of the main findings
    • 7.3.1 The effects of the HEQC institutional audits on the quality of teaching and learning
    • policies, practices and behaviours
    • 7.3.2 The effect of the HEQC institutional audits on the quality of support functions
    • 7.3.3 The effects of institutional audits on the quality of student experience
  • 7.4 Reflection on the conceptual framework
  • 7.5 Reflection on the research methodology
  • 7.6 Major challenges encountered during interviews
  • 7.7 Generalising from the case studies
  • 7.8 Main conclusions of the study
  • 7.9 Recommendations
    • 7.9.1 Recommendations for practice
    • 7.9.2 Recommendations for policy
    • 7.9.3 Recommendations for further research
  • Bibliography
  • Appendices

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT