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 : M.Jawad 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.