Perceptions of Lecturers on Quality Assurance in Higher ... · PDF fileEducation Teaching and Learning Process ... quality assurance in higher education teaching and learning process

© Kamla-Raj 2014 Int J Edu Sci, 7(2): 339-347 (2014)

Perceptions of Lecturers on Quality Assurance in HigherEducation Teaching and Learning Process

Thomas Buabeng Assan

North West University, South AfricaTelephone: +018 389 2550, E-mail : [email protected]

KEYWORDS Quality Assurance. Lecturers. Perceptions. Higher Education. Tertiary. South Africa

ABSTRACT This paper presents a report on investigation carried out to determine the perceptions of lecturers onquality assurance in higher education teaching and learning process. A survey study was conducted on a group oflecturers from one of the higher education institutions Campus in South Africa on their perspective on qualityassurance in teaching and learning. As the study was qualitative in nature, interview was used as the main instrumentfor data collection. The results of the study showed that perception on quality assurance according to therespondents is influenced by several factors including lecturers’ income levels, academic qualification and teachingexperience, job satisfaction, career achievement, student learning needs, students’ knowledge and experience. Thesignificance of the study was the realisation that the perception regarding concept of quality assurance is difficultto define and articulate as the quality of a product or service is concerned with the attributes and characteristicswhich suppliers and customers expect at the time of production and purchase, as well as during the life of theproduct or service.

INTRODUCTION

How do we become good teachers? Whatare we aiming for and how can we determinegood practice when we see it? Some of the an-swers to these questions have been developedfrom theory and practice in the field of educa-tion, and the standards universities set for them-selves (or those which have been set for them).However, it is often lecturers themselves whogive the best indications of not only what, butalso how they teach, and what impact this hason the students who study with them. Brown(2012) and Ingleby (2014) believe that the levelof quality as far as teaching and learning is con-cerned in higher education is largely dependentupon the university academic management’sability to focus on ensuring that all staff whoteach students are well prepared and supportedfrom the time of appointment. They further in-sists that to improve the quality of student ex-periences is largely dependent upon how en-thusiasm and interest is instilled in the teachingprocess and peer review mechanism. Harvey(2012) and Green (2014) are of the opinion thatquality in higher education is affected by theextent of employability-development opportu-nity made available to students within an insti-tution. It is therefore clear that perceptions onquality in higher education are influenced by

several variables. This study therefore intendedto establish the perception of quality among lec-turers at one South African university, whichfalls under the Higher Education sector.

Literature Review

According to Ramsden (1992), “the aim ofteaching is simple: it is to make students learn-ing possible”. According to Main (1993) andGreen (2014) many lecturers in tertiary institu-tions face challenges when it comes to deter-mine the aims and objectives of tertiary teach-ing. However, in a study conducted by Noordinkand McArthur (1996) with lecturers in Australia,the following are some of the indications of whatuniversities should be trying to achieve in termsof teaching goals and objectives; Imparting or transmission of knowledge and

techniques for solving problems Teaching how to find information, becom-

ing intellectually inquisitive; and Stimulating independent thinking and learn-

ing, reasoning, critical thinking, affectivedebate and argument.

However as noted by Main (1993) lecturersbelieve that most students remain dependentupon the lecturers for their learning and achieve-ment, for knowing facts better than underlyingprinciples, and are often lacking in marketable

340 THOMAS BUABENG ASSAN

work-related skills, such as problem-solving andteamwork. The above author often encounterslecturers who make remarks such as “as a lectur-er my job is to teach or give students the factsand notes”. The challenge to lecturers is how-ever to change this dependency to greater self-reliance, so that students develop the skills,which will enable them to control their learningactivities.

Research studies by Main (1993), Diseth(2003), Kember and Watkins (2010) as well asGreen (2014) indicate that learning activities,especially those of adults, have the followingfeatures: Learners develop different outlooks and

approaches with maturity and/or experience; Learners reveal different degrees of inde-

pendence in their learning; Learners exhibit a different amount of in-

volvement in, or different approaches to,learning tasks. The type of involvement isoften dependent upon the context in whichlearning takes place.

Quality Assurance Process in Teachingand Learning in Higher Education

How do we become good lecturers? Whatare we aiming for, and how can we determinegood practice when we see it? How is this as-sessed and evaluated? The implications ofMain’s (1993) idea on adult learning are that lec-turers have to be informed about theories ofteaching and learning. Theories of learning,which range from the behavioural to the cogni-tive, do influence teaching practices, and so theycannot be ignored.

For example, theorists such as Thorndike(1932) and Pavlov (1927) believe that throughthe association between sensation and impulse,or “classical conditioning” one can cause anyanimal or human to behave in new ways. Skin-ner’s behaviourism works on a similar principle,simply causing people to do things by shaping,reinforcement, and reward of appropriate behav-iours. Gagnè and Driscoll (1988) view instruc-tion as the “arrangement of external events toactivate and support the internal processes oflearning”.

Other theorists and practitioners such asBruner and Vygotsky see teaching as best de-livered when it involves the “opening of a door”,or simply “giving the key to open the door”,

using the techniques of action learning, prob-lem-based learning or discovery learning (En-twistle 2001).

According to Noordink and McArthur(1996), Chong and Ahmed (2012), and Green(2014), expert lecturers often claim they gothrough a continual process of the followingquality assurance process: Learning for themselves, Spending time on keeping up-to-date Wanting to share their knowledge and in-

terest in a subject, Being willing to honestly self-evaluate their

personal teaching methods and strategies Looking for better ways of teaching from

theory and research, Practicing listening to students and other

lecturers, Adapting to new situations, and feeling

confident they can cope with change, Being proud of their accomplishments, and Keeping in mind the learning needs of their

students.Besides, lecturers should be prepared to go

through a process of student and peer evalua-tion and more importantly, they should set anddevelop standards for themselves and be deter-mined to maintain these standards.

It is important to note that research studiesconducted by Entwistle and Ramsden (1983),Bennett (2004), Barnes (2007), Ingleby (2014) hasshown that student learning is influenced, amongother things, by the way lecturers teach, and theway they assess. Lecturers however, are oftenconcerned with their ability to cover the entirecurriculum in a certain time frame.

In order to know what it means to be expertlecturers, we need to be clear about the out-comes of teaching and learning. The differencebetween learning outcomes and teaching out-comes is that the former is from the perspectiveof the student and the latter from that of theteacher. According to Noordink and McArthur(1996), Kotzé and du Plessis (2003), Green (2014)teaching outcomes include increases in teacherincome; teacher learning and experience; teach-er satisfaction and pride in having completed ajob well, or shame in having done the teachingpoorly, or apathy, not caring either way; andstudent learning, which is to most lecturers, themost important outcome

Learning outcomes could be perceived asincreases in student knowledge and experience;

PERCEPTIONS ON QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 341

student freedom (in that students have morecontrol over circumstances, having more infor-mation about their environment); student be-haviour change; student problem-solving skillsin the knowledge area, and the number of occa-sions of passing, credit or higher grades in as-sessments indicate (Noordink and McArthur1996; Keup and Barefoot 2005; Ingleby 2014).

Tools for Quality Assurance Process inTertiary Teaching

Rationale for Quality Assurance inTertiary Teaching

Since the democratisation of South Africa in1994, increasing pressure has been brought tobear upon university teachers to ‘get their acttogether’ and improve their teaching methods.Several audit and external programme evalua-tion by the Higher Education Quality Council(HEQC) were conducted between 2001 and 2010.Some universities lost their accreditation statusfor several programmes due to their failure tomeet the minimum standards of the quality as-surance criteria established by the HEQC.Among the criteria for these evaluations is theteaching and learning process. University teach-ers are being increasingly held accountable forthe quality of their teaching and for the perfor-mance of their students. These pressures arealso expressed in demands for quality assurance.Apart from government, pressure has come from:

Students, who are increasingly required topay for their education, and are demanding, val-ue for their money; they are expressing theirdispleasure at the ‘product’ some of these uni-versities give by refusing to register in theseinstitutions;

The university teachers themselves, whomay be aware of their weaknesses and shortfallsin teaching practice; and External agencies thatsupport these universities in some way for whomthe products are meant.

Requirements for Quality Assurance inTertiary Teaching and Learning

Traditionally, learning was seen as a passiveacceptance of information, which needed to bedrilled into students, memorised, and merely re-turned to the teacher in exactly the same way.Cognitive scientists and educators now realisethis is not true learning; it is shallow. It is merely

regurgitation of information – rote learning with-out understanding. The theory of constructiv-ism asserts that students are capable of takinginformation and structuring it in personally mean-ingful ways. Learners learn best when they areallowed to link their old learning with the newand allowed to develop their own mental modelsof the way they perceive this new information,and its place in their perceived world (Noordinkand McArthur1996; Pang and Marton 2009). Oneresearch Study (Academic and Research 1996)suggests that most academics hold the view thatit is difficult to teach a critical approach to themajority of the university students, because theycome from a ‘banking’ notion of education. Theirbackground at school is one in which they re-gurgitate facts from their teacher expert and it isextremely difficult to adopt a different intellectu-al attitude. Most students do not appreciate anew way of learning, but want ‘special treat-ment’ for their disadvantaged background. Thesituation however shows a reflection of the poorschooling and associated lacunae such as theabsence of a culture of reading, and inability tostudy independently, all of which impact on thequality teaching and learning process. The goalsand outcomes which lecturers set are perceivedas important for students undoubtedly drive thedirection and extent to which they encouragethe learning processes of students. Lecturersalso need to determine the extent to which thestudents share the same goals and perceptions.Furthermore, university lecturers need to reflecton how learning and teaching outcomes relateto the quality assurance movement which is cur-rently playing such a significant role in tertiaryeducation. Excellent lecturers at tertiary institu-tions consider the quality of teaching and learn-ing as imperative, and have set high standardsand goals for themselves with regard to theiroutcomes.

The quality, of a product or service, is con-cerned with the attributes and characteristicswhich customers expect at the time of purchase,and during the life of the product or service (Marxand van Aswegen 1987; Harvey 2012; Green2014). In the case of tertiary education, studentsare often seen as the ‘customers’ of tertiary ed-ucation especially now that they have to paytowards the education they receive. Quality,then, is the value that they place upon the worthof the subject, and the ability of the universityto provide them with an education, which they


can use in later life. Students also see immediatequality as the ability of the teacher to providethem with services such as strategies for learn-ing, the provision of teaching which ensuresthe acquisition of knowledge and skills, suffi-cient and helpful feedback on their assignments,and lecturers being available for consultationon student problems.

The Relationship Between Quality EducationProvision and Quality Assurance Standards Setby the Government

Quality assurance is an ‘enabling device’helping us to achieve high standards, rather thansimply being an imposition. Quality itself is dif-ficult to define and articulate (Harvey and Green1993; Noordink and McArthur, 1996; Harvey2012; Green 2014). It is like terms such as ‘liberty’,‘freedom’, and ‘justice’ – all value-laden terms,which most of us would say are valuable quali-ties to strive for in our society. According toNoordink and McArthur (1996) as well as Mar-tins et al. (2013) the distinct definitional catego-ries of the term ‘quality’ may be classified as fol-lows:.

Fitness for Purpose – judged in terms of aproduct or service being able to do the job itwas designed or set up for. For example, are theproducts from the University the kind that ev-ery employer will hope for?

Value for Money – the popular view wherewe receive a high standard product or servicefor a price we can afford. For example, studentswill demand that, modules have lecturers at alltimes and that academic support is accessibleand user-friendly. Assessment and evaluationprocesses are transparent and understandable.

Transformative – where a personal quality istransformed into something of a higher order,similar to ice being transformed into water, whichis again transformed into steam. For example,the question one may ask is, to what extent isthe teaching /learning process in the universityTransformative? Are the lecturers, lawyers orbusiness graduates we purport to train transfor-mative enough? This is a question for the publicto answer.

Exceptionality – the traditional notion of qual-ity is distinctive, a view of quality as excellence orexceeding very high standards and exceptional, orexceeding a set of minimum standards. For exam-ple how exceptional are our graduates such thatthey are different from other graduates in one wayor another?. or how attractive are the university

programmes? do they address the needs of thecommunity or the needs of lecturers?

Perfection – Having zero defects and get-ting things right the first time. To what extent arewe perfect in our delivery? How marketable arethe university programmes? Do they addressthe needs of the society?

Research Questions

This study focused on the perceptions oflecturers from one University Campus in SouthAfrica regarding the issue of quality in teachingand learning. The following questions guidedthe study:

How do lecturers’ at university relate qualityin teaching and learning processes and why?

What are the goals lecturers have set forthemselves in terms of quality assurance in teach-ing and learning?

What are the areas lecturers can work on toassure quality in teaching and learning?

RESEARCH METHODS

The participants were lecturers from twoFaculties. Twenty (20) academic staff members(six females and 14 males), whose ranks werelecturers, senior lecturers and professors, werechosen randomly. Purposive sampling was alsoincluded to ensure equity in gender representa-tion. As the study was qualitative in nature, in-terviews were the main instrument for data col-lection. This approach ensured that in-depth datawere collected from participants to determinetheir perspective on what issues constitute qual-ity teaching and learning. The interview ques-tions were limited to the main themes in the re-search questions and each interview lastedabout an hour. Data collection lasted about threemonths and took place mainly in the respon-dents’ offices.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Responses were analysed using contentanalysis techniques under the following themesas reflected in the research problems.

Relating Quality Assurance to Teachingand Learning

From research question one it may well meanthat what the teacher delivers and how the teacherdelivers is of considerable concern to the learn-


er – whether the customer is the student or theemployer. To be committed to a quality productis to be committed to all the processes, whichwill ensure that the product is of a high standardall the times. Therefore it is incumbent upon theuniversity teacher to be ever mindful of the pro-cesses which will assure everyone that the qual-ity – whatever the attributes may be – is the bestavailable. Both lecturers and students were ofthe opinion that quality in teaching and learningmeans setting high standards, creating expecta-tions of quality through actual performance andnot compromising these standards. Researchstudies have shown (Naidu and Bernard 1992;Rafi and Karagiannis 2013; Ingleby 2014) thatwhen students are assisted to structure theirown concept maps of topics and subjects, theirunderstanding and learning improves.

Goals for Teaching and Learning

The participants believe that planning whichinclude certain goals or objectives is necessaryfor enhancing quality teaching and learning.Learning objectives are therefore imperative whiledevising instructional strategies, which will en-able students to acquire the knowledge and skills,required by their discipline. Brown and Atkin(1991) have listed three main goals for teachingthrough tutorials. These goals have been reiter-ated over the years by other researchers includ-ing Rafi and Karagiannis (2013) as well as Itua etal. (2014). These goals include the following:

Development of Communication Skills –learning cannot take place unless the learner isable to listen, explain, question, and respondeffectively. Students can be effectively encour-aged to develop these communication skillsthrough tutorials than lectures. This was shownby research at a former Historically Disadvan-taged University in South Africa, (Academic andResearch 1996). This study confirms the find-ings of Academic and Research when over 70%of the lecturers interviewed were of the opinionthat the need for students’ empowerment wasimportant:

Students have to gain confidence, and at-tain a level of competence which will make themsay what they want to say in a manner that willbe completely comprehensible, logical andmeaningful.”

Development of Intellectual and ProfessionalSkills – for the student to develop any sem-blance of competence, he or she needs to usethe information gathered in lectures and fromreadings to solve problems. This is undoubted-ly the singularly most important goal of tutori-als. If students are not given this opportunity, itis doubtful they will gain what they need to passthe unit successfully. A catalogue of competen-cy skills required in student development waslisted by lecturers as follows: Solving problems effectively Questioning skills Logical reasoning Evaluating evidence or data Determining relationships between concepts Transferring knowledge and skills to new

contexts Synthesising information into a coherent

whole Analysis of information Determining gaps and inconsistencies in

information Searching for information to fill those gaps Identifying and proposing solutions Designing useful objects or projects Arguing rationally

This list confirms what Noordink andMcArthur (1996) term as the Taxonomy of Cre-ative and Critical Thinking Skills in teaching andlearning process. According to Martins et al.(2013), the taxonomy consists of learning andteaching outcomes which in the view of theseauthors, symbolises quality assurance tools.

Personal Growth of Students – most of thelecturers interviewed believed that students willlearn team skills, which are definitely required inlater professional life, if given the opportunityto interact with others. The study establishedthat Personal Skill development involves: confidence in working with others reflective skills in understanding their reac-

tions to others, and how others react to them an understanding of their own leadership

potential; an understanding of the sorts of roles they

best fit into while working in teams on as-signed tasks and projects. These findingsare in line with Steele and Ashworth (2013)as well as Green (2014) who agree that ef-fective learning and teaching require thelearner to have developed a repertoire ofskills which would facilitate achievement.


Challenges Relating to the Implementationof Quality Assurance Mechanism inTeaching and Learning Process

The study established the following chal-lenges in managing the quality assurance pro-cess as presented by all participants:

Operational – There might be conflicts aboutpresentation techniques. In the studies conduct-ed at one University Campus in South Africa(Academic and Research 1996), it was noted thatthe presentation techniques in South Africanuniversities appear to differ from those in someother countries. In general most universitiesemphasise the lecture method above other teach-ing methods. For example more material is gen-erally covered by the lecturer and less is left tothe student to pursue in independent reading,whereas in the UK for example, at most universi-ties one lecture per week per subject is com-bined with a longer seminar or tutorial period.With the changing face of education delivery inSouth Africa, this operational problem shouldnot pose an obstacle to improving quality teach-ing and learning. If university teachers are unan-imous on Noordink and McArthur’s (1996) tax-onomy of Critical Thinking and Student Devel-opment as well as the model suggested, thenthere is common ground in alleviating the prob-lem of operational techniques (Martins et al.2013).

Administrative: Teachers have administra-tive demands at odds with teaching activities.Most lecturers are involved in matters of an ad-ministrative nature in their departments whichdemand a fair amount of time which may detractfrom the time allocated for tutorials (Academicand Research 1996).

One way to address this issue is to sharecourses and topics within Departments andamong lecturers. This gives enough opportuni-ty and time for academic staff to plan well fortheir teaching and also attend to administrativeduties (Chmielecka 2014).

Availability of Adequate Resources: Roomsand special tutoring facilities. In certain academicdepartments for example, facilities for seminarand tutorials are very scarce, nevertheless,through group processes, students get chanc-es to attend weekly tutorials/seminars.

High Student-Lecturer Ratios: With largeratios however, the group process could be uti-

lised whereby under the circumstances at leasteach group could have a tutorial at least once infour weeks depending on total enrolment for thecourse. In between students are given problemsolving oriented tasks for the group (Ramsden1991; Keup and Barefoot 2005; Martins et al.2013).

Workloads: Teachers may also be requiredor wish to conduct research or consulting activ-ities. This is a genuine problem where with 10 ormore courses to teach a lecturer is expected toconduct research or perform consulting activi-ties. The pressure on lecturers to conduct re-search has been intense. But effectively utilised,the tutorial model suggested above could alsoform the basis for research, especially action re-search, whereby one could utilise the results toimprove the teaching learning process. Angeloand Cross (1993) as well as Chmielecka (2014)are of the opinion that we can improve uponlearning and teaching if we research what hap-pens to students as a results of the university’sexperience (outcome).

New techniques may be considered ‘faddish’and are therefore scorned. Obviously attitudeto change has not been positive especially whereold practices have to give way to new ones. Oneway to overcome resistance to change is to getpeople well informed about the change, throughseminars, workshops and some form of motiva-tion in the form of recognition and reward forachievement (Ramsden 1991; Keup and Bare-foot 2005; Martins et al. 2013).

Nevertheless all these problems affect cus-tomer satisfaction, and it is the responsibility ofthe teacher to ensure these barriers are mini-mised. There are obviously numerous ways tohelp students learn. However it is essential that,as in preparing for lectures, the lecturer consid-ers what the prime focus of the tuition shouldbe. Learning objectives are imperative while de-vising instructional strategies, which will enablestudents to acquire the knowledge and skills,required by their discipline.

The model as shown in Figure 1 has threebasic aspects. Firstly, it defines the interperson-al relationship between teacher and learner asdescribed by Vygotsky zone of proximal devel-opment (Leibowitz et al. 1997) This zone or bridgebetween the familiar and the unfamiliar definesthe gap between the teacher’s knowledge of thesubject and the various levels of students’ un-


derstandings of the subject. The teacher’s roleis that of a mediator or facilitator who enableslearning through the processes of mediatedlearning experience. Intentionality and reciproc-ity determine the quality of mediated learning.Deep approaches to learning are outcomes ofcourses in which the different parts of the pro-cess shift towards the italicised direction of thecontinuum at each part (Ramsden 1991; Keupand Barefoot 2005).

The second aspect is that in deeper learningthe primary interpersonal relationship betweenlecturer and student is shaped and influencedby lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learn-ers’ perceptions of the teaching and learningcontexts of the course.

Thirdly, the model shows that approachesto learning and hence the quality of the teach-ing and learning process emerge from the sys-tematic interaction of different variables at eachphase of the cycle.

Left of the axis represents tutor-centredness.At the extreme, this means that the tutor does

everything, including dominating the tutorialwith a one-way flow of communication in a mono-cratic style. Dominance in a problem-solvingtutorial can vary greatly. If students are givenfree reign to discover the solutions to problemstogether, it would be much more student thantutor dominated. Dominance refers to theamount of time spent talking by lecturer or stu-dent (Rafi and Karagiannis 2013).

CONCLUSION

This paper examines the lecturers’ percep-tions on quality teaching and learning. The pa-per examined in detail the literature on quality inhigher education. The findings this study sug-gest that the concept of quality in teaching andlearning extends beyond passing or failing testsand/or examinations. Quality in educational pro-vision involves a process which at the end al-lows the student to create a meaningful exist-ence and add to the wellbeing of the entire soci-ety. The study further suggested a model or an

Fig. 1. Transformative dimensions of the tutorial model

CONCEPTION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

FACILITATION

STRUCTURE

CONNECTEDPROCESS

OUTCOME

CS

PROBLEM SOLVING

DEEP

MEDIATION

ACTIVE

STUDENT-CENTRED DEMOCRATIC)

ZONE OFPROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT

LEARNERPERCEPTION OF CONTEXT

DIALOGICAL

PS

TUTOR-CENTRED(MONOCRATIC)

PASSIVE

RECALL

NONOLOGIAL

SURFACE

FACTUAL

CONTENT

FRAGMENTEDPRODUCT

TRANSMISSION

UNDERSTANDING


approached based on transformative tutorialsystem as a teaching and learning tool to en-hance quality in the University.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the study clearly indicate theneed to enhance quality assurance process inteaching and learning in higher education. Thefollowing recommendation would therefore pro-vide the point of departure for enhancing quali-ty teaching and learning:

The Tutorial as a Model for ImprovingQuality in Teaching Learning Process

i. If quality is about the subjective and ob-jective attributes of a product or service whichsatisfy customers’ expectations and perceptionsat the moment of service delivery and during thelifetime of the useable life of the product or ser-vice, then how does this notion affect tertiaryteachers in improving their teaching/learningprocesses? As mentioned above, good teach-ers continually reflect on their teaching meth-ods to determine whether they are having thedesired effect: quality learning. Approaches tolearning are thus context-dependent and influ-enced by the ways in which courses are de-signed, taught and assessed Research studieshave confirmed the critical importance to effec-tive learning of teaching methods which pro-mote student enterprise, student autonomy andco-operative endeavour. A need for a transfor-mative concept of quality is necessary to facili-tate deep approaches to learning (Fig. 1).

L – Means that a lecture may be structuredor unstructured, but is usually 90 – 100% lectur-er dominated

CS – Case study- more student-dominated,and relatively structured

PS – problem-solving class, usually very wellstructured, but equally dominated by tutor andstudents

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study focused on one particular higherinstitution campus in South Africa and the re-sults could not be generalised within the highereducation arena. Nevertheless lessons from thestudy could serve as basis for further studies.Besides the research did not cover students and

the results mainly expressed the views of thelecturers on teaching and learning process.

REFERENCES

Angelo TA, Cross PK 1993 Classroom AssessmentTechniques: A Handbook for College Lecturers. 2nd

Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Academics and Research 1996. A Report on Interviews

Conducted at the University of Bophuthatswana byEducation Policy Unit of the University of WesternCape.

Barnes BR 2007. Analysing service quality: The caseof post graduate Chinese students. Total QualityManagement and Business Excellence, 18(3/4): 313-331.

Bennett R 2004. Students’ motives for enrolling onbusiness degrees in a post 1992 university. The Inter-national Journal of Educational Management,18(1): 25-36.

Brown G, Atkins M 1991. Effective Teaching in HigherEducation. London: Routledge.

Brown S 2012. Managing change in universities: A Si-syphean task? Quality in Higher Education, 18(1):139-146.

Chmielecka E 2014. Academic values and the proce-dures of quality assurance. In: H Eggins (Ed.): Driv-ers and Barriers to Achieving Quality in Higher Ed-ucation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Life LongLearning Programme, pp. 43–54.

Chong YS, Ahmed PK 2012. An empirical investiga-tion of students’ motivational impact upon univer-sity service quality perception: A self-determinationperspective. Quality in Higher Education, 18(1):35-57.

Diseth A 2003. Personality and approaches to learningas predictors of academic achievement. EuropeanJournal of Personality, 17: 143-155.

Entwistle NJ, Ramsden DC 1983. Understanding Stu-dent Learning. London: Croom Helm.

Entwistle NJ 2001. Styles of learning and approachesto studying in higher education. Learning Styles inHigher Education, 30(5-6): 593-602.

Gagnè RM, Driscoll MP 1988. Essentials of Learningfor Instruction. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.

Green P 2014. Measuring service quality in higher ed-ucation: A South African case study. Journal of In-ternational Education Research, 10(2): 131-142.

Harvey L, Green D 1993. Defining quality. Assessmentand Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1): 9-30.

Harvey L 2012. Defining and measuring employabili-ty. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2): 97-109.

Ingleby E 2014. Selected student and tutor perceptionsof ICTs in further and higher education. Journal ofFurther and Higher Education, 38(3): 387-304.

Itua I, Coffey M, Merryweather D, Norton L, Fox-croft A 2014. Exploring barriers and solutions toacademic writing: Perspectives from students, high-er education and further education. Journal of Fur-ther and Higher Education, 38(3): 305-326.

Kember D, Watkins D 2010. Approaches to learningand teaching by the Chinese. In: MH Bond (Ed.):The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 169-185.


Keup JR, Barefoot BO 2005. Learning how to be asuccessful student: Exploring the impact of first-year seminars on student outcomes. Journal of theFirst-Year Experience and Student in Transition,17(1): 11-47.

Kotzé TG, du Plesis PJ 2003. Students as “co-produc-ers” of education: A proposed model of student so-cialization and participation at tertiary institutions.Quality Assurance in Education, 11(4): 186-201.

Leibowitz B, Mabizela M, Naidoo M 1997. TeachingWriting for Professional Development. Academicdevelopment, 3(1): 77- 96.

Main A 1993. The Development of Preparation Cours-es for New Academic Staff. Canberra: AGPS.

Martins HDS, Loureiro SMC, Amorim MPC 2013.Quality and sustainability in higher education insti-tutions: Key factors. International Journal of Man-agement Cases (IJMC), 15(4): 315-330.

Marx FW, Van Aswegen PJ 1987. Business Economics:A Short Survey. Pretoria: Educational Publishers.

Naidu S, Bernard RM 1992. Enhancing academic per-formance in distance education with concept map-ping and inserted questions. Distance Education,13(2): 218-233.

Noordink P, McArthur J 1996. Teaching Practice. Lec-turing Practice and Techniques, Book 1 and 2.Queensland: University of Southern Queensland.

Pang MF, Marton F 2009. Variation theory: The rela-tionship between learner’s autonomy and teacher’s scaf-folding. Journal of Educational Studies, 3: 22-35.

Pavlov IP 1927. Conditioned Reflexes: An Investiga-tion of the Physiological Activity of the CerebralCortex: Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ramsden P 1991. Performance indicator of teachingquality in higher education. Studies in Higher Edu-cation, 16: 129-150.

Ramsden P 1992. Learning to Teach in Higher Educa-tion. London: Routledge.

Rafi F, Karagiannis N 2013. A comparative study ofAfrican-American males vs females at a minorityinstitute of higher learning and the role of supple-mentary instruction. Journal of Peer Learning, 6(1):1-11.

Steele A, Ashworth EL 2013. Walking the integrationtalk: An artsci project. The Canadian Journal forthe Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2):12-31.

Thorndike E 1932. The Fundamentals of Learning.New York: Teachers College Press.

Documents

Perceptions of Lecturers on Quality Assurance in Higher ... · PDF fileEducation Teaching and Learning Process ... quality assurance in higher education teaching and learning process