QUALITY CONTROL MECHANISMS AS DETERMINANTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTH EAST, NIGERIA

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00006931

No of Pages: 182

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦5000

  • $

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1    Background to the Study

1.2     Statement of the Problem         

1.3     Purpose of the Study

1.4         Research Questions

1.5     Hypotheses       

1. 6    Significance of the Study

1.6     Scope of the Study

 

CHARPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITTERATURE

2.1     Conceptual Framework

2.1.1  Concept of Quality

2.1.1.1   Quality of Input Resources

2.1.1.2           Quality of Output

2.1.1.3         Quality of Content

2.1.1.4   Quality of Process

2.1.2  Quality Control Mechanism in the University Education

2.1.2.1 Internal Mechanisms of Quality Control

2.1.2.2   External Mechanisms of Quality Control

2.1.3  Concept of Sustainable Development

2.1.3.1 Indicator of Sustainable Development in the Universities

2.1.3.1.1 The Pedagogical Indicator

2.1.3.1. 2.  The Social and Organizational Indicators

2.1.3.1.3          The Environmental Indicators

2.1.4    Adequacy of Human Resource and Sustainable Development

2.1.5   Material Resources and Sustainable Development

2.1.6  Policy Implementation and Sustainable Development

2.1.7 Funding and Sustainable Development

2.1.8  Academic Regulation and Sustainable Development 

2.1.9 Record Keeping and Sustainable Development

2.1.10  Input Monitoring and Sustainable Development

2.1.11 Input Evaluation and Sustainable Development

2.2     Theoretical Framework

2.2.1 Scientific Management Theory (Frederick Winslow Taylor, 1947)

2.2.2  Systems Theory (Karl Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, 1950)

2.2.3  Deming Theory (Edward W. Deming, 1951)

2.3     Empirical Studies

2.4     Summary Of Review Of Related Literature

 

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1     Design of the Study

3.2     Area of the Study

3.3     Population of the Study

3.4     Sample and Sampling Techniques

3.5     Instrument for Data Collection

3.6     Validation of the Instruments

3.7     Reliability of the Instruments

3.8     Method of Data Collection

3.7     Method of Data Analysis

 

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSION

4.1     Results

4.2     Summary of the Findings

4.3     Discussion of Findings

 

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.2     Conclusion

5.3     Educational Implication of the Study

5.4     Recommendations        

5.5     Limitations of the Study

5.6     Suggestions for Further Research

References

Appendix A:   Quality Control Mechanisms and Sustainable Development of University Education Questionnaire (QCMSDUE) And University Education Sustainable Development Questionnaire (UESDQ)

Appendix B:   Federal Government of Nigeria Allocation to Education

Appendix C:   Deming Cycle: Adapted From Flevy

Appendix D:   Population Distribution of Academic and Non-Academic Staff In Universities in South East Nigeria

Appendix E:   Sample Distribution of Respondents

Appendix F:    Reliability Test Statistic

Appendix G:   Data Analysis

Appendix H:   Map of Nigeria Indicating South East:

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table1:      Extent of relationship between human resources and sustainable development

in universities South East Nigeria.

 

Table 2:     Linear Regression Analysis of Correlation between adequacies of human resources and sustainable development universities

 

Table 3:     Extent of relationship between material resources and sustainable

development in universities South East Nigeria.

 

Table 4:     Linear Regression on Analysis of Correlation between adequacy of material resources and sustainable development universities

 

Table 5:     Extent of relationship between policy implementation and sustainable

development in universities South East Nigeria.

 

Table 6:     Linear Regression Analysis of Correlation between Policy implementation and

sustainable development in universities

 

Table 7:     Extent of relationship between funding and sustainable development in

universities South East Nigeria.

 

Table 8:     Regression analysis of correlation between funding and sustainable

development in the  universities.

 

Table 9:     Extent of relationship between academic regulation and sustainable

development in universities South East Nigeria.

 

Table 10:   Regression Analysis of Correlation between implementation of academic

regulation and sustainable development in universities

 

Table 11:   Extent of relationship between record keeping and sustainable development

in universities South East Nigeria.

 

Table 12:   Linear Regression Analysis of Correlation between Records’ keeping and

sustainable development in universities.

 

Table 13:   Extent of relationship between input monitoring and sustainable development

in universities South East Nigeria.

 

Table 14:   Linear Regression Analysis of Correlation between inputs monitoring  and

sustainable development in universities

 

Table 15:   Extent of Relationship between input evaluations and sustainable

development in   universities South East Nigeria.

 

Table 16:   Linear Regression Analysis of Correlation between inputs evaluation and

sustainable development in universities.

 

Table 17:   Relationship among Quality control mechanisms (human resources, material

resources, policy implementation, funding, academic regulation, record-keeping, input-monitoring, inputs-evaluation) And Sustainable Development of public universities in South-East, Nigeria.

 

Table 17:   Multiple regression on quality control mechanisms (human resources, material resources, policy implementation, funding, academic regulation, record-keeping, input-monitoring, inputs-evaluation) and sustainable development in public universities in South-East Nigeria.

 

Table 18:   Relative contribution of quality control mechanisms (human resources, material resources, policy implementation, funding, academic regulation, record keeping, input-monitoring, inputs-evaluation and sustainable development in public universities South-East Nigeria.

 

                                             

 

 

                                                       CHAPTER 1

                                                     INTRODUCTION

1.1      BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Education is the fundamental catalyst that brings improvement of an individual and the general public. Internationally, it is acknowledged that education is a procedure which encourages development of person physically, mentally, ethically, politically, socially and mechanically to prepare him to work in any condition he gets himself (Ikediugwu, 2015). Obunadike and Uzoechina (2015) confirmed that education is a procedure of shaping an individual's behavior for adequate adjustment in the society. The Federal Government of Nigeria (2014) received it as a pathway to the future and the upholder of national development. This is the reason in the National policy on Education, the Federal Government emphasized that education is an instrument for perfection through which practical national improvement can be accomplished (FRN, 2014). Education assumes a crucial job in the advancement of human capital and is connected with a person's prosperity and open doors for better living (Oginni, Awobodu, Alaka & Saibu, 2013). In view of the above, the acquisition of education, most especially university education, is essentially important and useful to man. In line with this knowledge, the enrollment rate skyrocketed and this made Nigerian government to establish several universities, as well as licensing the establishment of state and private universities.

However, endeavours to extend enrolment and improve educational quality are seriously restrained by the shortage of qualified human and material resources, policy implementation, funding, academic regulations, record keeping, input monitoring and input evaluationThe decrease in the quality of Nigeria's university education can be derived from the report of web metric world ranking of university (2014) which stated that, no Nigerian University (public or private) positioned among the initial 24 universities in Africa and among the initial 1, 600 on the world web metric world positioning of universities. Recently, only one of Nigeria’s universities is currently listed among the top in international university rankings, which is University of Ibadan at 1,076 positions in the world ranking (web metric world ranking of universities, 2018) while University of Nigeria Nssukka was ranked 2189. In as much as one cannot be outright about the quality strategy utilized on world ranking of universities, it anyway shows a pattern of relative qualities among nations. From the ranking, clearly the quality of university education in Nigeria is on the decay. The condition seems disturbing when seen alongside that Nigeria was previously the core spot of university education in the West African sub-region, and surely in Africa. The point of view of the justification behind the establishment of university education in Nigeria among others is to teach quality learning with intended result.

Quality can be interpreted as meaning that the output adjusts to standard, specifications or details (Babalola, Adedeji & Erwat, 2007).  Fadokun (2011) in his opinion defined quality as the standard of a happening when it is contrasted with other comparable things; how positive or negative something is or to be of a high standard. In the context of education, quality is associated with the monitoring and evaluation of the components of education to see whether the outcome is good and of the intended standard. Similarly, Oladipo, Adeosun and Oni (2009) have asserted that quality in education is the capacity or degree with which an educational system complies with built up standard and appropriateness. Similarly, Longe in Ebuara (2014) asserted that the quality of education includes the learning environment (process) and the student’s outcomes. In order to adjudge quality of Nigerian universities, government rolled out quality control mechanisms to maintain sustainability.

These mechanisms already existing in schools are contained under the criteria for certifying a degree programme, as a policy, in relevant areas of the National Universities Commission (NUC) (2012) manual of accreditation methods for academic projects in Nigerian universities. It is believed that when these mechanisms are properly implemented in the institutions, they would bring about quality and thereby lead to high standard of university education in the country.  University education is grouped into public and private universities. Public funded university are those university owned by the government (state or federal government) and are funded by government. Private universities are owned, funded and overseen by private bodies (Okebukola, 2011). National Universities Commission (NUC) regulates these universities with laid down procedures and mechanisms. The implementation of the procedure and mechanisms of quality seems to differ among universities and this significantly ascertains the quality of learning for sustainable development in the universities that this study seeks to identify.  University education quality control is a multidimensional idea, which grasps all functions, activities, educating and academic programmes, research, scholarships, capacity building, staffing, students, facilities and services to community and academic environment. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO, 2005) observed that quality control is one of the utmost concerns in education discourse everywhere in the world. The absence of this proactive strategic thinking has created bottlenecks in the system resulting to over-crowding which overstretched the facilities available. This will invariably influence the quality of product from our universities. Vlasceanu, Grunberg, and Parlea (2009) opined that quality Control is the process of quality evaluation that focuses on the internal measurement of the quality of an institution or a programme. Quality Control is a process undertaken to guarantee that the standards and goals of an operation are both realistic and met. The procedure helps in recognizing the defects in the product and removing them so that the product will cling to the quality standard defined by the organization. Gurus (2011) defined quality control as the operational techniques and actions utilized to accomplish requirements for quality. It adds that quality control is the procedure required inside the system to guarantee job management, capability and performance during the manufacturing of the products or services to guarantee it meets the quality arrangement as structured.

When it applies to university education, quality control means the mechanism by which the university education of a nation ensures that the services it delivers or intends to deliver serve the purpose for which they are intended. Quality control centers on the means by which an educational system ensures that the services it provided remain relevant and appropriate to the requirements of the society. Sharing in this opinion, Ajayi and Akindutire (2015) identified quality control in the university system to imply the capacity of the institutions to meet the expectations of the users of workforce in relation to quality of competence acquired by their outputs. Quality control therefore, involves series of operational techniques and activities, which include all actions taken so that requirements for qualities are met. Furthermore, quality control in the university education can be the capacity of the university to meet certain criteria relating to academic issues, staff-students ratio, staff mix by rank, staff improvement, physical facilities, funding, adequate library facilities, input monitoring, and input evaluation. In order to ensure quality in university educational system, internal or external measures and policies are to be set up for ensuring that universities are fulfilling their own purposes as well as maintenance of standards that apply to higher institutions in general or to the profession or discipline in particular. Alele–Williams (2014) defined quality control in any educational institution as that which indicates the pre-eminence and special features that make the institution’s product distinct from other forms of institutions.  

Quality control is the key segment of effective internationalization measures for building institutional reputation in a competitive local and global field and vital foundation for consumer's security (NUC,2011). Nigeria being one of the developing countries and undoubtedly the biggest populated African country, it is essential that more high level man power be developed by imbibing strict quality control measures. It is against this background that the NUC (2012) identified the following measures for quality control in Nigeria educational system to save the terrible condition. The mechanisms are moderation of examination, in- service professional development given to career academics, proper funding of education, supervision and inspection, infrastructural evaluation, monitoring and regular evaluation of the system among others in Nigeria educational system (NUC, 2012). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (2005) observed that quality control is one of the uppermost concerns in educational discussion all over the whole world. Nigerian university system has also evolved some quality control mechanism bodies; some are internal whereas others are external bodies statutorily established to ensure that the quality of university education is maintained (Oderinde, 2010). Quality of products from our universities with the view to attain sustainable development can be achieved by adopting different quality control mechanisms such as adequate human resources, adequate material resources, implementation of policy, adequate educational funding, academic regulation, record keeping, input monitoring and input evaluation. In the opinion of the researcher, failing to imbibe quality control measures in university education and any formal institutions is compared to someone going on a journey without direction.

The mechanisms for maintaining academic quality starts with the set of requirements for admission aimed at ensuring that only the best candidates with requisite qualifications enrolled as freshmen into the universities. Alele–Williams (2014) stated that quality is controlled through scrutiny at registration in the departments and faculties, establishment of fresh programmes also follows a strict internal process by which proposals originate from the departments are scrutinized by the faculty boards and then considered by senate. University academic departments are expected to conduct annual end of year programme review to determine how effectively a programme has achieved its stated aims, and the extent to which students have been successful in attaining the intended learning outcomes (NUC, 2012). This would involve members of a programme appraising its performance. The process may take into account reports from external examiners, staff and student feedback, reports from NUC and any professional body that accredited the programme, as well as feedback from ex-students and their employers. This can be viewed from the assertion from University of Aberdeen (2010) that quality control is how a university determines the management of its teaching, learning and assessment activities is effective as designed and intended; and to verify that such exercises are completed acceptably, feedback systems should be involved. Nigeria university education is poor in terms of sustainability, which is linked to lack of stringent planning and to the political vagaries of the day (Ekeh, 2010). The sustainability of university education development may be said to depend on the quality control mechanism.

Sustainable development in university education is that which addresses the concern of now without jeopardizing the existence of it in future. Sustainable development could presumably be called equitable and balanced, implying that for development to persist inconclusively, it ought to cover the interests of all groups that are within a generation and among generations, and do so concurrently in three major interconnected areas: economic, social, and environmental (ULSF, 2012). Therefore, sustainable development is about equity, defined as uniformity of chances for prosperity, about comprehensiveness of objectives. Sustainable development is multi-facetted and conceptualized as the development that meets the need of the present generation without trading off the capacity of future generations to meet their needs (Brundtland in Perez-Carmona, 2013). Sustainable development of university education is about signs of better quality of university system rather than worse. The key is to use the available quality control mechanism to realize sustainable development now and future of the universities. It should be done in such a way that nothing is wasted, that everything is developing sustainably. Papadimitriou (2010) classified indicators for sustainable development of schools into three general domains of organization: the pedagogic (educational modules, school culture, instructing and learning process), social (association, organization, relations with the community and different bodies) and the environmental- economic (school environment, structures and yard). However, for achievement of sustainable development in the university the following quality control measures has to be in place: human resources, material resources, policy implementation, record keeping, funding, academic regulation, input monitoring and input evaluation.

Human resources are the most important resource out of the resources required for the sustainable development of university education system. Human resources in the universities educational system is classified into academic and non-academic staff (Ekundayo and Alonge, 2013).  Onah (2009) stated that human resources are the solution to rapid socio-economic development and resourceful service delivery. Every educational system at every level depends greatly on human resources for carrying out of its programme. Nwaka and Ofojebe (2010) expressed that teachers are the basic assets for successful execution and acknowledgment of the educational strategies and objectives at the practical level of classroom. A manager, regardless of sector who underestimates the basic task and underplays the significance of individuals in objective accomplishment, can neither be effectual nor proficient (Oduma, 2012). Ukpebi and Enukoha (2012) regretted that some academic staff that are vital in university education, are so immersed in their research activities to the detriments of their teaching job. The authors also noted that under the pretense of academic freedom, lecturers divide their attention by teaching in many institutions. Fadipe (2010) stated that some lecturers pay inadequate attention to details when they go for lectures because of their divided loyalty. This among others may have also affected the sustainability of university education. The quality of human resources in university education is very imperative for sustenance of any meaningful development. By this concrete perception, the highlight on quality control is the training of workers to improve their performance in job places. Human resource quality control indices for sustainable university development includes; entry qualifications, values, pedagogic skills, and professional preparedness. Availability of the outlined indices in the human resources enables the managers of education to utilize the available material resources for the quality of university education. 

The aspect of accessibility of material resources is another significant factor in quality control in university education. Asiabaka (2008) defined material resources as facilities provided for staff and students to upgrade their productivity in teaching and learning. Material resources includes the building (classrooms, libraries, laboratories, offices), machines, workbenches, equipment, tools, consumable items, and other support physical resources for teaching and research which the instructor/teacher manipulates in order to cause learning to occur. Amadi (2014) also defined material resources as any medium, place, event/activities and others which the teacher can resort to, adopt or apply to facilitate teaching and learning. Material resources seem to be in short supply in Nigerian universities, which may have affected the entire system ranging from examination malpractices to strike action among others. Ndifon and Ndifon (2012) identified the following as cause of examination malpractice, which may have limited sustainable development in university education in Nigeria: shortage of facilities such as classroom, hostels, recreation facilities, supply of electricity, lack of good libraries and books, lack of adequate teaching and non-teaching work force. Inyang-Abia (2013) concurred by stating that the school environment supports teaching-learning activities by providing facilities, space and materials for sustainable development. A stimulating school environment is one with adequate classrooms sitting arrangements with proper visual and audiovisual equipment to enhance the understanding of the learner in tune with educational policies.

Policy is an anticipated program of activity, which indicates objectives, qualities and practices of an educational system (Udida, 2010).  She further stated that, it is a statement, that manages and coordinates all activities at accomplishing sustainable developments through the educational line or sector. Execution of educational policies and programmes as a quality control measure has to be ensured and this is supported by Peretomode in Udida (2010) that the acknowledgment of  organisational objectives in the school system depends on good administrative skills. Unfortunately, educational strategy in Nigeria have been more or less characterized by controversies of implementation or missing link (Adeoti, 2015). Thus, improper implementation of educational policies and programmes of activity seems to constitute some of the factors that have impeded sustainable development and proper realization of standards in our university education. Imam (2012) opined that no matter how perfect an educational policy is on paper, the implementation is fraught with problems. Madike in Adeoti (2015) partly attributed the problem to external imposition of educational policies to the teachers and learners, who ordinarily should have contributed to the policymaking. To encourage the quality of products in university education for sustainable development, there is requirement for the arrangement of observing, co-appointment, supervision and assessment machineries, which will fill in as a follow up to an arranged strategy regardless of the inherent advantage of quality education, fund has been claimed to be a key issue militating against its contribution to educational development.

Funding of education in Nigeria has left much to be desired and this has greatly jeopardized the achievement of educational goals. However, the degree to which this determines sustainable development of university education is yet to be empirically ascertained. Nigeria education has continued to be starved of funds for efficient running of their programmes by successive government since 1975 (Ukpabi and Enukoha, 2012). According to Fagge (2013) Nigeria still spends less than 20 percent of her annual budget on education despite the large population of school age children while other countries are investing about 28-30 percent of their annual budget on education. A case in point is the 2018 budget in which education received only 7.03%, this has no doubt may have affected many areas in education.  Okuwa and Campell (2011) observed that the financial problem in Nigeria University that started in the late 1970s became more severe in the 1990s and still a major problem today. This has consequently, led to accompanying problems ranging from deteriorating academic infrastructure, inadequate staffing, internal inefficiencies, and reduced attention to research policies (Ebubara, 2014). However, governmental intervention can sometimes be used to bridge a quality lapse that is widespread and outside of the jurisdiction of educational system while educational funding channels such as TETFund, ETF, public private partnership, internally generated fund, among others have to be supported to help improve quality in university education.  UNESCO (2010) noticed that in the area of resource accessibility, higher educational establishments have been terribly underfunded because of the miss-coordinate between the expansion in student enrolment and the diminishing in government allowances and funds. With regard to academic regulations, internal and external mechanisms for maintaining academic quality starts with the set of requirements for admission, process for establishment of new programmes and programme review and strengthening of the tradition of examiner from other institutions. These include requirements for admission which aimed at ensuring that only the best candidates with requisite qualifications enroll as freshmen into the universities. Another one is quality controlled through scrutiny at registration in the departments and facilities. A fundamental contributor to the quality of an educational establishment according to Akerele (2007) is the entry level of its student. Mbakwem and Okeke (2015) similarly maintained that a crucial factor in attaining high quality graduates is the quality of students admitted into the university in the first instance. Establishment of fresh programmes also follows a strict internal quality control process by which proposals emanate from the departments and are scrutinized by the faculty boards and then considered by senate; this way, all relevant inputs and queries are made and addressed. This was collaborated by Egwu in Ebubara (2014) in a key note address on the Roadmap for the Nigerian Education sector section 14 which worried on the absent of Bench Mark Minimum academic models for post graduate programmes in the Nigerian university system and emphasized consistence compliance with programme focus on universities, particularly in specialised areas.

The huge burden in our educational framework often seems to be targeted towards implementing universal quality education that advance knowledge, skills, perspectives and values that often direct to a more sustainable future. In the event that this is inferred, at that point a dependable methodology or procedure will be clung to so as to deliver, store, control and recover data required for the everyday administration of the higher education system. To brace above affirmation, Moja (2010) detailed that quality control measures regarding record keeping and administrative controls significantly affected sustainable development in higher education systems. He suggested that parents, teachers, school leaders and the community should collaborate to develop students that would eventually imbibe the culture of record keeping.

Improper monitoring and evaluation of educational programme of activities seems to have constituted a portion of the components that have blocked the proper possible sustainable development and appropriate acknowledgment of guidelines in our higher institutions of learning. Udida (2010) conceived monitoring as a stage that represents the semi-final stage of the policy process. She further maintained that the educational programmes of activities are monitored by the various arms of government and participatory stakeholders from the Ministries of Education. Monitoring system according to Nguyen (2012) contains the information that institutions of higher education collect and store by themselves, reflecting how the information feeds into internal discussion and decision making process and how institutions communicate on the basis of the information. Similarly, Scheerens and Thomas in Ebuara (2014) confirmed that the term monitoring is the association with ongoing information gathered as the basic for management decisions; a reliance on administrative data and a strong preoccupation with description than with valuing.

Evaluation stage according to Okure in Udida (2010) is basically a process, which facilitates an attack on a project by breaking up and charting the events which must be completed successfully. Howsan in Emetarom (2009) maintain that evaluation involves judging whether something, which we know, measures up to what we expect of it. Newman (2011) opined that evaluation includes an orderly assembling and analysis of data dependent on which choices are taken with respect to the viability, productivity and ability of the lecturers in acknowledging set proficient objectives and the craving of the school to promote viable learning. Mbipom in Udida (2010) depicts that administrators usually present programme evaluation as a sketch or network which consists of events, activities and time scale. This is very crucial since programme strength and weaknesses are identified with a view to improving the programme. Normally, designs about how to convey services end up changing considerably as those plans are instituted. Evaluation can check if the program is truly running as initially planned. 

School evaluation aims at monitoring or as well as improving the standard of the school as a whole. School assessment may identify with a wide scope of school exercises, including educating and learning or potentially all parts of school administration. There are two main types of school evaluation: external evaluation, which is carried out by evaluators that are not staff of the school concerned while internal evaluation is performed by staff of the school. School evaluation is one possible measures of quality control, which often coexists with other approaches, such as the monitoring of the entire education system or the evaluation of teachers. Monitoring and evaluation as quality control measures in the administration of higher educational institutions if properly managed may enhance sustainable development in both the learners and the institution.

This, on the whole is obviously buttressing that emphasis should be put on quality control measures in universities in the country and South-East region in particular in order to improve sustainable development of educational programmes and improve product. It is therefore necessary for scholars and researchers in education to come to terms with quality control measures for sustainable development of universities in the South-East region. Remembering the basis behind the establishment of quality control measures, one would imagine that at this point the issue of low quality university education in Nigeria ought to have been diminished to the minimum.

A number of questions then come up concerning these issues; is it that universities (federal and state) in Nigeria are not keen on using the quality control measures towards ensuring sustainable university education? Alternatively, is implementation of the measures influenced by some variables of management control and amount of resources available for usage? It is against this backdrop that the study sought to find out if sustainable development of universities in South-East Region has something to do with quality control mechanisms. 

           

1.2       STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM                

University education is essentially an organisation set up to produce quality workers for national development by training. In order to meet up this anticipation, Nigerian government set out quality control measures. These quality control measures like adequacy of human resources, adequacy of material resources, policy implementation, funding, academic regulations, record keeping, input monitoring and input evaluation have been or are being implemented satisfactorily but there is evidence of complain of unsatisfactory for some year. Meanwhile, there is no sustainable development in public universities in the country as reported by (Okpanachi and Okpara, 2014). University education in Nigeria over the years has witnessed a decline in standards due to high level of decadence. As a result of the seemingly declining quality of Nigeria university education in recent years, the accolades attached to her university education also seem to be fading away.

The condition seems disturbing when seen against the base that Nigeria which once filled in as the core point of university education in the West Africa presently has her university education in a deplorable state. This development revolves around many factors ranging from the crumple of vital infrastructure and inadequate school staff to increase in academic programme and students without equivalent increase in financial support. The recent development in the Nigerian university system and its poor rankings in Africa and the world in general show that all is not well as expected with respect to quality university system. In as much as one cannot say absolutely about the criteria implied in the ranking of the universities, it does however show a trend of relative qualities among countries. In spite of the above situation, NUC had put in place and continues to pursue qualitative university education through its accreditation exercises. Then one begins to wonder if actually there is a relationship between quality control measures and sustainable development in public universities. The issue this study sought to clear is whether the quality control mechanisms on ground and being implemented determine sustainable development in public universities in South East, Nigeria.  

1.3       PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study examined quality control mechanisms as determinants of sustainable development in universities in South East, Nigeria. Specifically, this study sought out the extent to which:

1.      human resources relates with sustainable development in universities;

2.      material resources relates with sustainable development in universities;

3.      policy implementation  relates with sustainable development in universities;

4.      funding relates with sustainable development in universities;

5.      academic regulations relates with sustainable development in universities;

6.      record keeping relates with sustainable development in universities;

7.      input monitoring relates with sustainable development in universities; and

8.      input evaluation relates with sustainable development in universities;

9.      quality control mechanisms (human resources, material resources, policy implementation, funding, academic regulation, record-keeping, input-monitoring, inputs-evaluation) relate with sustainable development in public universities.

 

1.5               RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study provided answers to the following questions:

1.      To what extent does human resources relates with sustainable development in public universities in South East Nigeria?

2.      To what extent does material resources relates with sustainable development in public universities in South East, Nigeria?

3.      To what extent does policy implementation relates with sustainable development in public universities in South East, Nigeria?

4.      To what extent does funding relates with sustainable development in public universities in South East, Nigeria?

5.      To what extent does implementation of academic regulation relates with      sustainable development in public universities in South East, Nigeria?

6.      To what extent does record keeping relates with sustainable development in universities South East, Nigeria?

7.      To what extent does input monitoring relates with sustainable development in universities South East, Nigeria?

8.      To what extent does input evaluation relate with sustainable development in   universities South East, Nigeria?

9.      To what extent does quality control mechanisms (human resources, material resources, policy implementation, funding, academic regulation, record-keeping, input-monitoring, inputs-evaluation) relate with sustainable development in public universities in South-East Nigeria?

 

1.5       HYPOTHESES             

The following hypotheses were formulated for the study and were tested at 0.05 levels of significance:

HO1:  There is no significant relationship between human resources and sustainable   

         development in universities.

HO2: There is no significant relationship between material resources and sustainable   

        development in universities.

HO3: There is no significant relationship between Policy implementation and

          sustainable development in universities.

HO4:  There is no significant relationship between funding and sustainable         

         development in the universities.

HO5: There is no significant relationship between implementation of academic  

          regulation and sustainable development  in universities.

HO6: There is no significant relationship between records keeping and sustainable   

           development in universities.

HO7   There is no significant relationship between inputs monitoring and sustainable  

          development in universities.

HO8:  There is no significant relationship between inputs evaluation and sustainable 

          development in universities.    

HO9: There is no significant relationship between quality control mechanisms (human   

          resources, material resources, policy implementation, funding, academic regulation,  

          record-keeping, input-monitoring, inputs-evaluation) and  sustainable development in    

          public universities.

1. 6      SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is significant as its findings shall be of benefit to the following; University administrators, lecturers, educational administrators, educational agencies, curriculum planners, students and future researchers.

This study will provide information to the university administrators on the relationship between quality control measures and sustainability of universities.  They may discover that sustainable development in the universities is addressed by tying it to the available quality control mechanisms as a means of restoring confidence in university education. In addition, findings from this research are expected to help the university administrator to ensure that quality control measures are followed and adopted in their various universities in order to obtain qualitative sustainable university education. More so, it will reveal the poorly implemented measures that may be contributory to lack of sustainability of universities and efforts made to put it in place.

The study also, will provide information to the lecturers on the relationship between quality control measures and sustainability of public universities. They can benefit from the information gathered on the available human development measures such as conferences, workshops, seminars as part of enhancing the quality of human resources. It will also help them to ascertain the essence of career improvement thereby engages them in self development programmes and research activities all geared towards advancing knowledge which they will in return impact on the students. When this happened, the standard of university education is raised.

The study will also be of benefit to the educational agencies such as NUC, JAMB, Ministry of Education and other stakeholders. Having been acquainted with the information on relationship between university sustainability and quality control, it would enable them to know the efficacy of putting measures in place and the area to pay more attention to during the usual institutional accreditation in order to bring about improvement.  

To the curriculum planners the findings will enable them to reflect on the importance of quality control measure and its relationship with sustainable development of universities. This would aid them in designing university curriculum to suit the present trends and practices in global education so as to prevent the collapse of university education.

To intending administrators in university education, the findings of the study will enable them acquire the right knowledge on relationship between quality control measures and sustainable development which will make them not to make the mistake of their predecessors.

Consequently, students will be information about the relationship between quality control measures and sustainable development of public universities. This will make them to comply with instructions from the school authority as regards to quality control especially in the area of academic regulations. 

Finally, the findings of this study should open a new ground for more researchers to delve into and as well as adding to existing knowledge in the field by providing data bank for future researchers.

 

1.6       SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study is delimited to senior academic and senior non-academic staff in public universities in South-East Nigeria. Consequently, the study covered six universities out of ten existing universities in the zone. Three federal universities and three state universities were used for the study. The universities that were covered are Michael Okpara University of Agricultural Umudike, Abia State University Uturu, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Chukwu Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University Anambra, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Enugu.

The independent variable is quality control measures while the dependent variable is sustainable development. The study specifically addressed the extent to which adequacy of human resources, adequacy of material resources, extent of policy implementation, extent of funding, academic regulations, record keeping, input monitoring and input evaluation determine sustainable development in universities in South East, Nigeria.

 

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.


To Review


To Comment