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 evaluation. The
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
Login To Comment