Abstract

Student-involvement in higher-education is necessary for quality-assurance outcomes, yet such involvement also threatens attainment of quality assured, presenting the paradox of higher-education (HE) systems. With the massification of enrolment-figures across the HE sector has been the need to balance HEI and student-centred perspectives. The notion of students as co-producers, consumers, and products of HEI processes creates discord in the quality assurance arena. Contradictory problems manifest when the producer must satisfy the consumer and audit quality of the products, yet students are all of these. This article explored the extent to which student-involvement fosters quality as well as sets parameters beyond which such participation cannot be done without compromising quality-assurance and desired academic-success. The artile drew a line for student-involvement and quality- assurance as double-barreled and sometimes paradoxical, contradictory pursuits. Data elicited from two HEIs in Zimbabwe using the questionnaire method and analysed using Microsoft Excel package generated descriptive frequencies and related graphs and charts to present findings. Documents were analysed using thematic content analysis to glean for relevant secondary data. Student-involvement is marred by unclear parameters at the three confluences of ‘students as co-producers’; ‘students as consumers’; and ‘students as products’ of HEI quality-assurance processes students should participate in, consume, and be products of. Derolling is thus necessary for students to function in various capacities as as co-producers, consumers, or as products. Students as ‘co-producers’ cannot be expected to produce themselves through ‘students as products’, neither can they be ‘consumers’ themselves while being the ‘product’ to be consumed by industry and communities through employment and innovation. The National Assembly should address contradictions through amending HEI-establishing Acts to cede policy making powers to the University Councilsacting jointly with senior management of universities. As co-producers, students involvement should be unlimited at governance levels (by different HEI students) while as consumers (within particular HEIs), student involvement should be limited to lower rungs at consumer level to avoid contradictions that potentially compromise quality. As HEI products, students should be limited to Alumni activities as main function should clearly differentiate among the various roles when crafting HEI policies that foster student involvement.

Highlights

  • While autonomy in higher education opens it up areas for improvement and competition, the sector is restricted by the influence, which some argue is interference, of state-driven higher education policy and the constantly increasing intervention of external quality assurance (Kennedy 2003; Hénard and Mitterle 2008)

  • Asked the extent to which they agreed students should be involved in quality assurance processes as co-producers of higher education (HEI) knowledge and products, respondents had contradictory responses

  • Student involvement cut-off level in HEI participation Informed by an opaque identity of students and their involvement in their contradictory capacities, student involvement is limited to the bottom five rungs, with the centre three rungs ‘at best’ while the lower two rungs ‘at worst’

Read more

Summary

1.INTRODUCTION

While autonomy in higher education opens it up areas for improvement and competition, the sector is restricted by the influence, which some argue is interference, of state-driven higher education policy and the constantly increasing intervention of external quality assurance (Kennedy 2003; Hénard and Mitterle 2008). The two definitions by Harvey and Green (1993) and that by Cunningham (2015) shall jointly underpin this study because of the relevance of their joint components such as exceptional, perfection; fitness for purposes, value for money and transformative as well as the aspect of effectiveness and efficiently providing teaching, resources, support, and environment to achieve full potential The former definition addresses intrinsic while the latter addresses extrinsic student involvement quality assurance factors in higher education. For example when students give feedback in meetings, they prioritize general issues like the food, the parking, condoms and sports entertainment as opposed to academic matters (Scott 2018) This tends to result in students voices being belittled due to their limited scope of focus that places emphasis on current rather than long term issues. Cancellation of the invigilators' and exam-sitting student's certificate if caught in any foul play

THE ROLE OF THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
MAKING CHANGE
Results and Discussion
9.CONCLUSION
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.