status, perception and evaluation of higher...

African Journal of Science and Research ,2012, 1(1): 14-24 ISSN: 2306-5877

Available Online: http://ajsr.rstpublishers.com/

STATUS, PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY OF REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA.

Tamilenthi.S* and Annanth.T.X.A.

St.Eugene university, Lusaka, Republic of Zambia.

E-mail:[email protected]

Received: 13rd,Nov,2012; Revised: 28 th,Nov,2012; Accepted: 16 th,Dec,2012.

Abstract The quality of the education is based on several factors, such as Education policy of the government, Examination system, Qualification of teachers/Lecturers, Age and experience of the Teachers, Infrastructure of the institution and Type of administration /management . The affecting factors of the Teacher‘s are quality of teaching , Teachers work load, Mental stress , Length of service in a particular institution, ,Salary, Terms and conditions of work, Working hours, family/residential background, research/content development facility and so on. The statement of the problem is very peculiar in respect of higher education in Zambia. The analysis is done based on the survey by selecting stratified random sampling of 100 Teachers and 100 students. The questionnaire is converted into data. The data is analyzed by using SPSS software. The analysis revealed certain frame work to establish the findings and conclusions. Based on the findings suitable suggestions are drawn to uplift the standard of higher education. Keywords: Education system, Higher education, Examination and Class committee report.

INTRODUCTION The education system of a country is a key factor for the growth of the nation‘s economy. It is also steerage of science and technology which directly or indirectly plays a role in employment opportunity and elimination of unemployment problem in a particular country. The investment on higher education for a country is for long run, which means the outcome will be assured after 3-5 years .The same investment on higher education is involves huge amount in comparison with other sectors. Higher education and research constitute the backbone of the University education, which create the qualified manpower to meet the demand of Industrial, Agricultural and Social Development. Therefore the research carried out by higher education institutes should be of high standard and beneficial to the society. Research activities should be carried out in an ideal, healthier and intellectual atmosphere and must yield the desired result. Educators within the Zambian educational context, some of whom are associated with the University of Zambia, have been calling for educational reform for several years (Hanyona, 2005; Kelly, 2000; Komakoma,2003, Seshamani, 2001). Zambia was a relatively rich country at independence in 1964. However, it was hit hard by the world economic crisis of the 1970s and its economy collapsed between 1975 and 1990 due to the enforced Structural Adjustment Programmes by the World Bank and IMF. As a result, the government was forced to cut the education budget and consequently the sector was severely underfunded. The country has not economically recovered up –to date. According to IOB Impact Evaluation, Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (2008), Growth of enrolment and a high teacher turnover cannot explain the fluctuations. They are caused by a number of weaknesses in the Zambian basic education system. These weaknesses are related to severe underfunding, lack of

qualified and motivated teachers and head teachers and lack of effective management and entrepreneurial oriented curriculums at the school and district level. When the Zambia government announced to raise the level of funding to the education sector to a minimum of 5% of GDP in the Fifth National Development Plan, this was a very important stimulus for the improvement of the quality of education. The policy on higher education in Zambia is guided by the national policy on education as spelt out in the policy document entitled ‗ Educating Our Future‘(1996). This document refers inter alia to the importance of increasing access to education and life skills training, education management capacity building, policy coordination and the rationalization of resource mobilization and utilization. The general principles of the current Government policy on education have their origins in an ever-deteriorating macroeconomic situation which Zambia experienced since the early 1980s. The decline in the economy affected all sectors – including education. Statement of the problem Most of the Zambian students in higher education prefer to study non science subjects than science subjects. The reasons behind are at the grass root level of teaching methods and the ability of teachers in delivering lessons in appropriate manner so as to make the students feel easy in understanding, change of attitude and develop aptitude towards science and technology. In this ground the Zambian context is lacking and rate of unemployment problem still grows steadily and hence the researcher has intended to analyse the factors along with reference to education system. The challenges which most universities face in contributing effectively to national development includes (Muchie, 2009) are

mailto:*[email protected]

African Journal of Science and Research 2012, 1(1): 14-24

15

(1)Little investment and inadequate budgets set aside by governments to run universities. (2) Competition for resources with other more popular sectors like the primary and vocational training subsectors, health, agriculture, water and infrastructure. (3) Competition with other institutions for good students and academic staff. (4)Increasing student fees due to high running costs of universities. (5)Dilapidated infrastructure and aging teaching facilities (6)Brain drain to greener pastures, politics and other better paid jobs. (7)Poor staff incentive packages and retention schemes. (8)Ageing and high retirement rate of senior and experienced staff, with no succession plans. (9)Few students with an interest in science and technology programmes, i.e. less than 22%. (10)More students enrolled in social sciences, management and business programmes(70%). (11)Lack of qualified teaching and technical staff in the market. (12) Pressure to produce more graduates especially in the fields of education, agriculture and health. (13) General feeling from the public that universities are producing job seekers rather than job creators, due to lack of practical and entrepreneurship skills. (14) High dependence on external donors especially for research and innovation funds. (15)Gender imbalance especially in science and technology programs (Anitha Menon.J. ,2012). University of Zambia, like many other universities in the region, also faces many challenges. One of the biggest challenges perhaps is the increased student enrolments. Enabling larger numbers of students from socially or economically marginalised groups access to the higher education and the opportunities it brings, while maintaining or improving the standards of quality of education. In order to do this at its best would require substantial investment in institutional infrastructure and professional development of academic staff. But many of these have been made possible by external funding received by UNZA(Anitha Menon .J.,2012) In which the analysis will be overall factors besides specific factor. Hence the researcher has taken up the study on “Status, perception and evaluation of higher education: A case study of Republic of Zambia”. Objectives of the study The study looked at academic evaluation system, quality of teaching, academic satisfaction of the students and their employment opportunity. The researchers have framed the specific objectives for the study to find out the educational issues related to teaching- learning and output of Zambia higher education.

1)To analyse academic evaluation system. 2)To analyse quality of teaching. 3)To assess academic satisfaction of the students 4)To assess academic satisfaction of the Teachers 5)To analyse the employment opportunity of the students.

The researchers have framed the specific objectives for the study to find out the differences if any, among:

a) Urban and Rural students b) Male and female teachers c) Male and female students d) Science and Non Science students

Hypotheses of the study For the present study, the researchers framed the following hypotheses,

1. There is no significant difference between the type of examination system in the government and private universities in Zambia.

2. There is no significant difference between the Government and Private university student‘s academic satisfaction.

3. There is no significant difference between the Government and Private university students employment opportunity.

4. There is no significant difference between the Government and Private university Lecturer in respect of job satisfaction.

5. There is no significant difference between the students of (1) Male and female (2) Urban and rural (3)Income level of parents( up to ZMK1000 and Above ZMK1000)

Limitations of the study The study is carried out for the students and the teaching staff of Engineering, Science and Arts of 2012 Batch of colleges and Universities in Lusaka. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Lockwood (1963) reported that the university must be responsive to the real needs of the country and be an institution, which on merit will win the respect and proper recognition of the university world. It must combine practical service to the nation with fulfillment of the historical purposes of a university as a seat of learning, a treasure house of knowledge and a creative centre of research. Evaluation refers to the process of arriving at judgments about abstract entities such as programs, curricula, organizations, and institutions. For example, systemic evaluations (e.g., national assessments) are conducted to ascertain how well an education system is functioning. In most education contexts, assessments are a vital component of any evaluation. Assessment is defined as ―the process of obtaining information that is used to make educational decisions about students, to give feedback to the student about his or her progress, strengths and weaknesses, to judge instructional effectiveness and curricular adequacy and to inform policy‖ (AFT, NCME, NEA, 1990) It is noted by Noah and Eckstein (1992a), changes in examinations haven been used as levers to promote change in education and society, to reform the curriculum, to shift effective control of the system away from—or toward— the center, and to achieve specific political goals. Examinations systems can also be used for accountability purposes and for improving the quality of education, especially if the exams replicate what is required in the classroom. Assessment is a fair and objective way to set and maintain standards, to spearhead reform at the levels of both policy and practice, and to establish a basis for meaningful accountability. To others, it is an instrument for maintaining the status quo, grossly

Tamilenthi.S. et al.

16

unfair and educationally unproductive. Noah and Eckstein (1992b). Whatever their position, most observers would agree that assessment is neither an end in itself nor a panacea for the ills of education. They would likely also accept the proposition that major improvements in assessment systems must be part of a broader educational reform agenda that will be driven by and constrained by political, economic, and social considerations (Govinda, 1998; Little, 1992). The motivational argument of Trow (1994) assumes that without some form of monitoring and accountability, some academics will do little research and/or care little about their teaching. This is not just about threatening the lazy, but more of rewarding and recognizing the excellent. The threats and rewards inherent in quality assessment provide motivation for all, individually and collectively, to ‗do better‘. The downside to the motivational argument, however, is that quality assessment systems often reward the wrong things (the quantifiable and the procedural) and have the effect of distorting academic work away from its intrinsic qualities. Moreover, the time spent on quality assessment procedures themselves is time no longer available for teaching and research. It has also been argued that the absence of trust that the motivational argument implies is itself damaging to relationships and behaviour within higher education Brennan(1997) argument states that , by simply disturbing the status quo, quality assessment can lead to change and innovation. There is some evidence in support of this, especially from the relatively early years of quality assessment when the processes of self assessment did appear to lead to change and innovation in many places. World Bank (1998) reported that, During the early years of the Universities, the higher education was fully funded. Since 1970, the share of the education sector in the national budget as a percentage of the gross national product has been on the decline. The percentage of total public budget spent on education in Zambia varied between 7 to 13.4 percent, compared to 20 to 25 percent in other neighboring countries. Saluseki (2000) reported that the decline in public finances for education, the Ministry is unable to fulfill its obligation of providing the necessary facilities to ensure universal availability of quality education. The major reasons for the decrease in availability of funds education include poor economic development, structural adjustment requirements, and increasing debt servicing requirements. According to the World Bank, (2010),It has been established

that higher education is also a catalyst to innovations in agriculture, new materials, sources of energy, all of which play an important role in reducing poverty, achieving food security and improving health care facilities. Tamilenthi. et. al (2011) suggested that there should be more investment on higher education specially in establishing the new institutions. The Collaborative Educational research project should be worked out with other developed nations in order to meet in the global skillful manpower demand. Nonprofit organization should be welcomed in the global level in order to reduce the education cost of the individual. More Vocational education institutions should be introduced in order to reduce unemployment problem and also it will lead self employment which really bring down the production cost of certain things which may not need to import other countries. Extension education does not reach in all level and it‘s for only certain groups only at present, it should be extended with stipend for the youth and college drop outs so that the house hold and small scale industries will come. So this also is the way of discouraging others not to go higher studies as the investment on higher education is higher.

RESEARCH DESIGN The survey by stratified random sampling of 50 teaching staff and 100 students of undergraduate were selected from colleges, universities located within the Lusaka city to serve the questionnaire. A set of questions with 4 dimensions 1) Academic evaluation system. 2) Academic satisfaction of the students. 3) Academic satisfaction of the Lecturers. 4) Employment opportunity/Placement of the students. The questionnaires were formulated to solicit the responses of four point scale with the highest score of 20 each dimension for students and 20 for teaching faculty to reflect the status of higher education and evaluation of education system in Zambia. The statements were converted into data and the data is analysed by SPSS software. The‗t‘ and ‗F‘ test were carried out to find out relational study. The findings are presented in narrative statements to explain the responses that were obtained from the questionnaires.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Academic evaluation system with reference to higher education.

Variables Group N Mean Std.

Deviation t -Value p

System of examination for

assessment

Private University 68 13.70 1.77 2.0896 0.0662

Govt. University 32

13.00 1.70

Nature of understanding the

questions. Private University 68 14.80 3.12

3.7826 0.0043**

Govt. University

32 11.90 1.97


17

Duration of the examination and

number of questions.


Govt. University 32 14.10 1.85

Democracy in showing the answer

scripts after evaluation.

Private University 68 14.80 3.12 2.9542 0.0161*


Allocation Internal marks

& External marks (%)

(%)

Private University 68 15.40 1.65 5.1188

0.0006**


* significant at 0.05 level , ** significant at 0.01 level.

1. The mean values of scheme of questions and system of examination reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 2.0896, is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

2. The mean values of the nature of understanding the questions reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 3.7826 , is significant at 0.01 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

3. The mean values of Duration of the examination and number of questions reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 1.4126 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis

is accepted

4. The mean values of democracy in showing the answer script after evaluation reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 2.9542 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

5. The mean values of internal examination and external examination marks reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 5.1188 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

Academic satisfaction of Students

Variables Group N Mean Std. Deviation t -Value P

Teaching methods Private University 68 14.40 1.58

0.4286 0.6783

Govt. University 32

14.60 1.17

Learning materials Private University 68 15.20 1.40

5.2842 0.0005 **

Govt. University 32

13.00 1.25

Time gap for one period to another. Private University 68 14.90 1.45

4.0249 0.0030 *

Govt. University

32

13.40 1.26


18

Project/IPTR guidance Private University 68 13.60 1.27

3.1429 0.0119*

Govt. University 32

15.10 1.45

Field trip and subject correlation Private University 68 14.10 1.52 1.14

1.9640 0.0811

Govt. University 32

13.20 1.52 1.14


1. The mean values of Teaching methods reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t=0.4286 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

2. The mean values of Learning materials reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 5.2842, is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

3. The mean values of Time gap for one period to another reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t=4.0249 , is significant at 0.05 level).

Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

4. The mean values of Project/IPTR guidance evaluation reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 3.1429 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

5. The mean values of Field trip and subject correlation reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t=1.9640 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

Students employment / Placement opportunity.

Variables Group N Mean Std. Deviation t -Value p

Employment opportunity soon after completion Private University 68 13.90 1.52

0.2075 0.8402

Govt. University 32

13.80 0.92

Job/Placement assurance Private University 68 10.30 1.83

1.9640 0.0811

Govt. University 32

10.90 1.45

The Project/ IPTR lead Employment Private University 68 6.50 6.00 0.71

1.8605 0.0957

Govt. University

32

6.50 6.00 0.82

Course structure and market demand Private University 68 15.50 1.35

6.6595 0.0001**

Govt. University 32

12.20 0.63

University placement cell.


Govt. University 32

6.20 0.42



19

1. The mean values of Employment opportunity soon after completion reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 0.2075, is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

2. The mean values of Job/Placement assurance reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 1.9640 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

3. The mean values of The Project/ IPTR lead Employment reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t=1.8605, is not

significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

4. The mean values of Course structure and market demand reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 6.6595 , is significant at 0.01 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

5. The mean values of University placement cell reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 0.3612, is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

Academic satisfaction of the Lecturers.


Time allocation for lesson preparation in the

university.

Private University 34 16.10 2.13 5.0138 0.0007* *

Govt. University 16

11.60 2.67

Appreciation and rewards for the

teachers.


Govt. University 16

14.70 2.45

Monetary benefit for additional work.


Govt. University 16

12.40 2.50

Work load Private University 34 9.50 4.20 2.8630 0.0187*

Govt. University 16

13.00

1.70 Superiors

interference in Teaching.


Govt. University 16

15.00 2.21


1. The mean values of Time allocation for lesson preparation in the university reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 5.0138 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

2. The mean values of Appreciation and rewards for the teachers reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 1.5811 , is significant at

0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

3. The mean values of Monetary benefit for additional/extra work.(Q/A) reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t=3.6472 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

4. The mean values of work load reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 2.8630 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.


20

5. The mean values of Superiors interference reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government

University( t=4.1761, is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

Students perception on Examinations.


Gender Male 43 13.95 1.47 0.5675 0.5770

Female 57 14.15 1.46

Type of management Private

68 15.75 1.21 2.9425 0.0084*

Govt. 32 14.55 1.36

Stream of subjects Science 37 14.50 1.57

0.9632 0.3476

Non science 63 14.05 1.54

No of students in a class 0-30 56 14.65 1.50 0.2880 0.7764

Above 30 44 14.55 1.36


1. The mean values of gender reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Male and Female ( t=0.5675, is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

2. The mean values of Type of management reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t= 2.9425 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected

3. The mean values of Stream of subject reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Science and Non science ( t= 0.9632 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

4. The mean values of No. of students reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Up to 30 and above 30 students( t=0.2880, is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

Perception on Job satisfaction of the Lecturers.

1. The mean values of gender with reference to Perception on Academic satisfaction of the teachers reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Male and Female ( t= 3.0352 , is significant at 0.01 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

2. The mean values of Type of management with reference

to Perception on Academic satisfaction of the teachers reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t=4.6162 , is significant at 0.01 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

3. The mean values of number of classes with reference to Perception on Academic satisfaction of the teachers reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Private University and the Government University ( t=3.8746 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

4. The mean values of Salary with reference to Perception on Academic satisfaction of the teachers reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Up to USD 1000 and above USD1000 ( t=0.3758 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

5. The mean values of length of working hours with reference to Perception on Academic satisfaction of the teachers reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Up to 8 hrs and above 8 hrs ( t= 5.2048 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.



21

Gender Male 32 14.45 1.39 3.0352 0.0068**

Female 18 13.30 1.42

Type of management Government 23 14.95 1.23

4.6162 0.0002**

Private 27 13.30 1.42

No of classes /day Govt. 23 15.55 1.70 3.8746 0.0010**

Private 27 13.95 1.47

Salary Up to USD1000 21 15.35 1.18 0.3758 0.7112

Above USD1000 29 15.50 1.18

Length of working hours. Up to 8 hours 19 15.65 1.60 5.2048 0.0001**

Above 8 hours 31 13.60 1.23

* significant at 0.05 level , ** significant at 0.01 level

Academic satisfaction of the students.


Gender Male 43 15.05 1.28

1.8914 0.0739

Female 57 15.80 1.36

Type of management Government 68 14.95 1.28

4.3710 0.0003**

Private 32 13.05 1.43

Location of G-12 institution Urban 36 14.90 1.21

4.0586 0.0007**

Rural 64 12.85 1.66

Parents/Guardians qualification Up to G-12 74 15.30 1.34

0.3039 0.7645 Above G-12 26 15.15 1.46

No of students in the class Up to 30 78 14.90 1.25

0.8039 0.4314

Above 30 22 14.40 1.88


1. The mean values of gender with reference to Academic

satisfaction of the students reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Male and Female ( t=1.8914 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

2. The mean values of Type of management with reference to Academic satisfaction of the students reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Government and Private ( t= 4.3710 , is significant at 0.01 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.


22

3. The mean values of Location of G-12 institution with reference to Academic satisfaction of the students reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Urban and Rural ( t=4.0586 , is significant at 0.01 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

4. The mean values of parents and guardians qualification with reference to Academic satisfaction of the students reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores Up to G-12 and above G-12 ( t= 0.3039 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

5. The mean values of no students in the class with reference to Academic satisfaction of the students reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Up to 30 and Above 30 students( t=0.8039 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

Employment opportunity and placement of the student.


Gender Male 43 14.15 2.18 1.2767 0.2171

Female 57 13.35 1.42

Stream of subjects Science 37 14.30 2.20 2.8835 0.0095**

Non science 63 12.10 2.31

Parent /guardian income (ZMK)

Up to 1000 66 14.30 2.20 1.4782 0.1557

Above 1000 34 13.35 2.23

Employment expected Private 83 14.45 2.09

3.3864 0.0031**

Govt. 17 12.20 1.94


1. The mean values of gender with reference to Employment opportunity and placement of the students reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of Male and Female ( t= 1.2767 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

2. The mean values of Stream of subject with reference to Employment opportunity and placement of the students reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Science and Non science ( t=2.8835 , is significant at 0.01 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected.

3. The mean values of Parent/guardian income with reference to Employment opportunity and placement of the students reveals that, there is no significant difference between the scores of up to Zmk 1000 and above Zmk 1000 ( t=1.4782 , is not significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis is accepted.

4. The mean values of Employment expected reveals that, there is a significant difference between the scores of Government and Private ( t= 3.3864 , is significant at 0.05 level). Therefore, the Null hypothesis

is rejected. FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Major findings of the study There is a significant difference between the private university and government university in Academic evaluation system in the higher education with reference to Nature of understanding the questions, The democracy in showing the answer script after evaluation and the allocation of internal examination and external examination, which reveals that the private universities are concentrating more on examination to produce the graduates and the evaluated answer scripts shown after result is the best way to eradicate the error of examiners which exist in most of the private Institutes.

1. There is a significant difference between the private university and government university in Students employment / Placement opportunity with reference to Course structure and market demand. This state that the private institutes is more concern about the market demand and society needy courses.

2. There is a significant difference between the private


23

university and government university in Academic satisfaction of the Students with reference to Satisfaction of teaching methods, Time for revision of each class, The project/IPTR Guidance and the Field trip with subject relation. This derives the fact that the project work /IPTR in the private institutions are just to fulfill the course demand and not having the quality of the project.

3. There is a significant difference between the private university and government university in Academic satisfaction of the Lecturers with reference to Time allocation for lesson preparation, Appreciation and rewards for the teachers, Monetary benefit for additional , Work load of the staff and Superiors interference. This is perceived that generally the work load , unnecessary interference and lack of appreciation prevails in the private institution and the government should monitor these kind of problem to save the teaching community.

4. There is a significant difference between the private university and government university in Students perception on Examination

5. with reference to Type of management with reference students perception on examination.

6. There is a significant difference between the private university and government university with regards to gender, Type of management, The number of teaching hours and Length of working hours with reference to Perception on Job satisfaction of the teachers.

7. There is a significant difference between the private university and government university in regards to the type of management and the Location of G-12 institution with reference to Academic satisfaction of the students.

8. There is a significant difference between the private university and government university in Employment opportunity and placement of the students regards to Stream of subject and Job expected by the students.

CONCLUSION The study concluded that there is a need of national level commission on University, which is supposed to be the highest authority in the higher education system. The policies, accrecation and regulations for the universities to be governed by single authority. The government should take appropriate steps in resource allocation for the private universities. Single room like infrastructure universities(John Phiri,2012) will lead the degradation of quality education. Hence government should interfere in the framing of syllabus and monitoring the admission criteria that too will help in improving the quality higher education in Zambia. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Standard curriculum and evaluation to be framed for the university and colleges separately. But all the universities should follow the same syllabus and evaluation system in

Zambia like African countries as science and technology, infrastructure and communication facility besides the economic situations of the students need to improve lot.

2. The students of private universities should also get at least some monetary assistance in order to get access to the higher education in the private universities.

3. At least one men and one women hostel should be established for a college/ university, it should be emphasized for the approval/commission.

4. The recruitment of the faculties to be notified in the national level daily news papers and should be flowed the national criteria for the appointment of teaching faculty for the private universities too, in order to improve the quality of teaching.

5. More educational institutions to be established for higher learning in regional level, so that more students can access for the higher degree in order to take care of managerial positions than supervisors.

6. Joint collaborative project would be better than granting the private higher education institution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Administrator of DMI-St.Eugene university who have encouraged me to take up this study. I personally thank Dr.Willson Samuel, Registrar, St.Eugene university for the manuscript correction for the final stage. DISCLAIMER The views presented in this paper are that of the authors and do not represent that of the Zambian society or the Government of the Republic of Zambia.

REFERENCES

1. American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), and National Education Association (NEA)(1990). Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students, Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.

2. Anitha Menon .J.(2012), The role of higher education funding in national development, Educational Research , Vol. 3(6).

3. Brennan, J., Frederiks, M. and Shah, T. (1997) Improving the Quality of Education: The Impact of Quality Assessment on Institutions, HEFCE/QSC, London.

4. Govinda, R. (1998). Using Testing as a Tool to Improve School Quality: Reflections on Indian Policies and Practices. New Delhi: National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration.

5. Hanyona, S. (2005). Teacher crisis blamed for poor results. News from Africa.

6. Primary Education in Zambia, IOB Impact Evaluation no. 312, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague, the Netherlands.

7. John Phiri(2012), Ministers speech, II nd Convocation address


24

of St.Eugene university,Lusaka,Zambia.

8. Kelly, M. J. (2000). What HIV/AIDS can do to education, and what education can do to HIV/AIDS. http://www.sedos.org/english/kelly_1.htm.

9. Komakoma, J. (Ed.). (2003). The social teaching of the Catholic bishops and other Christian leaders in Zambia: Major pastoral letters and statements, Ndola, Zambia: Mission Press.

10. Little,(1992). ―Decontextualizing Assessment Policy: Does it Make Economic Sense?‖ Examinations: Comparative and International Studies. M. A. Eckstein, and H. J. Noah. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

11. Lockwood EC (1963). Lockwood report. Lusaka, Government Printer.

12. Muchie M (2009). ‗Higher Education, Research and Knowledge for African Integration‘.The Challenges of Regional Integration and its implication for Higher Education. SARUA Leadership Dialogue Series,1(2), South Africa.

13. Noah, H. J., and M. A. Eckstein.(1992a) ―Introduction. To Examinations: Comparative and International Studies, ed. M. A. Eckstein and H. J. Noah. Oxford: Pergamon.

14. Noah and Eckstein, (1992b). ―The Two Faces of Examinations: A Comparative and International Perspective.‖ Pp. 147–170

in Examinations: Comparative and International Studies, ed. M. A. Eckstein and H. J. Noah. Oxford: Pergamon.

15. Saluseki Bivan (2000). "Zambia's Education System Is A Time Bomb." Post of Zambia (21,April). http://allafrica.com/

16. Seshamani, V. (2001). Cost sharing in primary education in Zambia: A budgetary analysis. In ―Will the poor go to school?‖ Cost sharing in education in Zambia. Lusaka: OXFAM- Zambia and The Jesuit Centre of Theological Reflection.

17. Tamilenthi.S. et.al(2011),The barriers of higher education in the African countries of Zambia and Tanzania, Archives of Applied Science Research, 3 (4).

18. Trow, M. (1994) Managerialism and the Academic Profession: Quality and Control, QSC/Open University, London.

19. World Bank (1998). Zambia. Basic Education Sub sector Investment Program. Pre-appraisal Mission. Draft Aide-Memoire.

20. World Bank (2010). Financing Higher Education. World Bank, Washington DC.

http://www.sedos.org/english/kelly_1.htm

http://allafrica.com/

status, perception and evaluation of higher...

Documents