International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 7 (July 2023), Pages: 1-10

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Stakeholders' perceptions of the impact of accreditation of science curricula of higher education institutions

 Author(s): 

 Hedeliza Pineda *

 Affiliation(s):

 Pure Sciences Department, College of Arts and Sciences, Cebu Technological University, Cebu City, Philippines

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4680-494X

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.07.001

 Abstract:

Despite being a relatively new process in higher education institutions (HEIs), accreditation has become an indispensable requirement for universities to remain competitive. Its significance lies in its crucial functions, such as evaluating the quality of academic or degree programs, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, establishing criteria for professional certification, and more. Nevertheless, the decision to seek accreditation remains voluntary for institutions, leading to a situation where not all of them pursue it due to various factors, including the perceptions of stakeholders. Therefore, this study aims to investigate stakeholders' perspectives on the impacts of accrediting science curricular programs in higher education institutions located in Central Visayas, Philippines. To achieve this goal, a mixed-methods research design was employed, and a survey was administered to stakeholders, including managers, faculty, alumni, and students, from four HEIs. The survey results were utilized to develop and validate a quantitative scale, revealing three distinct areas of impact associated with accreditation: Curricular, institutional, and societal. The outcomes of the survey indicated that stakeholders from the four HEIs perceived these impact areas positively, suggesting a willingness to pursue accreditation voluntarily if the need arises. Nonetheless, it is essential to emphasize that the recommendations arising from these accreditation processes should be diligently considered and adhered to. This study's findings may suggest that stakeholders developed positive perceptions regarding the impacts of program accreditation based on the level of compliance displayed by institutions with the recommendations made by accrediting bodies.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Accreditation, Accreditation impact, Higher education, Quality assurance, Science education

 Article History: Received 23 December 2022, Received in revised form 23 April 2023, Accepted 9 May 2023

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Pineda H (2023). Stakeholders' perceptions of the impact of accreditation of science curricula of higher education institutions. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(7): 1-10

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

----------------------------------------------   

 References (40)

  1. Acevedo-De-los-Ríos A and Rondinel-Oviedo DR (2022). Impact, added value and relevance of an accreditation process on quality assurance in architectural higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 28(2): 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1977482   [Google Scholar]
  2. Alberts B (2022). Why science education is more important than most scientists think. FEBS Letters, 596(2): 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.14272   [Google Scholar] PMid:35006607
  3. Aldoseri M and Sharadgah TA (2021). Assessing the impact of accreditation standards on quality assurance and risk management in higher education institutions: Faculty members' perceptions. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 24(1): 1-17.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Eyadhy A and Alenezi S (2021). The impact of external academic accreditation of undergraduate medical program on students’ satisfaction. BMC Medical Education, 21: 565. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-03003-0   [Google Scholar] PMid:34753457 PMCid:PMC8576880
  5. Amourgis S, Costes N, Froestad W, Frykholm CU, Harris N, Hopbach A, and Wahlén S (2009). Programme-oriented and institutional-oriented approaches to quality assurance: New developments and mixed approaches. ENQA Workshop Report 9, European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Helsinki, Finland.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Atkin JM and Black P (2007). History of science curriculum reform in the United States and United Kingdom. In: Abell SK and Lederman NG (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education: 781-806. Taylor and Francis, Oxfordshire, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Dani D (2009). Scientific literacy and purposes for teaching science: A case study of Lebanese private school teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3): 289-299.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Dashti-Kalantar R, Rassouli M, Elahi N, and Asadizaker M (2019). Programmatic accreditation or institutional accreditation?-The development of accreditation in nursing schools. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research, 9(5): 664-671.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Drori G (2000). Science education and economic development: trends, relationships, and research agenda. Studies in Science Education, 35(1): 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260008560154   [Google Scholar]
  10. Faisal and Martin SN (2019). Science education in Indonesia: Past, present, and future. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5: 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0032-0   [Google Scholar]
  11. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313   [Google Scholar]
  12. Fortus D, Lin J, Neumann K, and Sadler TD (2022). The role of affect in science literacy for all. International Journal of Science Education, 44(4): 535-555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384   [Google Scholar]
  13. Frank JR, Taber S, van Zanten M, Scheele F, and Blouin D (2020). The role of accreditation in 21st century health professions education: Report of an international consensus group. BMC Medical Education, 20: 305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02121-5   [Google Scholar] PMid:32981519 PMCid:PMC7520947
  14. Garfolo BT and L'Huillier B (2015). Demystifying assessment: The road to accreditation. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 12(3): 151-170. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v12i3.9303   [Google Scholar]
  15. Garson GD (2006). Structural equation modeling. G. David Garson and Statistical Associates Publishing, Raleigh, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Gefen D, Straub D, and Boudreau MC (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4: 7. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407   [Google Scholar]
  17. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, and Anderson RE (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, and Anderson RE (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education, Harlow, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Hegji A (2017). An overview of accreditation of higher education in the United States. CRS Report R43826, Congressional Research Service, Washington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Hinkin TR (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1): 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106   [Google Scholar]
  21. Hu LT and Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1): 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118   [Google Scholar]
  22. Ibrahim HAH (2014). Quality assurance and accreditation in education. Open Journal of Education, 2(2): 106-110. https://doi.org/10.12966/oje.06.06.2014   [Google Scholar]
  23. Kenny DA, Kaniskan B, and McCoach DB (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods and Research, 44(3): 486-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236   [Google Scholar]
  24. Kis V (2005). Quality assurance in tertiary education: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review on potential effects. OECD Thematic Review, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Kline R (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  26. Kumar P, Shukla B, and Passey D (2020). Impact of accreditation on quality and excellence of higher education institutions. Revista Investigacion Operacional, 41(2): 151-167.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Nguyen TBN, Le HT, and Pham TTH (2021). The effect of accreditation on the perception of leaders and lecturers about quality training. In Proceedings of 1st Hanoi Forum on Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, Vietnam National University Press, Hanoi, Vietnam: 362-373.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Perveen U, Idris M, and Zaman A (2021). Impact of accreditation on improvement of the teacher education programs/institutions in Pakistan. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 8(1): 194-217. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v8i1.518   [Google Scholar]
  29. Pham PT, Duong TB, Phan TTT, Nguyen TH, Nguyen MT, Nguyen MT, and Nguyen TT (2020). Impact of the self-assessment process on quality enhancement of higher education institutions: A case study of Vietnam. International Journal of Education and Practice, 8(3): 536-546. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2020.83.536.546   [Google Scholar]
  30. Ryan T (2015). Quality assurance in higher education: A review of literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5: 4. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i4.257   [Google Scholar]
  31. Seyfried M and Pohlenz P (2018). Assessing quality assurance in higher education: Quality managers’ perceptions of effectiveness. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(3): 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1474777   [Google Scholar]
  32. Sharma S, Mukherjee S, Kumar A, and Dillon WR (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7): 935-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007   [Google Scholar]
  33. Sywelem MM and Witte JE (2009). Higher education accreditation in view of international contemporary attitudes. Online Submission, 2(2): 41-54.   [Google Scholar]
  34. Tabachnick BG and Fidell LS (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  35. Taherdoost H, Sahibuddin S, and Jalaliyoon N (2014). Exploratory factor analysis: Concepts and theory. Advances in Applied and Pure Mathematics, 27: 375-382.   [Google Scholar]
  36. Tavakol M and Dennick R (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2: 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd   [Google Scholar] PMid:28029643 PMCid:PMC4205511
  37. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, and de Vet HC (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1): 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012   [Google Scholar] PMid:17161752
  38. Valladares L (2021). Scientific literacy and social transformation: Critical perspectives about science participation and emancipation. Science and Education, 30(3): 557-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00205-2   [Google Scholar] PMid:33867683 PMCid:PMC8035063
  39. Van Driel JH, Beijaard D, and Verloop N (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(2): 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U   [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhao J and Ferran C (2016). Business school accreditation in the changing global marketplace: A comparative study of the agencies and their competitive strategies. Journal of International Education in Business, 9(1): 52-69. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-02-2016-0001   [Google Scholar]