Page 95 - Proceedings-edit-2021_09_20-final

© Proceedings of the Ruhuna Quality Assurance Sessions 2021 (RUQAS 2021)
st
21 September 2021

In addition, several implementation issues also have been identified in the QA process. For instance,
separation of QAS from the regular activities, lack of interest and engagement of academic staff and

students with the QA activities, minimum involvement of stakeholders in the QA activities are the key

issues (Imbulgoda, 2019). Further, Peiris et al. (2014) have emphasized that some academics consider
the QA process an additional burden and non-value-adding activity within the system. Consequently,

they are reluctant to spend time on document preparation and other QA-related activities. However,
this academic resistance to the QA is not specific to Sri Lanka, and it is prevalent in the international

context (Anderson, 2006). Moreover, most academics do not prefer audit-type quality evaluations that
affect their autonomy, freedom, and professional status (Cheng, 2010; Mustaffa, Sharifah Norul

Akmar, Rosman and Fatimah, 2007). Therefore, academics' perception of QA reviews is more critical

for the success of the external reviews, the validity of the results, and the sustainability of the QA
process. Further, as mentioned in the introduction, HEIs employ many information systems to perform

different activities. Although these systems provide many benefits, their support for QA is not evident.

Therefore, this study explores the academics' perception of QA reviews and the contribution of
information systems to the QA process.

Methodology

This study followed a survey-based quantitative research approach. An online Google form was

distributed among the academics of the Sri Lankan state universities using the snowball sampling
technique. Finally, 88 responses were received from January 2021- May 2021. Responses from some

of the universities were not adequate. Exploratory data analysis techniques were mainly used for data
analysis.

The questionnaire consisted of main four sections that cover responders' general information, opinions
regarding the QA reviews, provision of required evidence for QA reviews, usage of information

systems for specified activities concerning the QA. Responders’ general information was collected by
section one. Section two consists of opinions about the existing quality assurance reviews (subject

review, programme review and institutional review). Existing methods and associated issues of

provisioning required evidence for QA reviews were concerned in section three. The last section of the
questionnaire mainly focused on collecting data on the application of specific information systems,

such as students information management system, learning management system, online teaching
platforms, and experiences of information system applications on different activities i.e., collecting

students feedback, managing student internships, examination information management, etc.

78