European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.268381
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru1i, David Onen2, Betty A. Ezati3
Makerere University, College of Education and External Studies
1,2,3
Kampala, Uganda
Abstract:
This study sought to establish the influence of staffing on the quality of teaching in
Uganda s public universities. It was undertaken in the face of persistent stakeholder
concerns regarding the declining quality of teaching and learning in these institutions
that have occasionally culminated into student strikes and different kinds of protests.
Basing on a mixed-methods approach, the study employed the descriptive crosssectional survey design where both qualitative and quantitative data were collected
from 14 academic managers, 111 academic staff, and 285 undergraduate university
students of Kyambogo University using survey and interview methods. The collected
data from staff and students were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple
regression techniques while content analysis technique was used to analyze qualitative
data collected by interviewing purposively selected university managers. The study
findings revealed that: first, staff recruitment (B=.182; p=.040), staff training (B=.340;
p=.000), and development (B=.327; p=.000) have statistically significant influence on the
quality of teaching. Meanwhile, staff deployment (B=.010; p=.914) has statistically
insignificant influence on the quality of teaching. However, overall, the study revealed
that staffing (R=.683; R2=.467; p=.000) significantly influences the quality of teaching in
public universities in Uganda. Therefore, it was concluded that effective staffing would
raise the quality of teaching in universities, other factors held constant. The study thus
recommends that university managers and staff should stick to the prescribed
recruitment policy, invest more resources in training and developing staff, and ensure
that existing staff are generally well-managed.
Keywords: staffing, recruitment, deployment, teaching quality, training, staff
development
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 – 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
21
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
1. Introduction
Following the massification of higher education (HE) worldwide, different stakeholders
have been apprehensive about the quality of education that higher education
institutions (HEIs) offer to their learners. These concerns have been underpinned by the
belief that it is pedagogically challenging to teach larger than smaller classes. However,
educational theorists believe that with effective staffing, the quality of teaching even in
large classes could be enhanced. In Uganda, the HE sector has tremendously expanded
in the past two decades especially the private HE sector. Unfortunately, according to
the Uganda s National Council for Higher Education NCHE
, this increase in the
number of HEIs as well as students have not been matched with a corresponding
investment in the sector by both Government and the private sector; thus raising
concern about the quality of teaching and learning in these institutions. This study was
therefore intended to investigate the influence of staffing on the quality of teaching in
Uganda s public universities. It arose as a result of the persistent complaints from
stakeholders about the declining quality of teaching and learning in these institutions
that have occasionally culminated into student strikes and different kinds of protests. In
this section, the authors present the background to the study and the research
objectives.
This study was premised on the input-process-output (IPO) model, sometimes
referred to as the input-transformation-output (ITO) model. This model is widely used
by scholars and researchers in explaining a variety of things that happen in work
organizations including the performance of teams, staffing and many others. But, the
IPO model has its roots in classic systems theory which according to Chikere and
Nwoka
focuses on the arrangement of and relations between the parts and how they
work together as a whole. The way the parts are organized and how they interact with each other,
determines the properties of that system.
author
p. . Similarly, according to an Anonymous
, the IPO model has a causal structure, in that outputs are a function of various
group processes, which are in turn influenced by numerous input variables
para
. In short,
the model looks at what takes place in an organization (or organism) in terms of the
kind of inputs it receives, the transformation processes the inputs undergo which
eventually would determine the resultant output of that organization. In this study, the
model was opted for because the researchers viewed the staffing function of
organizations including universities as an input, transformation process as well as the
eventual output; that is, staffing brings in the necessary inputs to the university (in
terms of staff), and the subsequent staffing functions such as deployment, training and
development serve as the transformation processes as well as the outcomes of the
institution (in terms of well qualified and motivated staff) that is capable of performing
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
22
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
well (that is, carryout effective teaching). The researchers have however used this
theoretical framework while aware of the difficulties that can be faced in distinguishing
the phases of the IPO model that each of the investigated staffing functions could be
placed by other researchers.
The study focused on two key concepts, namely: staffing and quality of teaching
in public universities. Generally, staffing was earlier considered to be part of
organization function of management. However in order to give staffing proper
emphasis, it has now been recognized as a separate management function. Nonetheless,
different scholars still define the term staffing differently depending on the context in
which they use it. ‚ccording to Koontz cited in ‚krani,
, staffing means filling and
keeping filled, positions in the organization structure (para2). This implies that staffing
involves recruiting, deploying, training, and developing staff while at work. In fact,
Koontz and Weihrich (2005) reiterate that staffing is the process of recruiting and
facilitating staff to carryout effectively their work. This view is in consonant with that of
Gullick and Urwick who as early as 1937 had defined staffing as a whole personnel
function of bringing in and training of staff as well as maintenance of favorable
conditions of work for employees to perform their duties. Basing on these definitions,
staffing in this study was looked at in terms of the process by which the academic staff
of Kyambogo University are recruited, deployed, trained and developed and how these
processes influence the quality of teaching in the institution.
The other concept of importance in the study was quality of teaching. The term
quality of teaching has no universally agreed upon meaning; and most often, it is
erroneously used interchangeably with concepts such as quality teaching, quality of
education, and teaching quality. However, Ngware, Ciera, Musyoka and Oketch (2015)
define quality of teaching as the status of instruction given to learners in the course of
teaching and learning. In that regard, good quality teaching is said to occur when a
teacher makes effective instruction that promotes excellence and student learning
outcomes through best practices. But the reverse is said to be true if a teacher makes
instructions that do not yield desirable learning outcomes. In this study, quality of
teaching was looked in terms of the way teachers instruct students, interact with them,
utilize the allocated time, and generally carryout their teaching functions.
Contextually, this study was conducted in a public university in a developing
country. In the recent past, universities in Uganda have experienced different forms of
unrests emanating from complaints raised by different stakeholders including students
and staff. According to Businge (2008) and Teferra (2014), some of these unrests have
been as a result of the deteriorating quality of services offered to students including:
teaching, loss of coursework and examination marks, delays in issuing academic
transcripts, etc. The researchers agreed with Lejeune (2009) who argued that if such
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
23
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
situations were not reversed, then the efforts by Ugandan universities to catch up with
international higher education standards would remain in jeopardy; thus, the need for
this investigation.
2. Study Objectives
Generally, this study was envisioned to investigate the influence of staffing on the
quality of teaching in public universities in Uganda. Specifically, the study looked at the
influence of (i) staff recruitment; (ii) deployment; (iii) training; and (iv) development on
the quality of teaching at Kyambogo University, one of the nine public universities in
the country.
3. Review of Literature
A few scholars have already investigated the issues of staffing and teaching quality in
higher education institutions [HEIs] (Chen & Lo, 2012; Fernandes, Ross, & Meraj, 2013;
Moreira, Da Luz, Da Rocha, & Kolbe Jr, 2015; Ramsden, Prosser, Trigwell & Martin,
2007; Sahney, Banwet, Karunes, 2010). In the majority of these studies, staffing was
conceptualized in different ways including how the staff are recruited, deployed,
trained, and developed. For instance, Chen and Lo (2012) carried out a nationwide
study in China to assess the psychometric properties of the nursing student satisfaction
scale (NSSS), and they discovered that staff training and development were
determinants of teaching quality. Fernandes, Ross, and Meraj (2013) also carried out an
investigation in a British-based university in the United Arab Emirates. Their findings
revealed that teaching quality is dependent on several factors including the quality of
academic staff. They however emphasized that the quality of academic staff is
associated with the way in which they are recruited, trained and developed, other
factors notwithstanding.
In another study by Chalmers (2008), she discovered that effective teaching is
based on several factors including the knowledge and skills acquired during training
and staff development programmes. Harris and Sass (2011) also agreed with this
observation but reiterated that effective training does not only improve the quality of
teaching but also overall raises the productivity of teachers in whatever they do at
school. But while several scholars have pointed out the linkage between staffing and the
quality of teaching, many of these studies were carried out in the context of developed
nations unlike the current study. Furthermore, there are limitations in some of the
studies including the sample sizes used (Douglas, Douglas & Barnes, 2006). The
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
24
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
researchers identified these as gaps requiring further investigation; hence the need for
this investigation.
4. Methodology
This study was majorly a quantitative study although both qualitative and quantitative
data were collected. In terms of design, the researchers opted to employ the descriptive
cross-sectional survey research design due to the kind of problem that the study was
intended to resolve. Specifically, data were collected from Kyambogo University, one of
the largest but not so old universities in Uganda. The researchers believed that
Kyambogo University ably represented all the other eight public universities in the
country since it apparently has all the characteristics of the older universities like
Makerere as well as the younger ones such as Busitema University or Gulu University.
Data were collected from a sample population of 14 academic managers, 111 academic
staff, and 285 undergraduate university students totaling to 410 respondents using
semi-structured questionnaires and interview guide. These tools were preferred
because of the large number of respondents that were targeted in this study. Analysis of
data was undertaken using appropriate descriptive and inferential statistical techniques
as well as content analysis method. In the next section of the paper, the results of the
study are presented.
5. Results
5.1. Background Information on Respondents
Of the 410 respondents, their different background characteristics were captured and
are presented here in Table 1.
Table 1: Distribution of staff and student respondents by background characteristics
Staff
Background
Students
Attributes
Frequency
%
Male
62
Female
Attributes
Frequency
%
55.9 Male
168
58.9
49
44.1 Female
117
41.9
Total
111
100 Total
285
100
< 30 years
5
4.5
5
1.8
30 – 39 years
30
27.0 20 – 24 years
142
49.9
Characteristic
Gender
Age
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
<20 years
25
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
Faculty
40 – 49 years
41
36.9 25 – 29 years
67
23.5
>50 years
35
31.5 30+ years
71
24.9
Total
111
100 Total
285
100
Education
24
21.6 Education
52
18.3
Science
23
20.7 Science
79
27.7
Arts & Social
20
18.0 Arts & Social
44
15.4
26
9.1
Sciences
Sciences
Engineering
11
9.9
Special Needs
14
12.6 Special Needs
45
15.8
Management &
12
10.8 Management &
25
8.8
14
4.9
Entrepreneurship
Length of Service
Engineering
Entrepreneurship
Vocational Studies
7
6.3
Vocational Studies
Total
111
100 Total
285
100
< 5 years
12
10.8 Year 1
83
29.0
5– 9 years
20
18.0 Year 2
111
39.0
10– 14 years
27
24.3 Year 3
84
29.1
>15 years
39
35.1 Year 4
7
2.5
100 Total
285
100
in years (Staff)
&
Year of Study
(Students)
Total
Results in Table 1 reveal that more male staff (62 or 55.9%) and students (168 or 58.9%)
participated in this study than their female counterparts. This was in agreement with
the records of the Departments of Academic Registrar (DAR) of Kyambogo University
that indicate that the University has male staff and students than females (DAR, 2016).
Second, the results also show that the bulk of the staff (76 or 68.4%) that were involved
in this study were 40 years and above old - implying that the majority of them were
mature enough to appreciate the importance of the issues under investigation. In the
case of students, the majority of them (142 or 49.9%) who participated in the study were
within 20 to 24 years of age. This is the age-group when most Ugandans are actually
enrolled in higher education institutions. Third, the results also show that most staff
respondents were drawn from the faculties of Education (24 or 21.6%), Science (23 or
20.7%), and Arts and Social Sciences (20 or 18.0%) respectively. While for the students,
more respondents were drawn from the faculties of Science (79 or 27.7%), Education (52
or 18.3%), and Special Needs (45 or 15.8%) respectively. These distributions were more
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
26
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
or less in proportion to the sizes of student enrolment in the different faculties of the
University. Lastly, the results in Table 1 indicate that the majority of the staff
respondents (66 or 59.4%) have worked at Kyambogo University for at least 10 years.
This implies that most of the respondents were knowledgeable about the issues that
were under investigation. For the case of students, the results indicate that the majority
of the respondents (111 or 39.0%) were second-years. This is actually the year when
students are often very active in different university activities - including in
participating in studies of this kind.
5.2 Descriptive Statistics on the Independent Variable – Staffing
The researchers presented several questions on the independent variable – staffing, that
was conceptualized as staff recruitment, deployment, training and development
whereby the respondents were to indicate their opinions on a scale with responses
ranging from 1= not at all true, through 2 = slightly true, 3 = true about half the time, 4 =
mostly true to 5 = completely true. However, the results were finally collated into three
categories coded as 1= not true (NT), 2 = true about half the time (TAHT), and 3 = true
and presented here in Table 2 for both staff and student respondents.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics on respondents views over staffing
Staff
Questionnaire Item
Recruitment effectively done
Deployment effectively carried out
Training is effectively carried out
Development is effectively carried out
Students
NT
TAHT
T
F (%)
F (%)
F (%)
54
10
47
(48.6)
(9.0)
(42.4)
8
15
88
(7.2)
(13.5)
(79.3)
19
19
73
(17.1)
(17.1)
(65.8)
14
16
81
(12.6)
(14.4)
(73.0)
X
1.94
2.72
2.49
2.60
NT
TAHT
T
F (%)
F (%)
F (%)
75
54
156
(26.3)
(18.9)
(54.8)
77
51
157
(27.0)
(17.9)
(55.1)
107
72
106
(37.5)
(25.3)
(37.2)
69
57
159
(24.2)
(20.0)
(55.8)
X
2.28
2.28
1.20
2.32
The results in Table 2 indicate that more staff (54 or 48.6%; mean= 1.94) than student (75
or
. % mean= .
respondents disagreed with the statement that
recruitment at
institutional and departmental levels at Kyambogo University were being effectively carried
out. But a whole 42.4 percent of staff and 54.8 percent of student respondents agreed
that recruitment at the University was effectively done. These findings suggest that
both the staff and students are satisfied with the process of recruitment at the
institution, and this could mean that the staff is competent in the conduct of their
teaching job. With regard to whether the staff were being effectively deployed, the
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
27
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
results in Table 2 reveal that the majority of both staff (88 or 79.3%; mean=2.72) and
student (157 or 55.1%; mean=2.28) respondents agreed that deployment at the
University is often systematically done. These findings imply that the stakeholders are
satisfied with the manner in which the staff of the University are being deployed.
Results in Table 2 also indicate that more staff (73 or 65.8%: mean =2.49) than student
(106 or 37.2%: mean =1.20) respondents agreed that further training of staff at the
University is being effectively carried out. These findings suggest that the staff and
student fraternity are satisfied with the way in which the training function at the
institution is being handled. Finally, the results also reveal that more staff (81 or 73.0%:
mean=2.60) than student (159 or 55.8%: mean =2.32) respondents agreed that staff
development at the University is being effectively catered for. This could have
happened because the staff were defending the quality of their teaching performance;
yet, the students indicated that they still expect better quality teaching than the status
quo. Overall, the results showed that the performance of the staffing function at
Kyambogo University is moderate with mean responses ranging from 1.20 to 2.32. This
implies that there is still room for improving the university staffing function.
During the interviews held with some academic and non-academic staff involved
in managing and conducting actual teaching, several interviewees expressed different
opinions regarding staffing in the University. While a large number of interviewees
expressed satisfaction with the manner in which the staffing function was being
performed, many were equally dissatisfied with the way in which it was conducted. In
fact, one head of department observed that while we know that the human resource policy
of the university stipulates for the hiring of staff on merit, the reality on ground is far different.
Most often, we fail to achieve quality because some of the recruitment of staff is not done on
merit but on the basis of nepotism . ‚nother interviewee meanwhile said it is our bosses
who often let us down because they do not provide the staff training and development
opportunities equitably to all academic staff. This affects the way we teach . ‚ll in all, while
the majority of the interviewees agreed that there are efforts being made to recruit,
deploy and develop academic staff at Kyambogo University, there is also consensus
that a large number of university teaching staff may not be very effective due to several
factors.
5.3 Descriptive Statistics on the Dependent Variable – Quality of Teaching
The researchers put forward questionnaire items on quality of teaching that the
respondents could indicate their opinions by selecting an appropriate response from a
range of responses on a scale with responses ranging from 1= not at all true, through 2 =
slightly true, 3 = true about half the time, 4 = mostly true to 5 = completely true.
However, the results were finally collated into three categories coded as 1= not true
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
28
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
(NT), 2 = true about half the time (TAHT), and 3 = true and presented here in Tables 3(a)
and (b) below.
Table 3(a): Descriptive statistics on staff respondents views over quality for teaching
Statements on Quality of Teaching
Response Category
Not True
True About
True
F (%)
Half the Time
F (%)
Mean
F (%)
1. Qualified staff is recruited
5
15
91
(4.5%)
(13.5%)
82.0%)
8
22
81
(7.2%)
(19.8%)
(73.0%)
7
18
86
(6.3%)
(16.2%)
(77.5%)
2. Varied pedagogies
3 Teaching hours effectively used
4. Course content is covered in time
7
20
84
6.3%)
(18.0%)
(75.7%)
6
22
83
(5.4%)
19.8%)
(74.8%)
13
30
68
(11.7%)
(27.0%)
61.3%)
10
22
79
(9.0%)
(19.8%)
(71.2%)
6
17
88
5.4%)
(15.3%)
(79.3%)
5. Students satisfied with the teaching
6. Staff satisfied in this university
7.Undergraduate semester grades are high
8. Undergraduate graduation rates are high
2.77
2.66
2.71
2.69
2.69
2.50
2.62
2.74
The results in Table 3(a) reveal that the staff perception of the quality of teaching was
excellent for the most part. Out of the eight constructs to measure quality of teaching,
seven were given a score of true , while one, staff satisfaction with the university,
scored
true about half the time . These statistical results indicated that the staff
perception of the quality of teaching in their University was very good on seven
dimensions, and fair on one dimension. It was reasonable to state that the quality of
teaching was very good.
During interviews held with staff, many expressed different opinions on the
quality of teaching at Kyambogo University. For instance, one staff said that the quality
of teaching at Kyambogo University is good
while another observed that it is fair . The
statements requesting staff to indicate measures to be taken to improve quality of
teaching yielded answers as follows
ICT and internet connectivity
improve library resources
increase the provision of
University should emphasize staff development, staff
motivation and the mentoring of students
and everyone - including students and staff should
emphasize time management . Overall, the staff respondents reported that the quality of
teaching in the University was
good . This result was in consonance with the
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
29
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
managers overall rating of the quality of teaching which also revealed that the quality
of teaching is very good .
Meanwhile, the student respondents were also asked to rate their opinions about
the quality of teaching at Kyambogo University. The results are presented in Table 3(b)
below.
Table 3(b): Descriptive statistics on student respondents views over quality for teaching
Response Category
Not True
True About Half the
True
F (%)
Time
F (%)
Mean
F (%)
1. My lecturers care about me
86(30.2%)
48(16.8%)
151(53.0%)
2.56
2. My lecturers are approachable
41(14.4%)
44(15.4%)
200(70.2%)
2.56
19(6.7%)
30(10.5%)
236(82.8%)
2.76
32(11.2%)
42(14.7%)
211(74.1%)
2.63
38(5.4%)
22(19.8%)
188(66.0%)
2.53
6. My lecturers are fair to all students
42(14.7%)
59(20.7%)
184(64.6%)
2.50
7. My lecturers are knowledgeable
32(11.2%)
47(16.5%)
206(82.3%)
2.61
8. My lecturers are committed to their
33(11.6%)
46(16.1%)
206(82.3%)
2.61
34(11.9%)
57(20.0%)
194(68.1%)
2.56
10. Intellect. growth obvious
63(22.1%)
62(21.8%)
160(55.2%)
2.34
11. Lecturers provide acad. Feedback
38(13.3%)
53(18.6%)
194(68.1%)
2.55
12. Course requirements clear
38(13.3%)
53(18.6%)
194(68.1%)
2.55
13. I get required info. on campus
52(18.2%)
60(21.1%)
173(60.7%)
2.42
14. I am aware of campus affairs
73(25.6%)
58(20.4%)
154(54.0%)
2.28
72(25.37%)
57(20.0%)
156(74.7%)
2.29
26(9.1%)
35(12.2%)
224(78.7%)
2.69
72(25.3%)
46(16.1%)
167(58.6%)
2.33
3. My courses have relevant content
4. My lecturers concerned about my success
5. The instruction given to me is excellent
teaching job
9. My lecturers conduct reasonable course
assessment
15. My lecturers are available
16. Lecturers are specialists
17. Channels for students academic
complaints
Results in Table
b indicate that the students perceptions of the quality of teaching
were largely positive. Of the 17 constructs used to measure quality of teaching
including approachability of lecturers, reasonable course requirements, experience of
intellectual growth, lecturers being knowledgeable, commitment to academic excellence
in the University, and relevance of course content were all given a Likert score of true ,
confirmed by the mean response ranging from 2.34 to 2.76. These statistical results
implied that the students perceived quality of teaching to be favorable on 10 out of 17
constructs, fair on three constructs and poor only on one construct. On the basis of these
results, the researchers could reasonably state that the quality of teaching in Kyambogo
University is very good’. This finding, however, contradicted with the data collected
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
30
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
through interviews where some students revealed that some lecturers do not teach well
and others were unavailable for consultation.
5.4 Verification of Research Hypotheses
This study was based on four research hypotheses, namely: H 1: Staff recruitment
statistically has a significant influence on the quality of teaching; H2: Staff deployment
statistically has a significant influence on the quality of teaching; H 3: Staff training
statistically has a significant influence on the quality of teaching; and H 4: Staff
development statistically has a significant influence on the quality of teaching. To verify
these hypotheses, first, the hypotheses were converted into null hypotheses. Thus, the
tested null hypotheses were stated as follows: H01: Staff recruitment statistically has no
significant influence on the quality of teaching; H02: Staff deployment statistically has
no significant influence on the quality of teaching; H03: Staff training statistically has no
significant influence on the quality of teaching; and H04: Staff development statistically
has no significant influence on the quality of teaching. Second, the researchers
generated indices to measure each of the variables, namely: staff recruitment (Staffrec),
staff deployment (Staffdep), staff training (Stafftra), and staff development (staffdev) as
well as quality of teaching (Teachquali) using data generated out of the questionnaires
administered to the staff and student respondents. Thereafter, the hypotheses were
tested with the use of the multiple regression technique. The results of the tests of the
null hypotheses are presented in Tables 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) below.
Table 4(a): Regression Model Summary
Model
1
R
.683
a
R
Adjusted R
Std. Error of
Square
Square
the Estimate
.467
.447
Change Statistics
R Square
F
Change
Change
df1
df2
23.202
4
106
.46380
.467
Sig. F
Change
.000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Staffrec, Staffdep, Stafftra, and staffdev
b. Dependent Variable: Teachquali
The results in Table 4(a) show that the correlation coefficient between staffing and the
quality of teaching is positive with an R value of 0.683 and R2 of 0.467. These results
suggest that a unit change in staffing brings about 0.467 (46.7%) increase in the quality
of teaching, other factors held constant. The observed sig (p) value of 0.000, lower than
the critical sig. value of 0.05, implies that staffing has a statistically significant influence
on the quality of teaching.
In other words, the more effective the staffing of university, the better the quality
of teaching, other factors held constant. However, to determine whether the overall
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
31
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
regression model is a good fit for the data, the researchers proceeded to perform the Fratio test which results are presented in Table 4(b).
Table 4(b): ANOVA Table
ANOVAb
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
1 Regression
19.964
4
4.991
Residual
22.801
106
.215
Total
42.765
110
Sig.
23.202
.000a
a. Predictors: (Constant), Staffrec, Staffdep, Stafftra, and staffdev
b. Dependent Variable: Teachquali
The results in Table 4(b) (F (4. 991) = 23.202, p < .05) show that the independent
variables (staff recruitment, staff deployment, staff training, and staff development)
significantly predict the dependent variable (quality of teaching); that is, the regression
model is a good fit of the data.
Finally, to test for the influence of each independent variable on the quality of
teaching, the multiple regression analysis was carried out. The results are presented in
Table 4(c).
Table 4(c): Multiple regression results for influence of staffing on quality of teaching
Coefficientsa
Model
1(Constant)
Unstandardized
Standardized
95.0% Confidence Interval
Coefficients
Coefficients
for B
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
2.260
.215
10.530 .000
1.834
2.685
Staffrec
.110
.053
.182 2.076 .040
.005
.216
Staffdep
.006
.060
.010
.108 .914
-.112
.124
Stafftra
.165
.043
.340 3.826 .000
.080
.250
Staffdev
.175
.046
.327 3.810 .000
.084
.266
a. Dependent Variable: Teachquali
The results in Table 4(c) show that the coefficient relating staff recruitment, the first
independent variable, with quality of teaching is positive with a beta value of 0.182.
This result suggests that a unit change in staff recruitment brings about 0.182 (18.2%)
increase in the quality of teaching, other factors held constant. The observed sig (p)
value of 0.040, lower than the critical sig. value of 0.05, implies that staff recruitment has
a statistically significant influence on the quality of teaching. Therefore, the null
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
32
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
hypothesis that staff recruitment has no statistically significant influence on the quality of
teaching was rejected and the research hypothesis upheld.
Second, the results in Table 4(c) show that the coefficient relating staff
deployment, the second independent variable, with quality of teaching is positive with
a beta value of 0.010. This result suggests that a unit change in staff deployment brings
about 0.010 (1.0%) increases in the quality of teaching other factors held constant. The
observed sig (p) value of 0.914, greater than the critical sig. value of 0.05, implies that
staff deployment has no statistically significant influence on the quality of teaching.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that staff deployment has no statistically significant influence
on the quality of teaching was upheld and the research hypothesis rejected.
Third, the results in Table 4(c) also show that the coefficient relating staff
training, the third independent variable, with quality of teaching is positive with a beta
value of 0.340. This result suggests that a unit change in staff training brings about 0.340
(34.0%) increase in the quality of teaching, other factors held constant. The observed sig
(p) value of 0.000, lower than the critical sig. value of 0.05, implies that staff training has
a statistically significant influence on the quality of teaching. Therefore, the null
hypothesis that
staff training has no statistically significant influence on the quality of
teaching was rejected and the research hypothesis upheld
Lastly, the results in Table 4(c) show that the coefficient relating staff
development, the last independent variable, with quality of teaching is positive with a
beta value of 0.327. This result suggests that a unit change in staff development brings
about 0.327 (32.7%) increase in the quality of teaching, other factors held constant. The
observed sig (p) value of 0.000, lower than the critical sig. value of 0.05, implies that
staff development has a statistically significant influence on the quality of teaching.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that
staff development has no statistically significant
influence on the quality of teaching was rejected and the research hypothesis upheld.
6. Discussion
This study aimed at establishing the influence of staffing on the quality of teaching in
public universities in Uganda. The study came out with two key findings: first, that
recruitment, training and development of staff have significant influence on the quality
of teaching; while staff deployment does not. Second, it was also established that
staffing in public universities in Uganda was fairly well done; and overall, it
significantly influences the quality of teaching. The finding that staff recruitment,
training and development positively influence the quality of teaching is in consonance
with the results of many other earlier studies. For instance, Sahney et al. (2010) also
established that training and development of staff among other cross-functional
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
33
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
administrative activities result into better quality of teaching. This was also in
agreement with the work of Chen and Lo (2011) where it was established that the
quality of teaching is not only dependent on the staffing function, but the overall
teaching environment of an institution.
According to Fernandes et al. (2013), recruitment and development of faculty
members act as antecedents of quality teaching. This implies that the more effective the
staff recruitment and development functions in an institution, the higher would be the
quality of teaching. This argument is supported by Chalmers (2008) who contends that
effective staff recruitment and development make the teachers more knowledgeable
and professional; thus, enabling them to perform their teaching function satisfactorily.
Jimmieson et al. (2010) also concur with this finding, where they strongly argue that
professional development is a quality determinant not only in industry but also in other
aspects of human endeavors.
Overall, the finding that staffing has a significant influence on the quality of
teaching is in tandem with the theoretical and conceptual perspectives of this study.
The IPO model used to underpin this study stipulates that good quality inputs and
transformation process would yield quality outputs (or outcomes). With regard to this
study, the results show that effective recruitment, training and development of staff
positively influence the quality of teaching in public universities, other factors
notwithstanding. This implies that managers of HEIs should pay attention to the
manner in which academic staff are recruited, trained, and developed.
7. Conclusion
In line with the findings of the study and the ensuing discussion, the researchers
concluded that effective staffing would raise the quality of teaching in universities,
other factors held constant.
8. Recommendations
This study thus recommends that university managers and staff should stick to the
prescribed recruitment policy, invest more resources in training and developing staff
and ensure that existing staff are well managed.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
34
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
References
1. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2015). Teacher quality, opportunity
gap, and national achievement in 46 Countries. Education & Educational Research,
9 (224). Doi: 10.3102/0013189X07308739.
2. ‚kinsolu, ‚.O.
. Teachers and students academic performance in Nigerian
secondary schools: implications for planning. Florida Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 3(2), EJ903008.
3. Akrani, G. (2011). What is Staffing? Meaning Definition Factors Affecting,
downloaded on 20/01/2017 from http://kalyan-city.blogspot.ug/2011/07/what-isstaffing-meaning-factors.html.
4. Anonymous.
(2017).
Input-Process-Output
Model
http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/industrial-organizational-psychology/groupdynamics/input-process-output-model/.
5. Businge, C. (2008, March, 3). Kyambogo University Lecturers still on strike. The
New Vision, p.4. Retrieved from: www.savethemothers.org/file.../23/STM.
6. Chalmers, D. (2008). Teaching and learning quality indicators in Australian
Universities. Programme on institutional management in higher education
(IMHE). Outcomes of higher education: quality, relevance, and impact. 8th Sept.
2008 Paris, France OECD.
7. Chen, H, & Lo, H. (2012). Development and psychometric testing of the nursing
student satisfaction scale for the associate nursing programs. Journal of Nursing
Education and Practice 2(3). DOI: 10.5430/jnep.
8. Chikere, C. C. & Nwoka, J. (2015). The Systems Theory of Management in
Modern Day Organizations - A Study of Aldgate Congress Resort Limited Port
Harcourt. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(9), pp. 1-7.
9. Douglas, J., Douglas, A. & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a
UK
University,
Quality
Assurance
in
Education,
14(3),
251
–
267,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880610678568.
10. Fernandes, C., Ross, K., & Meraj, M. (2013). "Understanding student satisfaction
and loyalty in the UAE HE sector", International Journal of Educational
Management, (6), 613 – 630, DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2012-0082.
11. Gulick L. & Urwick L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of administration.
New York, NY: Institute of Public Administration.
12. Harris, D.N. & Sass, T.R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student
achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 798–812,
doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
35
Luija Marie Ezati Azikuru, David Onen, Betty A. Ezati
STAFFING AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES
13. 14. Jimmieson, N.L., Hannam, R.L., & Yeo, G.B. (2010).Teacher organizational
citizenship behaviours and job efficacy: Implications for student quality of school
life. British Journal of Psychology 101 (3), 453–479, DOI: 10.1348/000712609X470572.
14. Koontz, H. & Weihrich, H. (2008). Essentials of Management. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw Hill.
15. 16. Lejeune, M. (2009). Quality assurance framework and credit accumulation
and transfer system (CATS): East Africa Project. The Uganda Higher Education
Review: Journal of the National Council for Higher Education 6(1), Kampala: NCHE
Press.
16. Moreira, H., Da Luz, S.V., Da Rocha, R.D. & Kolbe Jr, F.Z. (2015). Pedagogical
Practice in Engineering Courses Students Contribution. International Journal of
Education 7(2), http://:dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v7:2.7503.
17. 18. Ngware, M. W., Ciera, J., Musyoka, P.K & Oketch, M. (2015). Quality of
teaching mathematics
and learning achievement gains: evidence from primary
schools in Kenya. Educ Stud Math, DOI 10.1007/s10649-015-9594-2
18. Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K. S. Karunes, S. (2010). "Quality framework in education
through application of interpretive structural modeling: An administrative staff
perspective in the Indian context", The TQM Journal, 22 (1), 56 – 71,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542731011009621.
19. Teferra, D. (2014). Charting African higher education: perspectives at a glance.
International Journal of African Higher Education 1(1).
Creative Commons licensing terms
Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall
not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violatio ns and
inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access
Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
36