Quality Assurance in Instruction: Experiences of Faculty and Students in Technology Teacher Education Programs

Authors

  • Wilfredo C. Salvador Jr. College of Graduate Studies, Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, Mid La Union Campus, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines Author
  • Joe Cris C. Evangelista College of Graduate Studies, Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, Mid La Union Campus, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines Author
  • Jayson B. Burlaza College of Graduate Studies, Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, Mid La Union Campus, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines Author
  • Jayson B. Burlaza College of Graduate Studies, Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, Mid La Union Campus, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines Author
  • Arrianne Michelle F. Fabro College of Graduate Studies, Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, Mid La Union Campus, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22352004

Keywords:

quality assurance, instruction, Technology Teacher Education, faculty experiences, student experiences, State Universities and Colleges, Northern Ilocandia, continuous improvement

Abstract

Quality assurance in instruction is essential to ensuring quality teaching and meaningful learning experiences in technology teacher education. This qualitative study explored the experiences of faculty members and students regarding quality assurance practices in instruction in selected State Universities and Colleges in Northern Ilocandia. Specifically, it examined their experiences with instructional practices, assessment and feedback, monitoring, faculty development, and stakeholder participation; identified challenges encountered in implementing quality assurance; and determined practices perceived as effective in promoting quality teaching and learning. A qualitative phenomenological research design was employed. Faculty members and students were purposively selected based on their direct experiences with teaching, learning, and instructional quality assurance. Data were gathered through validated semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings revealed that quality assurance in instruction was experienced through the alignment of learning outcomes, learner-centered and practical teaching strategies, assessment and feedback, faculty development, and instructional monitoring. Participants also identified challenges involving limited instructional resources, faculty workload, time constraints, inconsistent use of feedback, and the perception of quality assurance as a compliance requirement. Despite these challenges, participants recognized quality assurance as an important mechanism for improving teaching and learning when evidence and feedback are effectively utilized. The study concludes that quality assurance in technology teacher education should be participatory, continuous, and improvement-oriented. Strengthening instructional alignment, faculty development, learning resources, feedback mechanisms, and faculty and student participation may contribute to sustained improvement in teaching and learning. The findings provide a basis for developing a Continuous Quality Improvement Framework for Instruction in Technology Teacher Education Programs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aquino, J. M. D. R. (2025). Best practices of high performing higher education institutions in the Philippines towards the development of harmonized quality-assured instructional leadership framework. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1663289. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1663289

Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., Videira, P., & Amaral, A. (2017). Internal quality assurance systems: “Tailor made” or “one size fits all” implementation? Quality Assurance in Education, 25(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2017-0007

Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., Videira, P., & Amaral, A. (2019). Internal quality assurance: A new culture or added bureaucracy? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1494818

Commission on Higher Education. (2012). Policy-standard to enhance quality assurance in Philippine higher education through an outcomes-based and typology-based quality assurance (CHED Memorandum Order No. 46, s. 2012).

Commission on Higher Education. (2017). Policies, standards and guidelines for Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education (CHED Memorandum Order No. 78, s. 2017).

Krooij, M., Whittingham, J., & Beausaert, S. (2024). Introducing the 3P conceptual model of internal quality assurance in higher education: A systematic literature review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 82, Article 101360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101360

Philippine Institute for Development Studies. (2025). Quality education starting with teacher education (PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2025-04). https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/document/pidsdps2504.pdf

Prado, R. (2025). Evaluation of the quality assurance practices of the College of Education programs of a Philippine local university. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3(10), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2025.608

Downloads

Published

2026-09-06

How to Cite

Salvador , W., Evangelista , J. C., Burlaza , J., Burlaza , J., & Fabro, A. M. (2026). Quality Assurance in Instruction: Experiences of Faculty and Students in Technology Teacher Education Programs. International Journal of Education, Research, and Innovation Perspectives, 2(9), 492-499. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22352004

Similar Articles

1-10 of 925

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.