International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 2
Number 2
June 2008
213
Quality Standards Systems: Status, Compliance
and Adherence in Maritime Institutions in the
Philippines
M. Magramo
John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University, Iloilo City, Philippines
F. Javier
Lyceum of Batangas, Batangas City, Philippines
M. Lazaro
Mariners Polytechnic Colleges Foundation, Naga City, Philippines
ABSTRACT: This survey research aimed to determine the status of and compliance to and adherence to the
quality standards system by the maritime schools in the Philippines. Frequency, mean and standard deviations
were the descriptive statistics used and t-test, analysis of variance, stepwise multiple regression analysis and
Pearson’s r were the inferential statistics used. The participants’ perceived the status of the quality standards
system among maritime schools as ‘strong’. The participants’ perceived the compliance with and adherence to
the quality standards system among the maritime schools as “very high”. Location of school, enrolment size,
faculty size, size of support staff, accreditation, position in school, work experience and educational
preparation are significant predictors of the status, compliance with and adherence to the quality standards
system in maritime schools. No significant relationships existed between the participants’ perception of the
compliance and adherence to quality standards system among maritime schools and personal-related factors.
1 INTRODUCTION
The maritime schools in the country today are faced
with a challenge of quality and excellence in maritime
education. The graduates of these institutions are
expected to be globally competent and qualified to
operate modern and fully automated international
ships. This challenge comes from ship owners and
countries whose vessels are of foreign registry.
In response to the challenge, members of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) came up
with sets of policies, procedures, and guidelines as
provided in the International Convention of Training
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers of 1978 and 1995
(STCW ’78; ’95) for all member countries, including
the Philippines.
Maritime schools are challenged to introduce the
concept of assessing competence rather than
evaluation of theoretical knowledge through written
examinations. Training and assessment of seafarers
under the Convention must be structured in written
programs, including such methods such as media
delivery, procedures, and course materials necessary
to achieve the required standards of competence.
There are defined procedures for training and assess-
ment of competence, certification, and endorsement
which are continually monitored through a quality
system to ensure achievement of defined objectives,
including those concerning the qualifications and
experience of instructors and assessors.
Another challenge comes from the government
and the maritime industry. At present, there are 299
manning agents licensed by the Department of Labor
and Employment. The number of maritime schools
has increased tremendously. From the initial number
of 41, maritime institutions mushroomed to 111,
accounting for an increase of 170.73%. It must be
noted that, in 1994 alone, these schools graduated
43,918 deck and engine cadets (Aldenese, 1995).
However, are these graduates globally competent?
214
Section 35 of CHED Memorandum #51 dated
1997 (Article 13 (Quality Standards System),
provides that “Every maritime school shall develop
and implement a quality standard system in
accordance with the provisions of the policies,
standards, and guidelines.” Section 36 of the same
Memorandum informs that “Recognizing that
Filipino seafarers shall be globally competitive, in
compliance with the 1995 amendments to STCW
’78 and other international laws and conventions, the
school facilities, equipment and teaching competen-
cies shall be upgraded to meet the quality standards.”
Owing to the fact that the country’s economy
depends heavily on seafarers and the quality of
seafarers depends on the quality of graduates that the
maritime schools produce, the only way of ensuring
the quality of graduates in maritime schools is to
fully implement the quality standards system.
This study attempted to investigate the status of
and compliance with and adherence to the quality
standards system among the maritime schools in the
Philippines. According to Robbins (2001), perception
is a process by which individuals organize and
interpret their sensory impressions in order to give
meaning to their environment. This study was
anchored on the Gestalt Approach, called the Law of
Pragnanz, which holds that an individual tends to
perceive the simplest and the most stable figure of
all possible alternatives (Shiffman, 1990, in
McConnell and Phillipchalk, 1992). This study
focused on the perception of the participants of the
status of the quality standards system, and
compliance with and adherence to quality standards
system in maritime schools in the Philippines.
2 THE PROBLEM
This study aimed to determine the status of and
compliance with and adherence to the quality
standards system by the maritime schools in the
Philippines. Specifically, this study sought answers
to the following questions:
1 What is the status of quality standards system
among the maritime schools in the Philippines as
assessed by the participants? How do the
responses of the sub samples differ?
2 What is the level of the participants’ assessment of
compliance with and adherence to the quality
standards system by the maritime schools? How
do the responses of the sub samples differ?
3 Are there significant differences on the status,
compliance and adherence to quality standards
system among the maritime schools when
categorized according to personal related factors
and school related factors?
4 Which among the personal and school related
factors would be significant predictors of the
status, compliance and adherence to QSS among
the maritime schools in the Philippines?
5 Are there significant relationships between the
status and compliance and adherence of QSS
among maritime schools in the Philippines.
3 METHODOLOGY
The participants of the study were the 237 randomly
selected employees of the 11 CHED-accredited
maritime schools in the Philippines.
The participants of the study were classified
according to personal factors–position in school,
work experience, and educational preparation and
school-related factors–enrolment size, faculty size,
size of support staff, accreditation and location of
school.
Table 1. Distribution of Participants
__________________________________________________
Category f %
__________________________________________________
A. Entire Group 237 100
B. Position in School
Administrator 59 25.0
Faculty 118 50.0
Staff 60 25.0
C. Work Experience
Shorter (5 years and less) 81 34.0
Longer (more than 5 years) 156 66.0
D. Educational Preparation
Bachelor’s Degree 172 72.5
Master’s Degree 65 27.4
Doctoral Degree 1 0.1
E. Enrolment Size
Smaller (1, 000 and less) 104 44.0
Larger (more than 1, 000 133 56.0
F. Faculty Size
Smaller (25 and less) 48 20.3
Larger (more than 25) 189 79.7
G. Size of Support Staff
Smaller (25 and less) 104 44.0
Larger (more than 25) 133 56.0
H. Accreditation
DNV 133 56.0
Other than DNV 104 44.0
I. Location
Luzon 105 44.0
Visayas 82 35.0
Mindanao 50 21.0
__________________________________________________
Statistical Tools
Mean. The mean was used to describe the status
and compliance with and adherence to quality
standards system by the maritime schools as
assessed among the participants.
Standard deviation. This test was used to
determine the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the
participants in terms of the status of and compliance
215
with and adherence to quality standards system
among the maritime schools.
t-test for independent samples. This test was used
to determine the significance of the differences
among the variables with two-level categories.
One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This
test was used to ascertain the significance of the
differences among the variables with three or more
levels of categories.
Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis. This was
used to determine which among the personal
factors–position in school, working experience,
educational preparation–and school–related factors–
enrolment size, faculty size, size of support staff,
accreditation status–and location of school–are
significant predictors of the status of and compliance
with and adherence to quality standards system
among maritime schools.
Pearson’s r. This was used to determine the
significance of the relationship between the status of
and compliance with and adherence to quality
standards system among maritime schools.
4 FINDINGS
The participants’ perceived the status of the quality
standards system among the maritime schools as
“strong”. Significant differences existed in the
participants perception when classified according to
size of support staff, accreditation, work experience,
position in school and location of school. No
significant differences existed in the participants
perception of the status of Quality Standards System
when classified according to educational qualification,
enrolment size and faculty size.
Table 2. Participants’ Perception of the Status of the Quality
Standards System in Maritime Schools
__________________________________________________
Category M Description SD
__________________________________________________
A. Entire Group 5.63 Strong 1.15
B. Position in School
Administrator 5.78 Strong .79
Faculty 5.39 Strong 1.31
Staff 6.23 Very Strong .85
C. Work Experience
Shorter (5 years and less) 5.23 Strong 1.17
Longer (more than 5 years) 5.81 Very Strong 1.11
D. Educational Preparation
Bachelor’s Degree 5.68 Strong 1.15
Master’s Degree 5.49 Strong 1.17
E. Enrolment Size
Smaller (1, 000 and less) 5.57 Strong .94
Larger (more than 1, 000 5.66 Strong 1.23
F. Faculty Size
Smaller (25 and less) 5.53 Strong .98
Larger (more than 25) 5.67 Strong 1.15
G. Size of Support Staff
Smaller (25 and less) 5.98 Very Strong 1.01
Larger (more than 25) 5.20 Strong 1.18
H. Accreditation
DNV 6.12 Very Strong .98
Other than DNV 5.23 Strong 1.13
I. Location
Luzon 5.12 Strong 1.16
Visayas 5.95 Very Strong 1.19
Mindanao 5.86 Strong .86
__________________________________________________
Generally, the participants perceived the
compliance with and adherence to the quality
standards system among the maritime schools as
“very high”. Significant differences existed in the
participants’ perception of the compliance with and
adherence to Quality Standards System among the
maritime schools when the participants were
classified as to size of support staff, accreditation,
work experience, position in school and location of
school. No significant differences existed in the
participants’ perception of the compliance with and
adherence to Quality Standards System among the
maritime schools when classified as to educational
qualification, school enrolment and faculty size.
Table 3. Participants’ Perception of the Compliance with and
Adherence to Quality Standards System in Maritime Schools
__________________________________________________
Category M Description SD
__________________________________________________
A. Entire Group 5.79 Very High 1.09
B. Position in School
Administrator 5.93 Very High .78
Faculty 5.56 High 1.25
Staff 6.34 Very High .65
C. Work Experience
Shorter (5 years and less) 5.55 High .98
Longer (more than 5 years) 5.90 Very High 1.12
D. Educational Preparation
Bachelor’s Degree 5.76 Very High 1.13
Master’s Degree 5.49 High .91
E. Enrolment Size
Smaller (1, 000 and less) 5.82 Very High .86
Larger (more than 1, 000 5.79 Very High 1.18
F. Faculty Size
Smaller (25 and less) 5.80 Very High .88
Larger (more than 25) 5.79 Very High 1.15
G. Size of Support Staff
Smaller (25 and less) 6.05 Very High .90
Larger (more than 25) 5.46 High 1.2
H. Accreditation
DNV 6.12 Very High .90
Other than DNV 5.51 High 1.15
I. Location
Luzon 5.45 High 1.2
Visayas 5.95 Very High 1.16
Mindanao 5.96 Very High .71
__________________________________________________
Location of school enrolment size, faculty size,
size of support staff, accreditation, position in
school, work experience and educational preparation
216
are significant predictors of the status, compliance
with and adherence to the Quality Standards System
in maritime schools.
Table 4. Summary of the Stepwise Multiple Regression
Analysis for the Participants’ Perception of the Status of the
Quality Standards System among the Maritime Schools
__________________________________________________
Variables Multiple R
2
R
2
F Sig.
R Change B SEB Beta F
__________________________________________________
A . Location
of school .187 .035 .030 .288 .111 .187 6.715* .010
B. School
enrolment .361 .130 .121 .1.285 .287 .153 13.762* .000
C. Faculty size .362 .131 .117 .138 .358 .052 .9.182* .000
D. Size of
support staff .452 .204 .187 .1034 .252 .446 .11.676* .000
E. Accreditation
status 4.54 .206 .180 .106 .278 .047 9.326* .000
F. Position in
school .471 .222 .191 .6.913 .122 .039 .7.795* .000
G. Work
experience .498 .248 .215 .379 .151 .171 .7.350* .000
H. Educational
preparation .502 .252 .214 .183 .209 .065 .6.615* .000
__________________________________________________
There is a significant relationship existed between
the participants’ perception of the status of the
Quality Standards System among maritime schools
and personal-related factors. A negative significant
relationship existed between the participants’
perception of the status of Quality Standards System
among maritime schools and school-related factors.
A positive significant relationship existed between
the participants’ perception of the compliance with
and adherence to Quality Standards System among
maritime schools and location of schools. A negative
significant relationship existed between the
participants’ perception of the Quality Standards
System in maritime schools and size of support staff
and accreditation. No significant relationship existed
between the participants’ perception of the
compliance with and adherence to Quality Standards
System among maritime schools and personal-
related factors.
Table 5. Relationship Between the Participant’s Perception of
the Status of, Compliance with, and Adherence to the Quality
Standards System Among the Maritime Schools
* P<.05
5 CONCLUSIONS
The “strong” perception of the implementation of the
quality standards system among the maritime
schools by the participants seems to indicate that the
maritime schools are serious in turning out quality
and globally competitive graduates in order to meet
the requirements of the shipping industry and
maritime institutions in compliance with the
provisions of the Commission on Higher Education
Memo. No. 51, the ISO 9000: 2000, and the
International Convention of Training and Watch
keeping for Seafarers (STCW ’78; as amended by
STCW ’95). In addition, the maritime schools seem
to showcase quality standards as a rigid requirement
for certification, and accreditation by the Det Norske
Veritas (DNV) and other accreditation agencies.
In addition, the country’s inclusion in the “White
List” might have triggered the maritime schools’
commitment to quality standards, so that, their
graduates could be employed anywhere in the world-
-whether in shipping or other maritime institutions.
Foremost is the desire of the country to maintain its
position in the list as a supplier of manpower for the
world’s shipping industry and other maritime
institutions. The need, therefore, for quality graduates
is the name of the game for maritime institutions.
The maritime schools in this research appear to
have observed full compliance with and adherence to
the quality standards system. This explains that, the
country being the major supplier of seafarers in the
international arena, the importance of quality should
not be missed. In other words the maritime schools
have obliged themselves to totally commit to quality
standards.
The participants’ better perception of the status of
the quality standards system among the maritime
schools is influenced by factors such as position in
school, size of support staff, location of school, work
experience and accreditation. The better perception
of the standards system among the participants from
the staff, those employed in schools accredited by
DNV, and those with a longer work experience
seems to indicate that to the participants’ mind,
being employed in schools and schools accredited by
DNV as well as their having longer stint in school
might have provided them with a better view of the
schools quality standards system. As it is, striving
for quality is their way of life.
School enrolment, faculty size, educational
qualifications are factors found not to significantly
influence the participants’ perception of the status of
the quality standards system among maritime
schools. This explains that, regardless of whether
one is employed in a school with smaller or longer
enrolment, faculty size, and size of support staff or
whether one is a bachelor’s degree holder, a master’s
degree holder, or a doctorate degree holder, one’s
regard for the status of the quality standards in
maritime schools remains the same.
Variable Perception of Compliance
With and Adherence to the QSS
Perception of the
Status of the QSS
Among the Maritime
Schools
Among
r
.631*
Maritime
Schools
r prob
.000
217
The participants’ perception of the compliance
with and adherence to the quality standards system
among the maritime schools could be influenced by
factors such as enrolment size, size of support staff,
work experience, position in school and location of
school. As revealed in the study, those employed in
schools with smaller faculty size, with smaller
support staff, had longer work experience, and the
administrators and staff showed better perception
of compliance with and adherence to the quality
standards system among the maritime schools. These
seem to indicate that less complex organizations
coupled with longer experience and a position
with higher authority can readily command better
compliance with and adherence to the quality
standards system, among the maritime schools.
Position in school, work experience, educational
qualifications, enrolment size, faculty size, accredi-
tation, work experience, and location of school were
factors found to predict the participants’ perception
of the status of the quality standards system among
the maritime schools. This indicates that the quality
standards policy of the maritime schools as installed
in their respective organization could already be
gauged by the type of school, the size of enrolment,
the faculty composition, the accreditation status, and
the educational background of its faculty.
Enrolment size and work experience were factors
found to significantly predict the compliance with
and adherence to the quality standards system among
the maritime schools. In other words, the maritime
schools’ compliance with and adherence to the
quality standards system could be gauged by the size
of their enrolment and the length of work experience
of their employees.
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission on Higher Education may either
design its own manual or adopt a quality manual
from one of the better maritime institutions in order
to have a common quality assurance manual among
maritime institutions, to ensure standard assessment
by the agency (CHED) or the certifying body itself.
Standard monitoring or audit must be conducted
periodically among the maritime institutions to
continually improve the delivery of services to its
clientele, especially the quality of graduates the
maritime schools turn out every year.
Maritime schools are encouraged to: (1) review
from time to time the different provisions in its
manual to see its appropriateness brought about by
technology changes; (2) consistently design a
program how to satisfy and motivate its personnel
(teaching and non-teaching) so that this personnel
will unselfishly dedicate themselves to the welfare of
their clientele and to a greater majority in the
organization; (3) design a reward system to motivate
its personnel who have committed themselves to the
mission and vision of the school; (4) commit
themselves to the upgrading/training of their teachers;
(5) forge tie-up with other maritime institutions
locally and internationally to share experiences and
even resources (financial and human) to be able to
meet the demands of the industry; (6) maximize
participative management--involve all the members
of the community especially on matters where the
welfare of the personnel (teaching and non-teaching
alike) is at stake; and (7) aim to continually improve
service provided among its clientele especially the
students and the end-users of their graduates, the
shipping companies.
The different maritime institutions in the country,
therefore, may utilize the data-gathering instruments
used in this research as bases for ascertaining the
status, compliance with and adherence to quality
standards system in their operations.
To fully cooperate and involve themselves in
future collaborative research in order for maritime
schools to be more productive.
Conduct research on the total quality management
of maritime schools to get a clearer and better
picture of the performance of the graduates of the
different maritime schools.
REFERENCES
Acosta, A. (2002, November). A tough task ahead for maritime
educators in the Asia-Pacific, Seaway Newsmagazine.
Aldanese, V. (1995). “How can the Philippine manning
industry meet new quality standards”. The First Philippine
and Training Conference, Manila.
Beckhard, R. & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the essence.
San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
Best, J. W. & Khan J. V. (1998). “Research in education.” 8
th
Ed. Eglewood Cliffs, NS: Allyn and Bacon.
Cohen, S. & Brand, R. (1993). Total Quality Management in
Government. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Deming, E. W. (1996). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen N. E. (2003). “How to Design and
Evaluate Research in Education.” 2
nd
Ed. Mc. Graw Hill,
Inc., San Francisco State University.
Idris, K. (1999). “Organizational Learning Experience in
Malaysian Firms Moving Toward Globalization.”
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University
of Georgia.
Lim, T.E. & Niew, B.C. (1995).“Quality Management Systems-
An Assessment to ISO 9000.” Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Lina, A. (2002, November). The Quality of the Quality
Standards System. The Maritime Enquirer, Newsmagazine.
7 (3)15. Attitudes of Part-Time and Full-Time Employees.”
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. University
of Georgia.
218
Norusis, M. J. (1991). SPSS/PC + studentware. Michigan:
SPSS
Packard, T. (1995). Total Quality Management in the Social
Services: Theory and Practice. Albany, New York:
Rockefeller College Press.
Perez, M. P. (1999). “Exploratory Study on the Extent of
Implementation of Quality Standards System in Maritime
Schools of Region VI and VII: Basis for A Proposed Guide
for Quality Assurance Managers“ Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation” University of Southern Philippines. Cebu
City.
Pribbenow, C. M. (2000). The Challenges of Educational
Reform: Lessons from the Wisconsin Competency-based
Admission Policy Initiative. Unpublished Doctor of
Philosophy Dissertation. University of Wisconsin.
Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational Behavior.
Prentice-Hall: New Jersey Strokes-Zoota, J. J. (2000). “The
Effects of Work Responsibility on Intrinsic Motivation:
Effects for Cynical and Perceived Changes in Work”.
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. Texas
Christian University.
Swiss, J. (1992). "Adapting TQM to Government," Public
Administration Review. 52, 356-362.
Sweeney, P. D. & MacFarlin, D. B.(2002). Organizational
Behavior. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Tait, A. (1997). Quality Assurance in Higher Education:
Selected Case Studies. Vancouver: The Commonwealth of
Learning.
Tucker, M. S. (2000). “The Impact of a Strategic Planning
Process on the Organizational Administrative Culture
Within a regional Two-Year Community College.”
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University
of Northern Colorado.
Watson, J. R. (2000). Total Quality Education: A school
beliefs, behaviors and outcomes. Unpublished Doctor of
Education Dissertation. The University of North Carolina at
Charlotte.
Williams, K. (1999). “The Relationship Between Shared
Employee Perceptions, Attitudes, and Quality Outcomes
and Customer Satisfaction.” Unpublished Doctor of
Philosophy Dissertation. University of Georgia.
