Sejahtera Academic Framework (SAF)

62 61 staff. It is recommended that this discussion be structured andmoderated in the spirit of win-win situation The informants suggested that the Centre for Professional Development (CPD) plan the annual almanac of training to be disseminated to all academic members of staff prior to the beginning of every semester to make it easier for them to identify the trainings in which they want to participate. Realising that there were generic as well as specialised training, it was also recommended that CPD conduct a needs analysis assessment of training for all kulliyyahs. This would ensure that at least the basic needs of training of all academic members of staff can be fulfilled. It is worth noting here that contrary to the above, in actual practise, CPD posts all information for its annual almanac on its website at the beginning of the calendar year. CPD also announces its training, at least one month prior to the session for enrolment through the HURIS Step Application, with the exception of the training sessions that CPD conducted during the ERTL. Feedback from CPD itself raised some concerns with regards to commitment levels in some of the participants. The lack of participation in CPD training and not staying throughout the training session is an indicator of low commitment among academics for reskilling and upskilling. Most of the time, around 30-40 lecturers would enrol, but only 10-15 would show up. And less than 10 stayed throughout the programme due to meetings, classes etc. Perhaps the contributing factors to this unsatisfactory level of participation are (i) lack of recognition from the Kulliyyah/University for participation in these programmes, (ii) lack of support from the kulliyyah, in terms of time off to go for proper training, and (iii) the notion that they are doing fine without the additional training because they achievemore than 80% in their SFS. Only those who achieve below 80% for 3 consecutive semesters are required to undergo retraining. Table 3.2 summarises the percentage distributions of responses among the final year students. Of the 884 respondents, at least 60% endorsed the propositions that their undergraduate courses were “useful to their well-being,” “effectively taught by the instructors,” develop their soft skills,” and “efficiently organised.” Almost 47% were in agreement that the courses fulfilled their designated objectives. However, the data revealed that more than one-thirds of the students indicated the occurrence of replication and mismatch between course workload and credit hour. Disagree Neutral Agree Are useful for your personal wellbeing? 6.8 22.1 71.1 Have been taught effectively by course instructor? 7.5 26.0 66.5 Develop your soft skill such as communication skills? 8.8 26.5 64.7 Have been efficiently organised? 13.9 26.4 59.7 Do not meet their objectives? 46.2 35.0 18.9 Have duplicated content with your foundation courses? 23.4 37.7 38.9 The load of the courses does not reflect the credit hour? 29.9 38.6 31.6 Table 3.2 Percentage Distributions of Perceptions towards Academic Programme The following presents evidence that substantiated the perceptions of the sample towards their academic programmes gathered from the Academic Review 2020 Survey.