Sejahtera Academic Framework (SAF)

68 67 Umum (MPU) and University General Studies courses (UNGS). There seemed to be an overwhelming dissatisfaction over the projection of students’ numbers compared to the availability of venues, equipment and instructors. The complaints mainly revolved around the ability to secure well-equipped venues before the semester starts. While the informants somewhat relented over matters related to the venues and equipment, there seemed to be a general agreement among them that in order to maintain or to promote quality instruction, measures on finance need to be looked at with a view to appoint more instructors; part-time, contract or permanent one. This issue, in turn, was related to the amount and intensity of training provided to the part-time and contract staff prior to their teaching of specific courses. The informants suggested that the training was pertinent for the instructors to be able to deliver their teaching and assess the students in the best way possible. c. Training on Teaching Method and Assessment Procedures All informants in all FGDs unanimously agreed that they are in dire need for training to enhance the teaching skills and professionalism, particularly for the part-timers. At the moment there is no specific training in teaching and learning processes for UniCORE instructors. In terms of teaching methods, although the teaching informants have upgraded themselves, they still lack a formal training in developing and using appropriate teaching delivery. The same concern was also applicable to the instructors’ knowledge and skills in assessment procedures. Although some informants reported the use of up-to-date assessment procedures, they did not acquire the knowledge and skills from IIUM-organised training. d. Moral Support from IIUM authority The informants hinted that the UniCORE courses were perceived by the University population; students, lecturers and administrators alike, as “second-class” courses in terms of the courses’ contribution to students’ life and the contribution of the courses to the students’ professional capability. In short, the major courses, referring to the degree, which the students were registered for, were viewed as being far more superior than the UniCORE courses. Instances recalled by the informants suggested that the UniCORE courses were also viewed as “wasting-time” courses. e. Other Matters There was also a need to look into all the courses offered in UniCORE as there seemed to be duplications of courses. When courses were duplicated there was a good possibility that elements related to the courses were also duplicated such as, the contents, methods of teaching and assessment procedures. This gave rise to our concern that a massive curriculum was needed to avoid duplication among UniCORE courses. Another theme that raises concern was the monitoring of UniCORE courses, particularly in Kuantan Campus. It was not clear who was the authority in managing the courses. Instructors were reported to handle courses as they wished without following the prescribed course outlines. The informants suggested that there were cases where courses were being scheduled haphazardly and not according to the students’ availability, which caused clashes in time-tabling. Students’ Evaluation of Unicore Courses The students’ feedback on the UniCORE courses were gathered from both the FGD and a survey. During the FGDs, the students commented that when they enrolled in the University, they felt uncertain of UniCORE. They were not briefed appropriately about the UniCORE courses in terms of the structure, importance of the courses and the reason why they have to take the courses. In terms of assessment, the students suggested that assessment procedures should be conducted according to the different contexts of the different kulliyyahs. This would allow the knowledge and skills in UniCORE courses to be applied by the students in their unique areas of specializations, particularly courses related to usrah and UNGS. In addition the informants also wished that the assessment for some of the UniCORE courses be assessed based on pass/ fail basis rather than grades. The following section presents findings on UniCORE from the Academic Review 2020 Survey. The respondents were indirectly asked whether or not they agree that the UniCORE curriculum implementation managed to achieve its objectives and the efficacy of its structure, which include the organisation and scheduling of classes. Responses from those surveyed are summarised in Table 3.3. Disagree Neutral Agree Contents should be aligned to the Kulliyyah's curriculum? 7.8 24.9 67.3 Enrich my knowledge on islamic worldview? 9.0 25.1 65.8 Class schedule of the courses should match academic programme structure? 7.5 27.6 64.9 Are useful for your personal wellbeing? 13.2 31.9 54.9 Develop your soft skill such as communication skills? 16.3 33.1 50.6 Section for UNGS courses is based on programme? 16.3 34.0 49.7 Table 3.3 Percentage Distributions of Perceived Effectiveness of Objectives and Structure