The missing piece in university reform

Photo: 123rf.com

AN allocation of RM19.1bil has been committed to higher education and another RM8bil to technical and vocational education and training (TVET) under Budget 2027. These are substantial investments in developing the nation’s future workforce.

But amid the emphasis on infrastructure, technology and employability, one question deserves greater attention: How much are we investing in developing the people who actually teach?

Much of the discussion surrounding education reform focuses on students, graduate employability and TVET. The same attention should be given to university academics.

Universities cannot expect staff to prepare future-ready graduates if opportunities to develop their own knowledge and skills are not equally future-ready.

Concerns about graduate employability, particularly communication, critical thinking and workplace readiness, remain part of Malaysia’s higher education debate. But the capabilities of those expected to cultivate these qualities deserve equal attention.

Staff development is not a new responsibility. Most universities already allocate resources for training programmes and workshops. However, the number of programmes conducted and training hours accumulated does not necessarily translate into improved capabilities.

Consider a lecturer who attends a workshop on active learning. Does classroom engagement improve afterwards? Can a researcher who completes a methodology course develop a stronger research proposal?

Having qualified staff is not enough. Their knowledge and skills must continue to evolve in response to changing demands.

Here, the Public Service Department’s Dasar Pembangun­an Bakat Perkhidmatan Awam (Public Service Talent Develop­ment Policy) offers a useful lesson. The policy requires structured evaluations of training effectiveness, including follow-up assessments three to six months after training. It recognises that training should be evaluated by its impact on knowledge, skills and workplace performance, not merely its completion.

Could universities adopt a similar approach? Rather than treating attendance as evidence of development, institutions should examine whether newly acquired knowledge and skills are applied in teaching, research and administration.

Another concern is the tendency to repeat similar training programmes year after year without assessing whether they remain relevant. Some academics attend workshops simply to fulfil annual training requirements, making compliance more important than learning. Universities should reconsider how they identify training needs, design programmes and allocate resources.

Internal workshops have their place, but external courses, industry exposure and specialised programmes can introduce fresh perspectives.

Critics may argue that universities can barely afford existing operations, let alone additional staff development initiatives. But ineffective training also carries a cost: in wasted hours, repeated budgets and limited improvements in academic performance.

Time is another concern. Academics are already stretched by teaching, research and administrative duties. Any new requirement must therefore be practical and low-burden, built around existing academic schedules rather than adding to their workload.

International experience offers useful ideas. Harvard University’s Derek Bok Centre for Teaching and Learning supports teaching improvement through classroom observation, peer feedback and teaching consultations. These approaches allow academics to reflect on their teaching and identify areas for improvement.

Malaysian universities could explore similar arrangements. A pilot programme involving peer observation in one faculty, evaluated after a semester, could provide useful lessons without requiring substantial additional resources.

Ultimately, staff development should be treated as a strategic investment rather than as an annual administrative exercise.

The Higher Education Ministry should encourage a common framework for reporting training effectiveness while allowing institutions flexibility in implementation. Evaluation findings should guide improvements in programme design, resource allocation and future development priorities.

If Malaysia is serious about producing future-ready graduates, it must also be serious about developing future-ready academics. University reform is not just about better facilities, new technology or strategic plans; it is equally about investing in the people who bring education to life in the classroom.

ZAKIYAH SHARIF

Senior lecturer

Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy

Universiti Utara Malaysia