enhacing employability by industrial training

7/29/2019 Enhacing Employability by Industrial Training

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enhacing-employability-by-industrial-training 1/18

Enhancing employability through industrial training

in the Malaysian context

Stefanie Pillai • Mahmud H. Khan • Ida Syahirah Ibrahim •

Sharmane Raphael

Published online: 24 March 2011Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract This study discusses the industrial training programme at the University of

Malaya in Malaysia, specifically the issues that need to be addressed in order to enhance

the employability skills of graduates. Findings from the feedback obtained from trainees

and organizations in the 2008/2009 academic session were examined in terms of the extent

to which trainees felt they were prepared for their training, and the extent to which the

tasks given to them during their training were appropriate. Further, trainees’ self-rating of

particular skills and industry’s rating of the trainees were also examined. The feedback isdiscussed in the context of the need to equip graduates with employability skills, an issue

facing Higher Education Providers worldwide. The findings indicate that most of the

students were prepared to face the world of work. However, there were several issues

which needed attention. These included the need to address the possible mismatch between

the tasks assigned to trainees and their areas of study, and the need to enhance English

language competency and particular soft skills throughout their degree programme. Con-

tinuous input from industry is also necessary to ensure that the training benefits all parties

and contributes to the employability skills of trainees.

Keywords Industrial trainingÁ

On-the-job trainingÁ

EmployabilityÁ

Higher education providers Á University of Malaya Á Malaysia

Introduction

One of the key changes that higher education providers (HEPs) around the world have had

to make is to sensitize themselves to the needs of employers in order to maintain a better fit

between the graduates they produce and industry requirements (Valo 2000). As pointed out

by Ryan et al. (1996, p. 375), there is increasing ‘‘pressure on higher education institutionsto achieve greater integration between campus-based learning and learning in the work-

place’’. This pressure has increased over the last few years as the economic slowdown

S. Pillai (&) Á M. H. Khan Á I. S. Ibrahim Á S. Raphael

University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

e-mail: [email protected]

123

High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9430-2



caused unemployment rates to soar globally (Tyson and Mennie 2008). Indeed, both

developed and developing nations are being plagued with graduate unemployment,

resulting in HEPs having to realign their policies and programmes to face this challenge

(Jackson 1999; Knight and Yorke 2003; The Requirement of the World of Work 1998).

This is because HEPs have come under heavy criticism from employers for not doingenough to prepare their graduates for ‘‘the world of work’’ (De la Harpe et al . 2000; West

et al. 2000, p. 4) and for producing graduates that are unemployable (Teoh 2005). In fact, a

biannual survey conducted by the Association of Graduate Recruiters in Britain predicted

that 40% of large employers will face setbacks in filling graduate vacancies due to

applicants who lack the ‘‘right skills’’ such as team work, calibre, communication, verbal

and numerical reasoning despite them being academically adept (Many graduates ‘lack soft

skills’ 2007, para 1). In Malaysia, similar laments regularly appear in the newspapers, with

the lack of soft skills or employability skills among graduates being cited as the number

one cause for graduate unemployment (Hii 2007; The right qualification not enough, grads

told 2006; Subra: Graduates lack dynamism and edge 2009; Survey of Managers 2005).

Given that industry is not a homogenous entity, there is no consensus about the exact

inventory of employability skills that graduates should possess. A survey of literature on

employers’ perspectives and needs points towards particular common skills, such as

teamwork, thinking skills problem solving, communication skills, business awareness,

leadership and self management and technology (e.g. CBI 2009; Commonwealth of

Australia 2002; The Requirement of the World of Work 1998; West et al. 2000). This is

similar to the requirements of Malaysian employers (Quek 2005; Malhi and Wahab 2008;

Bardan 2009). Employability skills have been defined as ‘‘a set of skills, knowledge and

personal attributes that make an individual more likely to secure and be successful in theirchosen occupation(s) to the benefit of themselves, the workforce, the community and the

economy’’ (Yorke 2006, p. 21). A similar definition is presented by CBI (2009, p. 8):

‘‘A set of attributes, skills and knowledge that all labour market participants should possess

to ensure they have the capability of being effective in the workplace—to the benefit

of themselves, their employer and the wider economy.’’

For employers, these would be the skills that they would want their potential hire to

have in order to enter into and function effectively in their organizations (Harvey 2001).

However, in the context of HEPs, this term tends to be linked to the ability of graduates to

obtain employment upon graduation, and is generally measured by statistics on graduate

employment (Crossman and Clarke 2010). For example, in Malaysia, all graduating stu-dents of public universities are required to complete an online survey before their grad-

uation ceremony, and based on this survey, HEPs can gauge the employment rate of their

graduates at the point of graduation, which is approximately 6 months after their final

exams. In Malaysia, the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), in fact, cites one of its

objectives as being able to produce competent graduates to fulfil national manpower needs

with 75% of graduates employed in their relevant fields within six months of graduation’’

(see www.mohe.gov.my). Based on such measurements, judgements are made about an

HEP’s ability to produce graduates with a high level of employability, thus making

graduate employability an important agenda in many HEPs (Yorke 2006). In Malaysia,MOHE has placed graduate employability as one of the critical agendas under the National

Higher Education Strategic Plan, where it is stressed that graduates need to possess

additional skills to complement their graduate skills in order to be employable. One of the

key drivers of this critical agenda is for Malaysian HEPs to enhance on-the-job training

components in their degree programmes as this is considered as a platform for students to

enhance their employability skills. On-the-job training is an ‘‘experiential learning

188 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

123

http://www.mohe.gov.my/

http://www.mohe.gov.my/



process’’ and provides the opportunity for students to learn a host of skills (see Ryan et al.

1996, p. 361), and is seen as an essential component of the curriculum by HEPs all over the

world. Forms of training include on-the-job training at private, government or non-gov-

ernmental organizations, teaching practice, project-based research or training, legal

attachments and clinical placements. All these forms of training essentially ‘‘provide alaboratory environment for students pursuing academic programs to test out the theory and

knowledge they have learned in university while enriching their academic experience with

work-based issues and examples’’ (Dodge and McKeough 2003, p. 46). On-the-job training

can help students to develop their employability skills and personal attributes and provides

opportunities for students to gain confidence, to learn work ethics and face challenges at

work such as teamwork, working under pressure and dealing with people from all levels of

the organization. Through such training, students can gain work experience, on-the-job

skills and subsequently be more attractive to potential employers (Casey and James 2004;

Lam and Ching 2006). Such skills are important to ensure that graduates are employable

and can then continue to progress in their chosen careers.

Industrial training at the University of Malaya

At the University of Malaya (UM), the generic term ‘industrial training’ is used to refer to

supervised on-the job training carried out by undergraduates. Such training is one of the

key strategies being carried out by UM to prepare its students to make the transition from

campus to career. The general objectives of the industrial training programme at UM are as

follows:(i) To provide students with relevant on-the-job training, thus enhancing their

employability;

(ii) To provide opportunities for students to apply the knowledge and skills learnt on

campus to work situations;

(iii) To provide opportunities for students to obtain knowledge and learn relevant

technical and soft skills from practitioners in their areas of specialization; and

(iv) To expose students to real-life work environments and their related professional

practices and organizational cultures.

More than 2,500 undergraduates from 39 degree programmes embark on their trainingfor a period of between 2 and 6 months each academic session, with the training being a

compulsory component for more than 80% of these degree programmes. With the

exception of teaching practice, legal attachments and medical related placements, the

training process is facilitated by UM’s Centre for Industrial Training and Relations

(CITRA). From the 2009/2010 academic session, students from the programmes facilitated

by CITRA were required to register for their training online, allowing administrators at the

programme level and CITRA to have access to data pertaining to student registration and

the details of the organizations in which they have been placed. CITRA also organises

industry-led preparatory workshops and seminars aimed at providing students with insights

into the needs and expectations of the world of work. Based on the skills most cited by

employers, the workshops focus on four main areas of employability skills: self-presen-

tation (e.g. grooming, marketing oneself through resumes and at interviews), communi-

cating at the workplace (e.g. English at the workplace, interpersonal skills, presentation

skills), attitudes and attributes (e.g. motivation, dealing with work stress, time manage-

ment, teamwork, leadership skills) and thinking skills (e.g. problem solving, creative

High Educ (2012) 63:187–204 189

123



thinking). These workshops are additional opportunities for UM undergraduates to equip

themselves with these skills, which are also embedded in the curriculum and co-curricular

activities, thus, providing UM students with a holistic education throughout their degree

programme (see Fig. 1). More importantly, the students get the opportunity to learn

directly from professional trainers and industry personnel, rather from academics (whomay not have any industry experience) at the university. Feedback on the preparatory

workshops attended by UM students in the 2009/2010 academic session show that more

than 90% of the students felt that the workshops were useful to them and that they would

recommend the workshops to their friends (Industrial Training Preparatory Programme

Evaluation 2009).

Whilst efforts are made to prepare the students for their training via briefing sessions,

preparatory workshops, and explanatory documents detailing procedures involved in entire

training process, it is often the case that students may be unaware of the overriding aims of

their training. This leads to the danger of them not making the most of their training in

terms of learning and enhancing their subject specific and work-related skills and also

results in them not displaying their full potential to future employers. Thus, it is important

that students are aware of the rationale for their training and understand how it can enhance

their employability skills so that the objectives of the training programme do not remain at

the level of rhetoric. In relation to this, it is necessary to obtain feedback on the students’

training experience and to get a sense of how they rate themselves in relation to the skill

sets sought by industry. At the same time, it is also useful to obtain feedback from the

organizations that place UM students to ascertain how are students are rated, and to use this

feedback to improve the industrial training programme. This paper presents the findings

from the feedback obtained from trainees and organizations in the 2008/2009 academic andexamines the extent to which (1) trainees felt they were prepared for their training; (2) the

tasks given to them during their training were suitable. Further, trainees’ self-rating of

particular skills and industry’s rating of the trainees are also examined. The feedback is

discussed in the context of the need to equip graduates with employability skills, an issue

facing HEPs worldwide. The main question that this paper seeks to address is: what are the

issues relating to industrial training that need to be addressed by UM in order to enhance

the employability skills of graduates?

Methodology

Questionnaires were sent to trainees in the 2008/2009 academic year whose training

programmes were facilitated by CITRA (see Table 1). Questionnaires were given to 2,091

students to obtain feedback during their training to assess students’ perceptions of

Classroom

learningCo-curricular

activities Preparatoryprogramme

Industrial

Training

EMPLOYABILITYSKILLS

Fig. 1 Employability skills development at UM

190 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

123



particular skills. The questionnaire consisted of three main sections. The section on

‘‘Introduction’’ consisted of 4 items on the students’ background (name, student number,

degree programme and department/faculty). The section on ‘‘Industrial training at the

University of Malaya’’ consisted of 12 items which sought to obtain information on the

organization in which they were placed, the assessment of their industrial training expe-

rience, how prepared they were before going for their industrial training, the need for

additional courses and the benefits of industrial training. The section on ‘‘Methodology’’

consisted of 15 items where students were required to rate themselves in terms of

employability skills on a scale of 1 (very poor ) to 5 (excellent ).Questionnaires were sent out to the organizations which placed these students in order

to obtain feedback on the students’ performance during their training and to ascertain how

organizations rated them in the same skills that the students rated themselves. The ques-

tionnaire comprised four parts. Part A sought to obtain background information such as the

trainee’s degree programme duration of training, details of the organization. For Part B, the

organizations were asked to describe the tasks, duties or projects that were given to

the trainees during their training. Part C was the same as the section on ‘‘ Methodology’’ in

the students’ questionnaire, while Part D evaluated the overall performance of the students

during the training period on a four-point Likert-scale.

Feedback from trainees

A total of 1,030 (49.3%) questionnaires were received from the students for the academic

session 2008/2009. This amounted to approximately 49.3% of the total number of trainees.

Table 1 Number of UM stu-

dents on-the-job training in the

2008/2009 academic session

Faculty No of students

Facilitated

by CITRA

Not facilitated

by CITRA

Academy of Islamic Studies 182

Academy of Malay Studies 102

Cultural Centre 12

Faculty of Accountancy and Business 301

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences 42

Faculty of Built Environment 183

Faculty of Computer Science

and Information Technology

22

Faculty of Dentistry 75

Faculty of Economicsand Administration 219

Faculty of Education 170

Faculty of Engineering 427

Faculty of Law 89

Faculty of Medicine 380

Faculty of Science 315

Sports Centre 116

Total 2,091 882

Grand Total 2,973

High Educ (2012) 63:187–204 191

123



The breakdown of the trainees who returned the questionnaires by faculty is shown in

Table 2. Out of 1,030 trainees, industrial training was a compulsory component for 90%

(n = 927) of them.

In terms of the suitability of task, the majority of the trainees 90.8% ( n = 935) stated

that the tasks given by the organizations were suitable, while 8.3% (n = 85) stated that thetasks were not suitable. The reasons given for unsuitability of tasks were that the tasks

given were not related to the courses studied at university; the tasks given were too general;

and the task involved general administration rather than specific tasks.

The majority of the trainees (96.4%, n = 993) stated that they were supervised by

personnel from the organizations, with the majority of them (88.7%, n = 914) visited at

least once by their academic supervisor from UM. Only a small percentage of students

indicated that they were supervised more than once (2.1%). This is consistent with UM’s

policy of academic supervisors visiting the trainees at least once during their placements.

In terms of being prepared for their industrial training, a high percentage of the students

93.7% (n = 965) stated that they were prepared. A small minority of students from the

Academy of Islamic Studies (12.5%, n = 3), Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (3.7%,

n = 1), Faculty of Business and Accountancy (4.3%, n = 10), Faculty of Economics and

Administration (5.5%, n = 10), Faculty of Engineering (9.4%, n = 26) and Faculty of

Science (9.1%, n = 14) said that they were not prepared for their training. The reasons for

this were a lack of:

• relevant work experience

• skills in their areas of specialization

• latest information in their areas of specialization

• English communication skills• ICT skills

The students were asked whether there should be additional courses in the curriculum to

help them better prepare for their industrial training. Overall, most of the students 60.1%

(n = 619) stated that they did not need additional courses, while 38.9% (n = 401) felt that

additional courses such as communication skills, time management, ICT skills, decision

making skills and employability skills, should be incorporated into the curriculum. In fact,

Table 2 Breakdown of respon-dents by faculty

Faculty No. %

Academy of Islamic Studies 24 2.3

Academy of Malay Studies 80 7.8

Cultural Centre 2 .2

Faculty of Accountancy and Business 231 22.4

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences 27 2.6

Faculty of Built Environment 42 4.1

Faculty of Computer Science and IT 6 .6

Faculty of Economics and Administration 181 17.6Faculty of Education 2 .2

Faculty of Engineering 277 26.9

Faculty of Science 154 15.0

Sports Centre 4 .4

Total 1,030 100

192 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

123



more than 30% of the students from the following faculties indicated that they need

additional courses: Academy of Islamic Studies (37.5%, n = 9); Academy of Malay

Studies (50%, n = 40); Cultural Centre (50%, n = 1); Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

(40.7%, n = 11); Faculty of Built Environment (38%, n = 16); Faculty of Business and

Accountancy (30.7%, n = 71); Faculty of Computer Science and IT (66.7%, n = 4);Faculty of Economics and Administration (54.7%, n = 99); Faculty of Education (100%,

n = 2); Faculty of Engineering (34.3%, n = 95) and Faculty of Science (34.4%, n = 53).

Feedback from organizations

A total of 239 questionnaires were received from the organizations that engaged UM

trainees for the academic session 2008/2009. This amounted to feedback on approximately

8.04% of the total number of students sent for training. The feedback received from the

various industries indicated that most students were placed in the area of engineering

(26.4%), followed by ‘‘others’’ or areas not provided for selection in the questionnaire

(16.7%). These included the areas of automotive engineering, entertainment, transporta-

tion, logistics, publishing, public accounting firms, as well as property development and

management. The other areas of placement were financial services (13%), construction

(6.3%), real estate (5.4%) and other industries as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Areas of industrial

training placementArea Frequency Percent

Advertising, public relations, marketing services 2 .8

Chemical and allied products 9 3.8

Agriculture 2 .8

Construction 15 6.3

Corporate management services 1 .4

Education 5 2.1

Environmental service 5 2.1Engineering 63 26.4

Fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) 1 .4

Financial services 31 13.0

Health care services 3 1.3

IT 2 .8

Laboratory testing and inspection services 11 4.6

Manufacturing 10 4.2

Real estate 13 5.4

Research institutes 10 4.2Telecommunications 1 .4

Others 40 16.7

Total 224 93.7

Missing 15 6.3

Total 239 100.0

High Educ (2012) 63:187–204 193

123



Rating of skills

Trainees were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 1 (very poor ) to 5 (excellent ) for 15

employability skills. The skills surveyed were based on the ones most commonly cited by

employers locally and abroad (e.g. CBI 2009; Commonwealth of Australia 2002; Quek 2005; Malhi and Wahab 2008; The Requirement of the World of Work 1998; Bardan 2009;

West et al. 2000). Insights from the previous studies conducted by CITRA at University of

Malaya and also, the feedback by the industry personnel (see Report on Feedback from

Industrial Trainees 2006 /2007; Report on Feedback from Industrial Trainees 2007 /2008;

Report on Feedback from Industry 2006 /2007; Report on Feedback from Industry 2007 /

2008) contributed to the construction of a 15-item self-rating scale.

In 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 the scales were larger whereby the Chronbach’s Alpha

were .93 (2006), and .88. Based on reduced items (15 items), the alpha for 2008 was .92

(Table 4). Following the rule of thumb that Chronbach’s Alpha above .7 shows the reli-

ability of a text instrument (George and Mallery 2003), the questionnaire used can be

deemed acceptable.

The items were reduced based on feedback from industry personnel at various industry-

academia forums and insights gleaned from previous studies (e.g. Bardan 2009; CBI 2009).

In order to investigate the dimensionality of the data, Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

was used; the PCA identifies four principal components in the 15-item scale (Table 5).

The eigenvalues, extracted, and the Scree plot (Fig. 2) supported the four component

structure. To ensure the sample adequacy the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (.931) and Bartlett’s

test of Sphericity (chi square = 8,245.247, df = 105, p = .000) were also conducted

(Table 6), which according to Kaiser’s standard is considered acceptable (Kaiser 1974).The PCA shows that there are four dominant factors, which were: workplace attributes,

English skills, Malay skills and ICT skills. Students’ perceptions are discussed in detail in

the following sections.

For the same skills rated by organizations, the principal component analysis shows that

a 15-item scale can be explained by two factors (Table 7). This shows a difference in the

dimensionality of the data. The two-dimensionality has further been supported by the Scree

plot as shown in Fig. 3. For the suitability of factor analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

measure of sample adequacy (.94) and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (chi square = 2,540.99,

df = 105, p = .000) were conducted, and the results shown in Table 8 supported the view

that the data was adequate to run a factor analysis.The reliability test (Part B items) for the company-questionnaire shows that the

Chronbach Alpha based on standardized items is .95 (Table 9).

The means for each item are shown in Table 10. Table 10 shows that the mean of oral

skills in Malay is greater than the other skills. This suggests that students have good

communication skills in Malay compared to oral (3.91) and presentation skills in English

(3.79). It is also noticeable that creativity and innovation (3.84), problem solving (3.86),

analytical (3.80) and leadership skills (3.75) have lesser means than teamwork (4.30), ICT

(4.11) and interpersonal skills (4.11), self confidence (4.14), time management (4.15) and

presentabilty (4.21). The findings can thus be interpreted as the types of tasks that thetrainees are asked to accomplish are more of a practical nature than analytical.

Table 4 Alpha value for stu-

dent-questionnaireCronbach’s alpha No. of items

.921 15

194 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

123



Workplace attributes

The first component discussed is Workplace Attributes consisting of the following eleven

items: teamwork, problem solving skills, analytical skills, interpersonal skills, creativity

Table 5 Principal component

analysisComponent

1 2 3 4

Oral skills in Malay .566

Oral skills in English .797

Presentation skills in English .791

Teamwork .750

Problem solving skills .757

Analytical skills .701

Interpersonal skills .741

Creativity and innovation .763

Self-confidence .791

Self-motivation .753

Time-management .693

Leadership skills .764

Dependability .753

ICT skills .661

Presentability .733

Fig. 2 Scree plot of the eigenvalues and principal components of the student-questionnaire

Table 6 KMO and Bartlett’s

test results for the student-

questionnaire

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .931

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 8,245.247

df 105

Sig. .000

High Educ (2012) 63:187–204 195

123



Table 7 Factor analysis for two

factorsComponent

1 2

Analytical skills .839

Self-confidence .825

Creativity and innovation .824

Time-management .820

Interpersonal skills .812

Self-motivation .811

Problem solving skills .805

Leadership skills .778

Dependability .770

Teamwork .767

Presentability .751

Presentation skills in English .723

Oral skills in English .692

ICT skills .674

Oral skills in Malay .659

Fig. 3 Scree plot of the eigenvalues and principal components of the company-questionnaire

Table 8 KMO and Bartlett’s

test results for the company-

questionnaire

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .944

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2,540.987

df 105

Sig. .000

Table 9 Alpha value for com-

pany-questionnaireCronbach’s alpha No. of items

.949 15

196 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

123



Administration and 1 from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences). For self -confidence, 11

trainees rated themselves as Poor (4 from the Faculty of Business and Accountancy, 3 each

from the Faculty of Economics and Administration and the Faculty of Engineering and 1

from the Faculty of Science). For creativity and innovation, 15 trainees rated themselves as

Poor (6 from the Faculty of Business and Accounting, 5 from the Faculty of Engineering, 3

from the Faculty of Science and 1 from the Faculty of Economics and Administration).

Overall, there was not much differences between the trainees’ and organizations’

evaluation of the trainees for, workplace attributes with the majority of the trainees rated asExcellent or Good by the organizations (see Table 12). For interpersonal skills, the dif-

ference for Excellent rating between trainees’ (22.3%) and the evaluation by organizations

(32.2%) is almost 10%, whilst the difference for the rest of the skills are between .6 and

5.7%. However, given that there is no match between the trainees and the organizations, no

correlation can be made at this juncture between the two sets of evaluation. Nevertheless, it

is a rather worrying trend that less than 40% of the trainees were rated as Excellent in all

these skills, with leadership skills (15.5%), analytical skills (16.7%) and creativity and

innovation (17.6%) being the lowest.

English skills

The second component rated is English skills consisting of items: oral skills in English and

presentation skills in English. The results show that most of the trainees considered

themselves Good followed by Fair for oral skills in English (see Table 13). A total of

48.3% (n = 497) of them rated themselves Good for oral skills in English and 43.6%

(n = 449) for presentation skills in English. A small number of trainees perceived

Table 12 Rating for workplace attributes by organizations

Description Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent

Teamwork – 5 (2.1%) 11 (4.6%) 130 (54.4%) 93 (38.9%)

Problem solving skills – 10 (4.2%) 64 (26.8%) 114 (47.7%) 50 (20.9%)Analytical skills 1 (.4%) 10 (4.2%) 66 (27.6%) 122 (51.0%) 40 (16.7%)

Interpersonal skills – 5 (2.1%) 40 (16.7%) 117 (49.0%) 77 (32.2%)

Creativity and innovation – 4 (1.7%) 72 (30.1%) 120 (50.2%) 42 (17.6%)

Self-confidence – 5 (2.1%) 38 (15.9%) 116 (48.5%) 79 (33.1%)

Self-motivation – 5 (2.1%) 26 (10.9%) 141 (59.0%) 66 (27.6%)

Time-management 2 (.8%) 3 (1.3%) 32 (13.4%) 124 (51.9%) 77 (32.2%)

Leadership skills 2 (.8%) 7 (2.9%) 81 (33.9%) 109 (45.6%) 37 (15.5%)

Dependability 1 (.4%) 2 (.8%) 32 (13.4%) 126 (52.7%) 77 (32.2%)

Presentability 2 (.8%) 1 (.4%) 25 (10.5%) 125 (52.3%) 85 (35.6%)

Table 13 Self-rating for English skills


Oral skills in English 6 (.6%) 15 (1.5%) 380 (36.9%) 497 (48.3%) 131 (12.7%)

Presentation skills in English 5 (.5%) 33 (3.2%) 447 (43.4%) 449 (43.6%) 88 (8.5%)

198 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

123



themselves as Very Poor for each item, and they tended to be the same trainees, which is to

be expected. Compared to the previous skills, the number of trainees who rated themselves

as Poor is higher for both these skills, especially for presentation skills in English. The

majority of the trainees who rated themselves as Poor were from the Academy of Malay

Studies, where the medium is instruction is almost exclusively Malay (24% of the 33

trainees). The percentage of trainees rated as Excellent and Good by the organizations

(see Table 14) for both components of English skills was higher than the percentage for the

trainees self-rating. Whilst this is a reflection of the samples that do not directly corre-spond, this may also echo the trainees lack of confidence in their English skills because for

many them, their training period may be the first time they have had to function in English

outside the classroom.

Malay skills

The third component examined is Malay skills consisting of oral skills in Malay (Tables 15

and 16). Approximately half the trainees rated themselves Excellent (50.6%) followed by

Good (38.4%) for their Malay skills. This is not surprising considering that Malay is the

national language in Malaysia, and thus students are more confident using Malay compared

to English, where only 12.7 and 8.5% of students rated themselves as being Excellent in

oral skills and presentation skills in English respectively. The feedback from the organi-

zations was almost the same as the trainees’ self-rating and recorded the second highest

percentage of combined Excellent and Good ratings of all the skills surveyed among the

trainees (89%) and organizations (90%), with teamwork recording the highest percentage.

ICT skills

The forth component examined is ICT skills. Most of the trainees (see Table 17) perceived

themselves Good (56.3%, n = 580) followed by Fair (21.7%, n = 224). The assumption

Table 14 Rating for English skills by organizations


Oral skills in English 2 (.8%) 3 (1.3%) 57 (23.8%) 128 (53.6%) 49 (20.5%)

Presentation skills in English 2 (.8%) 9 (3.8%) 63 (26.4%) 122 (51.0%) 38 (15.9%)

Table 15 Self-rating for Malay skills


Oral skills in Malay 6 (.6%) 9 (.9%) 96 (9.3%) 396 (38.4%) 521 (50.6%)

Table 16 Rating for Malay skills by organizations


Oral skills in Malay – 1 (.4%) 21 (8.8%) 102 (42.7%) 113 (47.3%)

High Educ (2012) 63:187–204 199

123



that can be made is that the trainees are generally confident with their ICT skills.

Nevertheless, the 14 trainees who rated themselves and Poor and Very Poor should befurther investigated as many were students whom employers would assume possess ICT

skills relevant to their area of specialization, for example, Business and Accountancy,

Economics and Administration, Engineering (n = 3), and Built Environment. A total

56.9% of the trainees were rated as Good , 26.8% as Excellent , while 14.2% were rated as

Fair by the organizations. The results are shown in Table 18.

Overall rating

Generally, all the trainees rated themselves as Good for the skills examined through the

questionnaires. Only a few students perceived themselves as Very Poor (.6%, n = 6) for

both oral skills in Malay and English, presentation in English (.5%, n = 5), and only (.1%,

n = 1) for teamwork, problem solving, analytical and interpersonal skills, creativity and

innovation, self-confidence, self-motivation, time management, dependability, ICT skills

and presentability.

Part D, which is the final part of the questionnaire given to organizations, surveys the

trainees’ performance during the training period. A total of 51.0% of the trainees were

rated as Good , 41.0% were rated as Excellent , 6.3% were rated as Satisfactory, while only

(.8%, n=

2) were found to be Unsatisfactory.

The making of employment-ready and employable graduates

The findings indicate that overall, trainees perceived themselves to be adequately prepared

for the Industrial Training programme. However, there is still a need to enhance UM

graduates’ skills. Although feedback was only obtained from organizations that placed 239

of the trainees, it still gives a general picture of the readiness of UM students to face the

world of work, and judging by the ratings that the trainees received during their training

from the organizations. However, the feedback from both parties does indicate that there isroom for improvement in several areas if graduate employability is to be enhanced.

The first, is the need to address potential mismatch between the trainees’ area of

specialization and the tasks assigned to them during their training period. The mismatch

between the type of tasks given to students and their areas of specialization tends to occur

when departments do not specify what skills they expect their students to obtain during

Table 17 Self-rating for ICT skills


ICT skills 1 (.1%) 13 (1.3%) 224 (21.7%) 580 (56.3%) 209 (20.3%)

Table 18 Self-rating for ICT skills by organizations


ICT skills 1 (.4%) 1 (.4%) 34 (14.2%) 136 (56.9%) 64 (26.8%)

200 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

123



their training period. This can lead to considerable frustration among trainees who are

likely to feel that they are not learning the required job-specific and general job skills

during their training. The objective of the training for developing employability skills is

also not achieved. To address this issue, organizations that place UM students are given an

information sheet comprising the general objectives and learning outcomes of the indus-trial training programme. What is expected of the organization in terms of assigning

supervisors and tasks and evaluating the trainees is also stated on this information sheet.

However, this in itself appears to be inadequate, and thus, a new policy has been put in

place requiring organizations to state the tasks given to trainees within the first 2 weeks of

training. This statement will have to be endorsed by the university-appointed supervisors

(UAS) of the trainees in terms of (1) suitability of tasks to trainees’ area of study; (2)

achieving the learning outcomes of specific training programmes; and (3) whether the tasks

will enhance the employability skills of the trainees.

Related to this issue is the role of the UAS to engage with the organizations that are

hosting the trainees so that the training is a mutually beneficial experience for both the

trainees and the organizations (Pillai and Yusoff 2007). In particular, the UAS should be in

contact with the Supervisor or Mentor from the organization to discuss how the learning

outcomes of the training can be achieved within the specified training period, and how the

trainees can be given opportunities to develop their employability skills during the training

period. All UAS should also be in constant contact with their trainees to monitor their

progress and help them reflect on their learning experiences.

Secondly, there is a need to address the reasons cited by the trainees for their lack of

readiness to embark on their training among which were a lack of skills in their areas of

specialization, latest information in their areas of specialization, English communicationand ICT skills. Cognizant of this feedback, steps have already been taken to ensure that

students obtain these skills. Amongst others, this is done by way of scheduled curriculum

reviews, which incorporate industry feedback; as well as through compulsory English

language courses and industry-led courses, workshops and seminars. The latter provides

direct input from industry to the students on the latest knowledge areas in an area of

specialization and on the current needs and expectations of industry. This is done by

appointing industry personnel as, for example, teaching staff, trainers, workshops facili-

tators, project evaluators, curriculum and programme advisors. Input is continuously

sought from industry regarding the current requirements of industry in order to enhance the

curriculum and to keep abreast of recent developments in a particular field. For instance,direct feedback from industry is obtained through the Industrial Training Advisory

Committee comprising senior industry personnel.

Third, the feedback from the trainees on the need for additional courses such as com-

munication skills, time management, ICT skills and decision-making skills to be incor-

porated into the curriculum has to be taken into account. As presented in Fig. 1. UM’s

takes a holistic approach to the development of these skills. They are embedded into the

curriculum, with every course on a degree programme having to explicitly state which

skills are being focused upon. There are also ample opportunities for students to develop

these skills throughout their university education at UM through the many workshops andseminars organised by the university throughout the year. However, particular attention

needs to be paid to the skills that are rated less favourably, namely, leadership, analytical,

and creativity and innovation skills, and self-confidence. Perhaps, the lack of these skills

can be attributed to the transitional shock that students face as they step into a new

environment beyond the boundaries of the campus. Nevertheless, students must be pre-

sented with opportunities to identify their skills gap early in their degree programme, and

High Educ (2012) 63:187–204 201

123



be given the chance to develop the relevant skills throughout their degree programme,

skills that they can then transfer to the world of work when they enter into employment.

One of the ways that the development of employability skills is being done at UM is by

offering part-time jobs to students on campus and giving them basic entrepreneurial

education,Fourth, the issue of English language competency needs to be addressed without

compromising the status of the national language. The lack of English proficiency and

English communication skills is often cited as one of the main reasons why graduates

cannot obtain jobs in Malaysia (e.g. Malaysia and the Knowledge Economy 2007; Survey

of Managers 2005). This is a worrying trend given that English is a compulsory subject

throughout primary and secondary education and at most HEPs, undergraduates are

required to take some form of English language classes as part of their degree programme

(e.g. English proficiency, English for Academic Purpose, English for Engineering, Report

writing, Oral skills for Law). Yet, the contention is that graduates from local HEPs are not

proficient in English. There are many contributing factors to the poor level of English

among graduates but it is not within the scope of this paper to discuss these factors.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is a tendency for students from urban areas and

higher socioeconomic backgrounds to be more exposed and therefore more proficient in

English (Pillay 1995) which gives them an edge over others in the job market and further

enhances their socioeconomic status. This link between English language proficiency and

access to jobs with salaries commensurate with graduate’s qualifications, and entry into

more sought after organizations is particularly worrying given Malaysia’s aim to become a

high-income nation by 2020 (National Economic Advisory Council 2010). It is, therefore,

essential that English language education in Malaysia be reviewed in order to provideequal access and opportunities to all students regardless of their geographical and socio-

economic background.

These four areas are by no means exhaustive, and there are other areas of concern that

need to be dealt with but were not discussed since this paper is based on the feedback

obtained from the questionnaires given to trainees and organizations. Nevertheless, it does

provide a platform to enhance the industrial training experience thus, giving students the

best possible opportunity to develop their employability skills during their training period.

Conclusion

The main aim of this paper was to examine the issues that emerged from the feedback

on industrial training obtained from UM trainees and the organizations that placed them

within the context of employability skills. The issues that emerged are not unique to UM or

Malaysia, and thus, some of the practical suggestions to address them may be applicable to

other HEPs around the world. The issues included the need to ensure that the tasks assigned

to trainees during their industrial training were related to their fields of study, and also to

ensure that the tasks helped develop particular employability skills. In addition, there was

the issue of preparing students for their training by providing them with a variety of opportunities to develop some of the skills needed for the workplace before they embark on

their training. Opportunities to obtain these skills and also to obtain firsthand knowledge

of industry’s needs and expectations also needs be created by increasing the presence of

industry on campus in teaching, learning, assessment and co-curricular activities. Skills like

communication, time management, analytical and decision-making as well as English

language competency, need to be embedded in the curriculum and aligned to methods of

202 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

123



assessment, which is currently the practice in Malaysian public HEPs. Provisions for stu-

dents to obtain these skills outside the classroom should also be provided by the university

throughout the students’ degree programme, so that students can make full use of their

university tenure to identify their skill-gap and to develop their employability skills.

UM, like most other HEPs, places great emphasis on the importance of industrialtraining as part of its endeavour to equip students with the latest skills required by

industries so as to give them the extra edge towards securing their employment of choice

upon graduation. While the industrial training exercise teaches undergraduates to merge

theory gleaned from the classroom to a practical work environment, it is also a stark

reminder that paper qualifications alone will not suffice or guarantee them employment in a

rapidly globalized and changing environment, and graduates who fail to ‘‘constantly

upgrade themselves’’ and lack the right skills and attitude, risk ‘‘being left behind’’ (The

right qualification not enough and grads told 2006, para. 9). Although some may contend

that it is not the role of HEPs to produce ‘‘oven-ready’’ graduates (Maher 2004), in today’s

context, it is a social and economic responsibility for HEPs at the very least provide

opportunities for students to obtain industry relevant skills throughout their 3 or 4 years at

university. Inevitably, an HEP will be judged by the extent to which its graduates are

sought after by industry and also by how soon upon graduation they are employed. In

relation to this, the industrial training programme serves as a vital yardstick in gauging

undergraduates’ marketability and employability as they gird themselves for the world of

work. This is inevitable as the nation strengthens its education and training base to face

rising competition in trade and investment from neighbouring countries.

Acknowledgments The study reported in this paper was supported by a short term research grant awarded

by the University of Malaya in 2008 (FS107/2008B).

References

Bardan, S. (2009). Governance and government: Employer’s perspective of graduates employability.

Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) held on 21–22 July 2009 on employability: Issues, concerns

and the way forward. http://alumni.upm.edu.my/ … /papers/003_Tn_Hj_Samsudin_Bardan.pdf . Accessed

18 December 2009.

Casey, J. R., & James, J. (2004). Developing harmonious University-Industry partnerships. University of

Dayton Law Review, 30(2), 245–263.CBI (2009). Future fit: Preparing graduates for the world of work http://highereducation.cbi.org.uk/

uploaded/HRE_091_Future%20Fit%20AW.pdf . Accessed 31 December 2010.

Commonwealth of Australia (2002). Employability skills for the future. http://dest.gov.au/ty/ … /

employability_skills/final_report.pdf . Accessed 18 December 2009.

Crossman, J. E., & Clarke, M. (2010). International experience and graduate employability: Stakeholder

perceptions on the connection. Higher Education, 59, 599–613.

De la Harpe, B., Radloff, A., & Wyber, J. (2000). Quality and generic (professional) skills. Quality in

Higher Education, 6 (3), 231–243.

Dodge, R. B., & McKeough, M. (2003). Internship and the Nova Scotia government experience. Education

and Training, 45(1), 45–55.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update

(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and measuring employability. Quality in Higher Education, 7 (2), 97–109.

Hii, C. (2007). Need to resolve mismatch in the job market. The Star Online. http://thestar.com.my/

news/story.asp?file=2007/11/11/nation/19444550&sec=nation. Accessed 4 February 2009.

Industrial Training Preparatory Programme Evaluation (2009). Unpublished report. Centre for Industrial

Training and Relations, University of Malaya.

Jackson, N. (1999). Modelling change in a national HE system using the concept of unification. Journal of

Education Policy, 14(4), 411–434.

High Educ (2012) 63:187–204 203

123

http://alumni.upm.edu.my/…/papers/003_Tn_Hj_Samsudin_Bardan.pdf



http://highereducation.cbi.org.uk/uploaded/HRE_091_Future%20Fit%20AW.pdf


http://dest.gov.au/ty/…/employability_skills/final_report.pdf




http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=2007/11/11/nation/19444550&sec=nation











Kaiser, H. F. (1974). Index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 31–36.

Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2003). Employability and good learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher

Education, 8(1), 3–16.

Lam, T., & Ching, L. (2006). An Exploratory study of an internship program: The case of Hong Kong

students. Hospitality Management, 26 , 336–351.

Maher, A. (2004) Oven-ready and self-basting? Taking stock of employability skills. LINK 11, pp. 7–9.http://www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/publications.hltm. Accessed 17 February 2010.

Malaysia and the Knowledge Economy (2007). Building a world-class higher education system EPU and

the World Bank . http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMALAYSIA/Resources/Malaysia-Knowledge-

Economy2007.pdf . Accessed 18 December 2009.

Malhi, R. S., & Wahab, A. B. (2008). Your dream job: How to get it and excel. KL TQM Consultants Sdn

Bhd.

Many graduates ‘lack soft skills’ (2007). BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6311161.stm.

Accessed 6 January 2009.

National Economic Advisory Council (2010). New economic model for Malaysia part 1: Strategic policy

directions http://www.epu.gov.my/html/themes/epu/images/common/pdf/eco_stat/pdf/nem.pdf . Accessed

31 December 2010.

Pillai, S., & Yusoff, M. (2007). The student industrial training programme: Issues and challenges. Pro-ceedings of 15th World Conference on Cooperative Education (WACE2007) . Singapore.

Pillay, H. (1995). Fragments of a vision: A case study of the implementation of an English language

curriculum programme in five Malaysian secondary schools. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

University of East Anglia.

Quek, A. (2005). Learning of a workplace: A case study in graduate employees’ generic competencies.

Journal of Workplace Learning, 17 (4), 231–242.

Report on Feedback from Industrial Trainees 2006/2007. Unpublished report. Centre for Industrial Training

and Relations, University of Malaya.

Report on Feedback from Industrial Trainees 2007/2008. Unpublished report. Centre for Industrial Training

and Relations, University of Malaya.

Report on Feedback from Industry 2006/2007. Unpublished report. Centre for Industrial Training and

Relations, University of Malaya.Report on Feedback from Industry 2007/2008. Unpublished report. Centre for Industrial Training and

Relations, University of Malaya.

Ryan, G., Toohey, S., & Hughes, C. (1996). The purpose, value and structure of the practicum in higher

education: A literature review. Higher Education, 31(3), 355–377.

Subra: Graduates lack dynamism and edge (2009). The Star Online. http://thestar.com,my/news/stoy.

as?file=/2009/2/16/nation/3275865&sed=nation. Accessed 17 February 2009.

Survey of managers on reasons why they did not hire some fresh graduates. Survey by Jobstreet.com.

http://pesona.mmu.edu.my/ *ytbau/tes3211/job_survey_2005.pdf , Accessed 7 December 2009.

Teoh, L. E. (2005, May 3) Producing employable graduates. Sun2Surf . http://www.sun2surf.com/article.

cfm?id=8840. Accessed 24 November 2008.

The Requirement of the World of Work (1998). World conference on higher education held on 5–9 October

1998, UNESCO, Paris. http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/principal/worldofwork.html.The right qualification not enough, grads told (2006). The Star Online. http://thestar.com.my/services/

printerfriendly.asp?. Accessed 18 December 2009.

Tyson, S., & Mennie, P. (2008, October). Global market outlook . Global Intelligence. http://www.

mfcglobal.com/pdf/global_intelligence_q4_08.pdf . Accessed 4 January 2009.

Valo, M. (2000). Experiencing work as a communications professional: Students’ reflections on their off-

campus work practice. Higher Education, 39, 151–179.

West, A., Noden, P., & Gosling, R. (2000). Quality in higher education: An international perspective: The

views of transnational corporations. Clare Market Papers No. 17. London: Education Research Group,

LSE.

Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is—what it is not. Learning and Employability

Series 1. York: Higher Education Academy.

204 High Educ (2012) 63:187–204

http://www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/publications.hltm

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMALAYSIA/Resources/Malaysia-Knowledge-Economy2007.pdf


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6311161.stm

http://www.epu.gov.my/html/themes/epu/images/common/pdf/eco_stat/pdf/nem.pdf

http://thestar.com%2Cmy/news/stoy.as?file=/2009/2/16/nation/3275865&sed=nation


http://pesona.mmu.edu.my/~ytbau/tes3211/job_survey_2005.pdf



http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=8840


http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/principal/worldofwork.html

http://thestar.com.my/services/printerfriendly.asp


http://www.mfcglobal.com/pdf/global_intelligence_q4_08.pdf






http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/principal/worldofwork.html






http://www.epu.gov.my/html/themes/epu/images/common/pdf/eco_stat/pdf/nem.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6311161.stm



http://www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/publications.hltm

enhacing employability by industrial training

Documents