Students' evaluations of teaching staff can be considered high-stakes, as they are often used to determine promotion, reappointment, and merit pay to academics. Using Facets, the reliability and validity of one student rating questionnaire is analyzed. A total of 13,940 respondents of the Human Science Division of International Islamic University Malaysia were involved in the study. The analysis shows that the student rating questionnaire used was valid and reliable, and it allows identification of staff for the institution's prestigious teaching excellence awards, and those needing in-service training. It was found that there was no significant difference in terms of rank, age and gender of the staff. The study also shows that the majority of staff have problems keeping the class interested and getting students to participate in class activities. Faculty also hardly discussed common errors in assignments and tests.
This paper examined the raters' and the ratees' preferences in Malaysia regarding the performance appraisal process and feedback. A total of 52 managers (raters) and 122 subordinates (ratees) participated. Analysis by t test and correlation showed significant differences between raters and the ratees on most factors. Ratees preferred to have more frequent appraisals than once a year and preferred to have more frequent feedback from the managers about their performance. Ratees' preference for the purpose of information on performance was towards salary increase, promotion, training, and career development whereas the raters gave more importance to training and career development.
The purpose of this study was to explore the University of Malaya (UM) dental graduates' competence in holistic care in real settings from the employers' and graduates' perspectives. A self-administered questionnaire consisting of ten domains was sent to thirty senior dental officers of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and 164 UM graduates. In this article, nineteen major competencies that best represent the graduates' competence in the provision of holistic care are discussed. Each competency was rated on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 4 (very good) and was categorized as "poor and of major concern" (if less than 60 percent of respondents scored good or very good), "satisfactory and of minor concern" (60-69 percent), or "excellent" (70 percent and above). One hundred and six out of 164 graduates (64.6 percent) and twenty-nine out of thirty employers (96.7 percent) responded. Overall, the employers rated the graduates lower than what the graduates rated themselves on all items. While the graduates felt they were excellent and satisfactory in sixteen out of nineteen items (84.2 percent), the employers felt they were poor in fourteen out of nineteen (73.7 percent). Both groups agreed that the graduates were excellent in communication, but poor in life-saving skills, obtaining patient's family and psychosocial histories, and recognizing signs and symptoms (not intraoral) indicating the presence of a systemic disease. In conclusion, although the graduates felt competent in the majority of the holistic care competencies, the employers had some reservations over such claims. Outcomes of the study led to recommendations to incorporate longer community-based learning hours, an improved behavioral science component, a module for special care patients, and multidepartmental collaborative teachings in the new integrated program aimed for implementation in 2011.