TITLE OF THE ARTICLE:

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AMONG ACADEMIC STAFF AT SELECTED

MALAYSIAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF THE IMPACT
OF THE BASIC TEACHING METHODOLOGY COURSE (BTMC).
Siti Aminah Binti Khalid (2012767551)
Research Seminar (EDU 706) - Dr Norshidah Mohammed Noordin
Faculty of Education, Uitm Shah Alam

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

This is an article review of

Dr. Azam and Dr. Zainurin, 2011 which investigated the

Professional Development among Academic Staff at Selected Malaysian Public

Universities: Preliminary Findings of the Impact of the Basic Teaching Methodology
Course (BTMC).The articles was published in the International Journal of Business and
Social Science, Vol. 2. No. 11, pp. 125-134.
REFLECTION OF THE ARTICLE:
ABSTRACT:
The researchers stated the abstract according to the research standard. The abstract
also reflect the actual research issues addressed in the study and also was reported
briefly and systematically. The abstract encapsulate methodology, salient findings and
implications. However, the researchers did not mention the relevant theories for their
research in the abstract. Moreover, the researchers should report of the research
instrument in this part (Chua,2012).
INTRODUCTION :
The researchers had stated the Research Problems clearly in the introduction part. The
background to the pertinent research issues also has been well discussed by the

researchers in this part. Overall, the research problems have been well defined by the
researchers.
Moreover, the research questions address the defined of the research problems
very well. However, there is certain terms that should be replace with suitable one. For
example in RQ4 the researcher use the terms do for the research question which
totally wrong usage in this context. If the researcher use this term the answer should be
yes or no.
The research objectives have been stated clearly but there were certain error in
the terms that have been used by the researchers which should be replace with other
suitable terms in a research. For examples, the researchers were used the term to
explore in their research objectives which cannot be measured. Furthermore, the
research questions and research objectives were inconsistent .In term of the scope and
relevance of the research, the researchers had conducted an appropriate scope of
study.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
The literatures stated in the literature review in this study were not relevant to the
research issues. The current and previous literature has not been documented on the
relevant issues in a substantial amount. Almost all of the informations in this part did not
supported with the reliable sources and it will lead to the plagiarism issue. Moreover,
the literature has been reviewed did not summarized and organized very well and
consistent with the sequence of the research issues addressed in the study. a quit big
numbers of the literatures also were not related to the research objectives and the
variables. The researcher also did not stated the theoretical framework in this part.
METHODOLOGY :
From this research, the collection, refinements, strengths and weaknesses of the data
used in the study specified. The researcher stated that he used a purposive sampling
approach research design which is not a suitable research design should be used in
any of the quantitative approach. This type of sampling is very suitable for the

qualitative sampling as mentioned by Chua (2012) in his book. In this case a simple
random technique should be conducted. The researcher also did not state the
questionnaire names or sources in this part. The researcher also did not stated
specifically the certain information such as the name of the company that the research
conducted. The methodology used to analyze the data did not mention appropriate for
the research issues addressed. The statistical techniques that had been used did not
stated in appropriate and suitable ways. The paper had a lot of methodological
problems.

RESULTS / FINDINGS / NARRATIVE / ANALYSIS :

There were certain items from the questionnaire should be eliminated. For example
from the results I want to highlighted one of the item analysis result stated by the
researcher All 150 (100%) of the respondents agree that the system of the total quality
management is directed towards customer satisfaction and employees involvement. In
this part, the researcher presented their results according to the test of hypotheses that
had been mentioned in this chapter. However, the research objectives did not reflect in
the hypotheses. Overall, the interpretation of the findings logical and acceptable within
the context of the research but needs a lot of improvement.
DISCUSSION / SUMMARY / CONCLUSION / IMPLICATIONS :
The implications of the findings were discussed in this part. The authors had clearly
identified and discussed the contributions of the findings to the knowledge in the area
and applicability of the findings in addressing the research problems in the study. The
stated objectives had been achieved and the main weaknesses of the research clearly
identified and the impact of these weaknesses on the findings properly addressed.
REFERENCES:
This part should not be taking for granted. The researcher did not presented the
sources according to the APA format (American Psychological Association). The
arrangement of the references should be according to the alphabetical order. From the

references listed there were several of them did not used by the researcher in the
writing. The amounts of the references also were not relevant and should be add more.
The sources should be variety from different types of media, focused on the reliability of
sources and for the internet sources, the researcher should stated the date of retrieve.
PRESENTATION/LAYOUT/BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONVENTIONS :
Overall, the sequence of the chapters and write-up in each chapter facilitates the
understanding of the research addressed in the study. However, the tables in this
research were not presented according to the APA standard.
REFLECTION OF THE PRESENTATION:
The presenter was the second presenter. She critiqued on the paper that had been
chosen by her but the paper contains too much flaws. There had a lot of things that she
did not mention within the presentation period but she allowed all the members to learn
more and sharing the ideas and opinions.