54

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Chapter 4

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1435-1.ch004

ABSTRACT

The sands of education are constantly shifting, and in order to stay significant, higher educational institutions (HEIs) need to reinvent themselves in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. With high global unemployment rates of fresh graduates and internal institutional challenges, future conscious HEIs understand the importance of the need to redesigned curriculum, content, and assessments to prepare graduates for employment. Through a detailed evaluation of the newly developed Taylor’s curriculum framework (TCF), this chapter will elaborate on the core purposes of this curriculum framework and the governing principles in redesigning a curriculum that focuses on the 21st century needs. By shifting the focus from teaching to learning and by redirecting the focus of assessment from knowledge base to skills base, HEI graduates will be equipped meet the needs of industry, the Fourth Industrial Age and beyond.

INTRODUCTION

Since Prometheus stole the fire of knowledge from right under the noses of the gods on Mount Olympus and bestowed it upon mankind, humans have not stopped fiddling with it and creating striking innova-tions all throughout their evolution. (Ancient Greek Mythology)

There is an ancient Sanskrit adage; ‘mattha pitta guru devam’. Every Indian child would have had this old proverb instilled in their lives at a very early stage of life. The essence of this in order of importance is first in your life is your Mother (matha), followed by your father (pitta), then is your teacher (guru), and then comes God (devam). This proverb is as relevant today as is the role of a teacher as we move into the 4th Industrial Revolution (IR). Therefore, it is essential for educators to see the importance of

Future Ready Universities:Embracing the 4th Industrial Revolution

Prema PonnuduraiTaylor’s University, Malaysia

Logendra Stanley PonniahTaylor’s University, Malaysia

55

Future Ready Universities

adapting to these changes by taking stock of their pedagogical genres in order to navigate through these times of technological advancements.

Throughout history, educational institutions have stood the test of time and have adapted to the dif-ferent stages of societal, political and economic developments. Similarly, it is time to evolve towards the impending Industry Revolution 4.0 (IR 4.0) which is seen to be engineered by technology and heavily data driven. Looking at the past, the world has gone through 3 stages of revolution since the 18th century, the first being the 1st Industrial Revolution (IR) when ‘agricultural societies became more industrialized and urbanized. The transcontinental railroad, the cotton, electricity and other inventions permanently changed society’ with support from water and steam technology (History.com). The emergence of mecha-nizations allowed societies to be productive and provided a foundation for progress. Building upon this, emerged the 2nd IR in the 19th century which saw the development of other natural resources like; gas, oil and electricity. These discoveries further fueled the inventions of the telephone, telegraph and vari-ous transportation modes like the car and planes. The next wave of revolution was at the beginning of the 20th century, which brought about the invention of nuclear energy and the emergence of electronics.

Deeply rooted by the ‘internet of things’ (IoT) the 4th IR is fast approaching and is about to take on the world as never experienced before. This revolution, as we are witnessing, is increasing connectivity between devices and accelerating the availability of data through the evolving IoT, allowing them to interact with devices, services, and people on a global scale and is the central enabler of Industry 4.0 (Falkenthal, 2015). It is defined as an era of rapid expansion of digital technology and data - driven societies. Research in the area of IoT has indicated an estimated 50 billion devices would be connected to the Internet by 2020 (Evans, 2011), whereby devices will be highly distributed and heterogeneous devices will be interconnected and communicate in differently and autonomously (Barnaghi et al. 2012). During this period, it is foreseen that there will be greater reliance on technology, data and connectivity which will be readily available at our fingertips. As argued by Leong and Latif (2018), this era brings challenges for educators to promote digital experiences which lead to effectiveness and holistic contri-bution to the learning process. Hence, how will higher educational institutions (HEIs) and academics transform through these times, not just to adapt but leverage on these advancements to stay relevant in these unknown times?

OBJECTIVES

It is believed that this can only be achieved with the re-evaluation of the current social construct between, academic, industry and graduates. Therefore, the main objectives of this chapter will be two-fold; to identify current internal and external weakness in global university practices in the transformation of the university as an enterprise and recommendations leading to transformational teaching and learning methods.

Overall, these challenges can be divided into internal and external hindrances which will pose as a deterrence to fully embrace the 4th IR in the educational sector;

56

Future Ready Universities

1. Internally, education is seen as the paradox of change. How do we teach for a rapidly changing world? There are essentially two paradigms to cater to this paradox. Do institutions of higher learning focus on teaching change or teaching for change? The first view is to constantly change what we teach to meet the ever-elusive changing world. This will mean that the curriculum would always be a lagging indicator of change. On the other hand, we could teach for change. Focused on the fundamentals that develop a disciplined mind (Gardner 2007) which can be appreciated in the complexity and the nuances of the particular field. The moment has come for HEIs to become the object of change itself. The first element that needs to be evaluated is the nexus of teaching to learning. How does teaching contribute to learning? Can learning be independent of teaching? Many traditional organizations have maintained a ritual of teaching and learning that are decades old. For example, we require students to show up hours daily and listen to academics’ lectures. This ritual made sense when the sole source of knowledge was seen to be from textbooks and academics. As such, previously the only sure way to ensure a student attained knowledge was by the attendance to face to face lectures on campus. However, how much of this converts into learning?As described further by Sutrisna and Barliana, ‘education providers are caught in a sense of uncer-

tainty due to the level of advances in the area of information technology, beyond the readiness of educational institutions in designing curriculum, methods and facilities in order to produce the best graduates to enter an era marked by the level of competition and changes that are so active and fast’.(2018, pg. 555)

2. Externally, in the past, the central role of higher education was to be for empowerment by gaining knowledge and employability. As such, employability of HEIs graduate rates has also been a long-standing concern. The overall global statistics by the World Economic Forum specifies that the current global unemployment rate of fresh graduates is at 13% and is expected to remain at this rate through to 2019 (2015). As cited in the local daily, The Star newspaper, the unemployment rate is higher in the developed countries, for example, the US (5.3%), UK (5.3%), and Germany (4.6%); in high middle-income countries with a comparable GDP per person to Malaysia, for example, Chile (5.8%), Mexico (4.3%), and Brazil (8.5%); and in countries with populations close to Malaysia’s, for example, Saudi Arabia (5.6%), Peru (3.4%), and Venezuela (6.8%).Of the major ASEAN econo-mies, Indonesia (6.2%) and the Philippines (6.3%) have higher rates and only Singapore (1.7%) and Thailand (0.2%) do better’(Mokhzani,2017)

3. In the Malaysian context, the Graduate Tracer Study was established by the Ministry of Education with the main function of monitoring the timeline of employment of fresh graduates. Data was derived from public and private universities and other institutions, in 2015, among 273,373 gradu-ates, Bachelor’s Degree and Diploma, 45% and 43% of all graduates, correspondingly. Among them, 53% were reported employed, 18% decided to pursue higher studies, and 24% of graduates were still unemployed. Amongst graduates of all qualifications, Bachelor’s degree-holders are the most without a job (at 27.9%). (Hossain, 2018).

57

Future Ready Universities

Reasons for Unemployment

HEIs are at the receiving end and point of contention for the production of low-quality graduates. This compounded with the technological advancements in the 4th IR, a recent report by The World Economic Forum, indicates that unemployment or underemployment is ranked third in its Global Risks Report mainly due to the consequences of technological advancement (Myers, 2019). Around the world, some of the leading causes cited for the low employment rates of graduates have been; the poor quality of graduates, being too fussy, lack of English language proficiency, lack of job competencies and lack of drive being the major barriers in their employment into companies. However, these claims have been refuted by statements that it is the employers who are being too choosy and holding unrealistic expec-tations of fresh graduates. In a study by Hwang (2017), it is explained unemployment of graduates is mainly caused by 4 compounding areas, market conditions, overeducation leading to the mismatching of supply and demand, differentiation between individual perspective and reality, and lastly being skills and the ability to hire.

The cause of unemployment due to market conditions in translation means that with fluctuations in the economy, employment and employability is affected (Kroft, Lange, Notowidigdo, & Katz, 2016). Therefore, although these graduates have the required skills, elements out of their control, such as the economic fluctuations hinder their employment when companies are cutting down on resources. The overeducated graduates would seek jobs which they are qualified for however, there may not be a supply of these higher position jobs, thus creating an inequal balance between supply and demand. Additionally, the differentiation between the perspective of employers and graduates occurs; while the graduate thinks that through the curricular they have mastered all the knowledge and practical skills needed to secure a job, the employers on the other hand feel that the practical work-related initiatives included in the cur-ricula, such as internships and placements, are insufficient for practical employability (Allison, Harvey, & Nixon, 2002). Similarly, it is believed that corresponding skills and ability for hire are not matched. Morley, (2001) cites that besides skills, securing a job depends on other elements such as; academic performances, personal background with race, gender, and socioeconomic status being an influencing factor for hire, to which all impede the prospect of a fresh graduate being employed.

Figure 1. The factors around graduate unemployment (Hwang, 2017)

58

Future Ready Universities

Figure 1 above clearly outlines these four variables which contribute to the unemployment of gradu-ates and as elaborated above. Therefore, for HEIs to navigate through this rapidly changing educational landscape, HEIs need to be aware and identify opportunities to equip and implement changes in the main areas of the content of the curriculum and reviewing assessment methods. The two main approaches are discussed below for which HEIs need to employ to continue to stay relevant in the era of the 4IR.

Teach Less Learn More, Teaching for Quality Learning

The term Teach Less Learn More is a term that was popularized in Singapore in 2004 by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong during his National Day Rally speech. In an attempt to improve Singapore’s education system, Lee urged educators to ‘teach less to our students so that they will learn more’. The intention then is to reconstruct the curriculum to shift away from rote learning that meets the demands of the as-sessment regime and moves towards more progressive and sustainable learning.

The curriculum be it at secondary or tertiary education level, has been historically centred around a body of knowledge and based on the principles of the more, the better. This notion is essentially an evaluation of the industrial age. Knowledge in the form of personal memory was curtailed to the notion of knowing. Knowing was crucial to facilitate transformation in the industrial age. In the information age, on the other hand, the notion of knowing is no longer as relevant. Technology has made informa-tion omnipresent, thus the novelty of recalling facts and figures have lost its utility value. In the new age of the industrial revolution, deep understanding which leads to creative thinking and problem solv-ing is given prominence. Thus, the call to reconfiguration the curriculum from surface content to deep understanding is gaining prominence.

On a similar note, Taylor’s University too was inspired by this concept of shifting the pedagogical paradigm from a passive to an active and inculcating an engaging learning experience. With this in mind, the university embarked on an exercise to redesign its programs and coined the term; Taylor’s Curriculum Framework (TCF) in 2015. The basis for this was mainly supported by the challenges faced within the current teaching and learning practises, narrow and specialised degrees, knowledge-based curriculum, and the lack of emphasis of the 21st century skills needed for its graduates to be employable. Therefore, top university leaders were pooled together to redesign and reconceptualise the meaning of learning at the university guided by its mission and vision. By the end of the session and after reviewing future needs of graduates and employers, the TCF was developed with the main objectives of; integrating employability skills, engaging students with a progressive and dynamic curriculum to making learning relevant to their generation which is adaptive to the changing trends.

The TCF was designed based on eight key characteristics namely;

• Personalised learning• Immersive and problem centered• International exposure• Outcome-based assessments• Entrepreneurial journey• Flexible learning• Life skills development and• Self-management and relationship management

59

Future Ready Universities

Through these eight characteristics, the curriculum’s aim was to drive the university’s three main core purposes; academic excellence, life skills and emotional development, in order to produce holistically balanced graduates with the needed competencies to meet the demands of the workplace.

The project was initiated in phases; Phase 1 and Phase 2. In Phase 1, the emphasis was given to setting up the skeletal structure to accommodate flexibility in curriculum design and accommodate permutations in the degree structure. By this, the university had to unlock the barriers between faculties, schools and programs within the university and redesign modules to be interconnected such that majors, minors and double majors were established. This would then enable students to co-curate their learning journeys, based on their individual strengths and desires. This was to provide the window for students to personalise the learning experience and to encourage versatility in their degrees.

Subsequently, in Phase 2 the spirit of the curriculum was injected into the structure of degrees offered. Now that the basic structure was designed, the focus was to recalibrate the balance of knowledge, life skills and emotional wellbeing into the curriculum. This made way for the harmonizing of the curriculum whereby it was aligned by content, teaching - learning activities and assessment tasks. This resonated with the idea by Biggs (2003) in the philosophy of developing a constructively aligned curriculum. This shift was essential if the university aspired for its graduates to surf the waves of IR4.0.

A framework was enacted to guide academics to shape their views, practices and beliefs to contribute towards a highly impactful quality of learning for their learners. This called for a paradigm shift, with the focus transferred from teaching to learning. Künzli (2013) describes how passive learning is akin to “Memorising a memory”, he calls for a new curriculum structure that was inspired by the German Didaktik theory. The theory calls for a constant mediation of the triangular construct of the content, the learner and the teacher’ (Hopmann and Riquarts,1995). The tenets of this curriculum framework are to provide its learners with a broad-based outlook while acquiring a vocation with its unique competencies and predispositions that accompany it.

Historically, all instructional designs at institutes of HEIs in Malaysia were centred on teaching, in other words, ‘what the lecturer needs to do’. This new paradigm is to view the equation of teaching and learning for the learners’ point of view. The design places the learner at the centre and considers how the learners’ self-determination (autonomy), co-determination (participation) and solidarity are constructed in the whole learning experience. The learners are pushed to grasp the epistemology of their discipline as a whole, contribution to the humankind through developing his or her own identity, intellectualism and ethos (Humboldt, 2000) (Klafki,1995).

The Taylor’s Curriculum Framework grapples change from two perspectives, namely content and engagement. Content here encompasses facts, ideas, skills, knowledge, competencies and predisposi-tion. Michael Young and Muller (2013) urges curriculum designers to depart from the perspective of what students have to learn to what will enable students to learn. He reiterates that such an enabling curriculum will allow students to move beyond their particular experiences, gain an understanding of the world, envisage alternatives and participate in debates and controversies.

60

Future Ready Universities

Content and Engagement

A common dichotomy in the area of curriculum is breadth versus depth. In the global context, the trend seems to indicate that it is moving towards a broader curriculum citing numerous researches in support of broad-based education (Kezar et al. 2015 and Priestley 2016). This manoeuvre has its own inherited problem, as the curriculum gives space for new content, it has to naturally contract the space for more conventional and core priority content. It is essential to look at content prudently. Selection of content focuses on ‘must know’, instead of ‘should know’ and ‘nice to know’ contents. Educators as a community must come to a realisation that with IR 4.0 content is now ubiquitous, easily attained and learners can acquire them on a need to know basis. Content selection cannot be seen from a binary perspective. In such a fluid curriculum, educators are not in a position to teach students everything, and the alternative is also not appealing whereby to teach students a little of everything.

Deng (2015), suggests that

Curriculum making requires a theory of knowledge that not only differentiates different forms of knowledge but also elucidates the concepts, principles, methods of inquiry and habits of mind within a particular knowledge form for the development of students’ intellectual and moral powers. Furthermore, it needs a theory of content that concerns how knowledge is selected and transformed into curriculum content, what educational potential content has, and how such potential can be disclosed or unlocked for the development. (p.775)

Tan (2007) has proposed that a good curriculum framework needs to navigation through certain dual-ity. Hence, when designing a curriculum, it is imperative that focus is placed on the qualitative aspect of the curriculum rather than the quantitative aspect of the design. Namely, how well the student learns as opposed to how much the student learns. The curriculum should not be seen as a discreet collection of contents but must harmonize and dovetail to widen the student’s ontological perspective. Therefore, the content must be prudently selected to achieve outcomes and objectives rather than focusing on a body knowledge for the student to develop core competencies within the curriculum. Klafki (1995) and Friesen (2018) have recommended 5 steps when it comes to selecting content:

1. Selected content must encompass a wider or a general sense of reality. These contents exemplify and opens the learner to the fundamental phenomenon or principle.

2. Content must be prudently selected for its knowledge, experience, competencies and predisposition to be acquired.

3. Selected content must be relevant to the learner. These selections must be extrapolated to a future setting. For example, when we learn a historical fact, it is for the future and not for the past and present, thus the essence of the historical phenomena must be extracted and relatable for the learn-ers to prophesize the future.

4. Selected content must organically be structured for understanding.5. Selected content must be able to expose special cases, phenomena, situations, experiments, persons,

elements of aesthetic experience, and so forth. The structure of the content should be interesting, stimulating, approachable, conceivable, or vivid for learners at the stage of progression.

61

Future Ready Universities

Therefore, once these criteria of selecting the appropriate content in the curriculum is undertaken, learners’ understanding will be enhanced, and a broad range will be able to be covered by selective and focused concepts and examples used to illustrate. Reliance on enhanced technology with the 4th IR will also assist in enabling a more stimulating and vivid learning of the content via various technological tools. This will then lead to the transformation of the classroom into an arena for discussions, problem-solving and critical thinking while indirectly imparting the needed 21st century skills to the learners. Once this is accomplished by the curriculum, only then will there be genuine implementation of the term teach less, learn more.

Assessment

The current climate of tertiary education, particularly in Malaysia, tends to dovetail the secondary educa-tion pedagogy which is mainly centred around content, content transmission and testing. There should be a clear divide between high school and tertiary educational teaching and practices. The Taylor’s Cur-riculum Framework makes an attempt to depart from this norm. The framework is centred on Biggs work on constructive alignment. Biggs (2003, 1999) main thrust is the interplay of three major educational components, namely the Learning Outcomes, Learning Activities and Assessment shown in Figure 2 below. As a result of this shifting of focus from teacher to learner and re-engaging the learner as central in the learning process, will teaching and learning be effective. As clearly articulated by Maureen (2014), simply put, learning is a product of the student’s activities and experiences, rather than the teachers.

The framework starts with the recommendation that all curriculums commence with crafting out the intended outcomes. These outcomes are the end goals of the programme. These outcomes are cascaded at two levels, namely at the programme level and subsequently at the modular level. These outcomes are an amalgamation of content, skills and appropriate predisposition that the curriculum intends to pass on to its graduates. Secondly, the framework focuses on the end state in mind, which is the manifestation of the targeted desired goals. Thus, the assessment instruments and tasks come to play, whereby these goals are adopted into assessment tasks. Finally, the teaching and learning activities are designed to engage the student to acquire, experience, observe and reflect the desired learning outcome. This will then lead to the ‘principal question asked of the student or the graduate will therefore no longer be “what

Figure 2. Biggs triangle of effective learning (Biggs, 2003)

62

Future Ready Universities

you do to obtain your degree?” but rather “what can you do now that you have obtained your degree?” This approach is of relevance to the labour market and is undoubtedly more flexible when taking into account issues of lifelong learning, non-traditional learning, and other forms of non-formal educational experiences. (Purser, 2003)

As such, Taylor’s Curriculum Framework encourages academics to depart from the convention that you lecture to deliver content, you assign learning activities to inculcate comprehension and at the end measure their recall and understanding via test to validate their understanding. This is shown in Figure 3 below which clearly indicates the contrasting means of assessment between the multi-dimensional function of assessment within the Taylor’s Curriculum Framework and the traditional linear current assessment practice.

Assessment can be used to promote learning, motivate learners and act as a tool to provide feedback and validate learning. Therefore, from the comparison of the frameworks above, the assessment in the Taylor’s Curriculum Framework encourages a more dynamic approach in the use of assessment in teaching and learning experience. This dynamism is achieved via the interplay of the three conventional discreet activities. When it comes to assessment, the framework encourages academics to leverage on learning using diverse assessment tools that is at their disposal while meshing the three dimensions of assessment. When assessment is incorporated in a multi-functional way, it then can be seen from a dif-ferent perspective namely; assessment of learning, assessment for learning and assessment as learning (Black et al., 2004).

The end goal of the framework is to promote quality learning and to shift the emphasis from teaching to learning. Academics as a community must learn to use assessment for learning, inquiry-based learn-ing and other self-regulated learning pedagogy to drive quality learning. Using this practice, teaching and learning, are no longer compartmentalised into two different activities but is seen as a merging of both components.

Figure 3. Comparative assessment process

63

Future Ready Universities

CONCLUSION

Due to this, lectures and the other face to face contact between teacher and students is no longer the only means of passing of knowledge. Content or knowledge can be now taught and assessed through a variety of tasks and as such must be viewed as playing a complementing role to the total learning experience. Keeping in mind the 4th IR, the framework also encourages the use of the technological tools that are available to multiply the effort and reach of the pedagogy and influence. With the proper adoption of technology, learning could become ubiquitous and engaging to the learner.

Shift of teaching focus on skills building as opposed to knowledge enhancement, Duff (2008) explains that due to new technological developments, traditional human values are threatened and that a new normative orientation is required. Compounded with the rapid changes in the job markets, there is an increasing need for acquisition of competencies to compete in a knowledge driven economy (Voogt and Roblin, 2012). Inspired to meet the 21st century competencies, the TCF model included the following competencies to be assessed, thus emphasizing the skills development of the student. These competen-cies include:

• Discipline - specific knowledge• Critical thinking• Problem - solving• Lifelong learning• Communication skills• Personal competencies• Social competency• Entrepreneurialism• Global perspective

With the embedding of these skills into this curriculum and becoming independent learners, skills required for the workplace will lead to an increase of adaptability and employability of fresh graduates.

From a global perspective with a focused curriculum which addresses the prudence of content selection and the inclusion of competency to prepare its alumni for an ever-fluid world, the mode of engagement must be centred around learning as opposed to teaching. The intention of the project is to bring learning to the centre of the conversation. With this roadmap for teaching and learning reforms, once educators at all levels understand that teaching is not tantamount to learning and learning is redesigned with re-fined purposes, then our graduates will be future-ready. This is imperative in order for HEIs to maintain significance within the global community, ensure education remains the highly sought commodity for employment and to future-proof our graduates for IR 4.0 and beyond.

FUNDING

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

64

Future Ready Universities

REFERENCES

Allison, J., Harvey, C., & Nixon, I. (2002). Enhancing employability: a long-term strategic challenge. LTSN Generic Centre.

Barnaghi, P., Wang, W., Henson, C., & Taylor, K. (2012). Semantics for the Internet of Things. Interna-tional Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 8(1), 1–21. doi:10.4018/jswis.2012010101

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University – What the Student Does. SRHE / Open University Press.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University – What the Student Does (2nd ed.). SRHE / Open University Press.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the Black Box: Assess-ment for Learning in the Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21. doi:10.1177/003172170408600105

Deng, Z. (2015). Content, Joseph Schwab and German Didaktik. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 773–786. doi:10.1080/00220272.2015.1090628

Duff, A. (2008). The normative crisis of the information society. Cyberpsychology (Brno), 2, 1. Retrieved from http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2008051201&article=2008051201

Evans, D. (2011). The Internet of Things How the Next Evolution of the Internet Is Changing Everything. CISCO White Paper.

Falkenthal, M., Barzen, J., Breitenb¨ucher, U., Fehling, C., Leymann, F., Hadjakos, A., ... Schulze, H. (2015). Leveraging Pattern Application via Pattern Refinement. Proceedings of the International Con-ference on Pursuit of Pattern Languages for Societal Change (PURPLSOC 2015).

Friesen, N. (2018). Continuing the dialogue: curriculum, Didaktik and theories of knowledge. Academic Press.

Friesen, N. (2018). Continuing the dialogue: Curriculum, Didaktik and theories of knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 724–732. doi:10.1080/00220272.2018.1537377

Gardner, H. (2008). The Five Minds for the Future. Schools. Studies in Education, 5(1/2), 17–24. doi:10.1086/591814

Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (1995). Starting a dialogue: Issues in a beginning conversation between Didaktik and the curriculum traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 3–12. doi:10.1080/0022027950270102

Hossain, M. I., Yagamaran, K. S. A., Afrin, T., Limon, N., Nasiruzzaman, M., & Karim, A. M. (2018). Factors Influencing Unemployment among Fresh Graduates: A Case Study in Klang Valley, Malay-sia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(9), 1494–1507. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i9/4859

Humboldt, W. V. (2000). Theory of Bildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 57–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

65

Future Ready Universities

Hwang, Y. (2017). What Is the Cause of Graduates’ Unemployment? Focus on Individual Concerns and Perspectives. Journal of Education, 3(2), 2377–2263.

Industrial Revolution. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution

Kezar, A., Chambers, A. C., & Burkhardt, J. C. (Eds.). (2015). Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement. John Wiley & Sons.

Klafki, W. (1995). Didactic analysis as the core of preparation of instruction [Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 13–30. doi:10.1080/0022027950270103

Kroft, K., Lange, F., Notowidigdo, M. J., & Katz, L. F. (2016). Long-term unemployment and the great recession: The role of composition, duration dependence, and nonparticipation. Journal of Labor Eco-nomics, 34(S1), S7–S54. doi:10.1086/682390

Künzli, R. (2013). Memorizing a memory: Schwab’s the Practical in a German context. Journal of Cur-riculum Studies, 45(5), 668–683. doi:10.1080/00220272.2013.798837

Leong, K. W., & Latif, R. A. (2018). Digital Experience Moving Toward Greater Learning Experience. In S. Tang & C. Lim (Eds.), Preparing the Next Generation of Teachers for 21st Century Education (pp. 126–143). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4080-9.ch008

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. (2004, August 22). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally 2004 speech, Sunday 22 August 2004, at the University Cultural Centre, NUS – Our future of opportunity and promise. Retrieved from National Archives of Singapore website: http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/

Mokhzani, C. W. (2017). Why are young people unemployed? Retrieved 29th April, 2019 from https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2017/02/04/why-are-young-people-unemployed/

Morley, L. (2001). Producing new workers: Quality, equality and employability in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2), 131-138. 0060024 doi:10.1080/1353832012

Myers, J. (2019). These are the biggest risks facing our world in 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/

Priestley, M. (2016). A perspective on learning outcomes in curriculum and assessment. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Purser, L. (2003). Report on Council of Europe Seminar on Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process, Lisbon, April 2002. In Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process. Available at: http://book.coeint/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID1/436&lang1/4EN&produit_ aliasid1/41618

Siemens, G. (2004). A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved Jan 15, 2019 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

66

Future Ready Universities

Sutrisna, D., & Barliana, M. S. (2018). Readiness of Vocational School Students to Facing Global Competition. In 5th UPI International Conference on Technical and Vocational Education and Training (ICTVET 2018). Atlantis Press. 10.2991/ictvet-18.2019.124

Tam. (2014). Outcomes-based approach to quality assessment and curriculum improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 22(2),158-168. doi:10.1108/QAE-09-2011-0059

The State of Global Youth Unemployment. (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/agen-da/2015/10/the-state-of-global-youth-unemployment/

Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.668938

Young, M., & Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education, 1(3), 229–250. doi:10.1002/rev3.3017