The ‘Holistic- Systemic’ Academic Management Model of the Faculty of Tarbiyah and Education, Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Yogyakarta in Disruption Era (Benchmark to Melbourne Graduate School of Education)

  • Authors

    • Sutrisno Sutrisno
    • Radjasa Radjasa
    • Istiningsih Istiningsih
    • Miftahus Sa’adah
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.25.17819
  • Faculty of Tarbiyah and Education, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, Academic Model

  • Abstract

    The faculty of Tarbiyah and Education at the State Islamic University Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta has experienced disorientation in terms of its graduates. Moreover, academic staff and stakeholders are susceptible to disappoint toward the future of the graduates. It is expected that the graduates will be equipped with various skills of teaching as well as the mastery of educational philosophy. In fact, the faculty of Tarbiyah and Education seems to be, to some extent, neglectful to this focus. The faculty has also undergone some perplexity in terms of academic as well as organizational management. To address this issue, the Melbourne Graduate School of Education (MGSE) has been taken as the role model for the improvement of the faculty. This article describes the current situation appear in the Faculty of Tarbiyah and Education as well as the existing state at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Then, it proposes the future model of the Faculty of Tarbiyah and Education based on the benchmarking activities done at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. It is assumed that by implementing the MGSE’s best practices which is suited into the faculty’s specific circumstance, the Faculty of Tarbiyah and Education will be enhanced and gains its focus on teaching and education areas which will likewise improve its graduates’ performance. Furthermore, this article will also be enlightening for researchers and practitioners in the area of higher education particularly in relation to the management of the faculty of education.

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] Hubbard DL. Can Higher Education Leam From Factories? Quality Progress. 1994;27(5):93-8.

      [2] Marciniak R. Methodological proposal for the application of international benchmarking in order to assess the quality of virtual higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2015;12(3):46-60.

      [3] Jamshidi L, Arasteh H, NavehEbrahim A, Zeinabadi H, Rasmussen PD. Developmental patterns of privatization in higher education: a comparative study. Higher Education. 2012;64(6):789-803.

      [4] Iñiguez AAR. Conditions for the internationalisation of higher education: Between inclusion and exclusion in a globalised world. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2011;8(2):313-25.

      [5] Altbach PG. International higher education: Reflections on policy and practice: Center for International Higher Education, Lynch School of Education, Boston College; 2006.

      [6] Watson WR, Watson SL. Exploding the ivory tower: Systemic change for higher education. TechTrends. 2013;57(5):42-6.

      [7] McRoy I, Gibbs P. Leading change in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2009;37(5):687-704.

      [8] Gumport PJ. Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher education. 2000;39(1):67-91.

      [9] Delgado-Márquez BL, Hurtado-Torres NE, Bondar Y. Internationalization of higher education: Theoretical and empirical investigation of its influence on university institution rankings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2011;8(2):265-84.

      [10] Bowen T, Whithaus C. What else is possibleâ€: Multimodal composing and genre in the teaching of writing. Multimodal literacies and emerging genres. 2013:1-12.

      [11] McCowan T. Universities and the post-2015 development agenda: An analytical framework. Higher Education. 2016;72(4):505-23.

      [12] Bendermacher G, Oude Egbrink M, Wolfhagen I, Dolmans D. Unravelling quality culture in higher education: a realist review. Higher Education. 2017;73(1):39-60.

      [13] Wissema JG. Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009.

      [14] Conway PF, Murphy R. A rising tide meets a perfect storm: New accountabilities in teaching and teacher education in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies. 2013;32(1):11-36.

      [15] Castro EB. Higher Education Governance Reform in Practice. Matching Institutional Implementation Practices and Policies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2012;9(2):267-79.

      [16] Hammond CD. Internationalization, nationalism, and global competitiveness: a comparison of approaches to higher education in China and Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2016;17(4):555-66.

      [17] Krohn AL. Breadth: the interdisciplinary experiment: an investigation of students' expectations of The University of Melbourne's breadth subjects and the'Melbourne Model'. 2016.

      [18] Chan CK, Luk LY. Faculty perspectives on the “3+ 3+ 4†curriculum reform in Hong Kong: A case study. International Education Studies. 2013;6(4):56.

      [19] Smith DW, Hadgraft RG. The ‘Melbourne Model’and new Engineering Degrees at the University of Melbourne in 2008. Australasian Association for Engineering Education. 2007.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Sutrisno, S., Radjasa, R., Istiningsih, I., & Sa’adah, M. (2018). The ‘Holistic- Systemic’ Academic Management Model of the Faculty of Tarbiyah and Education, Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Yogyakarta in Disruption Era (Benchmark to Melbourne Graduate School of Education). International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.25), 659-667. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.25.17819

    Received date: 2018-08-18

    Accepted date: 2018-08-18