MODELLING WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY AND TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS FOR ACADEMICIAN IN MALAYSIA

Year 2012, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 157 - 164, 01.06.2012

Norazuwa Mat Ruslan Romli Norsiah Mat Norazila Mohd Noor

Abstract

Teaching effectiveness is a complex area of study without supported by an extensive body of empirical research. Developing effective behaviors is a part of every academician in Malaysia. With the surge in public demand for accountability in higher education and the growing concern for quality of university teaching, evaluating teaching effectiveness is very important function. Workplace spirituality is among the important factors that pose a strong influence on teaching effectiveness. In teaching effectiveness, the concern of workplace spirituality relate to inner life, meaningful work, and sense of community. This paper examines the effect of workplace spirituality on teaching effectiveness for academician in public universities in Malaysia. Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) was conducted to test the model. Results were then discussed

Keywords

Workplace spirituality, Teaching effectiveness, Modeling

References

• Abd Ghani, Kanesan, Abdullah, Naser, Jamil Alzaidiyeen & Intsat, Turki Aldarabah (2009), “ Workplace spirituality and leadership effectiveness among educational managers in Malaysia, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol 10, No. 2, pp 304-316 Ansari, M.A, Achoui,M, and Ansari, Z.A (2000), “ Development of a measure of teacher effectiveness for IIUM”, Intellectual Discourse, Vol 8, pp 199-220.
• Arreola, R. A (2000), Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system, Bolton: Anker Publishing company
• Ashmos, and Duchon (2000), “Spirituality at Work: A Conceptualization and Measure”, Journal of Managemant Inquiry, Vol 9, pp 134-145.
• Bradley, Jaqui & Kauanui, Sandra, King (2003), “ Comparing spirituality on three southern California college campuses”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol 16, No.4, pp 448-462
• Cecero, John, J, & Esquivel, Giselle, B (2007), “ Measuring faculty spiritual;ty and its relationship to teaching style, Religion & Education, Vol. 34, No.3, pp 1-10
• Diana, Setiayawati & Wan Rafaei, Abdul Rahman (2005), “ Spirituality and personality correlates of organizational citizenship behaviour, The Third International Research Colloquium : Research in Malaysia and Thailand ,pp 115-130
• Enders, J (1997), The Academician Profession in Europe: A View from the Status Perspective: Herriot-Watt University
• Feldman, K.A (1983), “ Class size and students’ evaluation of college teachers and courses: A closer look, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 21, pp 45-116
• Gilliot, D, Overlaet, B., and Verdin, P (2002), “Managing Academic Personnel Flow at Universities”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol 8, No.4, pp277-295
• Kernochan, R. A., McCormick, D.W., & White, J. A. (2007), “Spirituality and the management teacher: Reflections of three Buddhists on compassion, mindfulness, and selflessness in the classroom”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol 16, No.1, pp 61-75. King, James, E, & Crowther, Martha, R (2004), “ The measurement of religiosity and spirituality: Examples and issues from psychology, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol 17, No.1, pp 83-101
• Krahnke, K., & Giacalone, R.A., et al. (2003), “ Point-counterpoint: Measuring workplace spirituality”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol 16, No. 4, pp 396-405
• Krishnakumar, S, and Neck, C.P (2002), “The “What”, “Why”, and “How: of Spirituality in the Workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol 17, No.3, pp 153-164