Keywords

1 Introduction

With the change in the way of work in Industry 4.0, it is inevitable that changes are also expected out of work readiness of graduates. Studies resonate such concerns faced by graduates of the twenty-first century (Bhattacharyya 2017; Jackson 2016, 2015; Higdon 2016). When human capital exceeds the demands of the employers, we need to be concerned over the employability of our graduates reported at 3.3% as graduates do not get any appropriates job tandem with their qualification upon graduation. There is evident vacuum between academia training and industry needs. Should such concerns be left unchecked, the desire for a developed nation status by 2020 and that of a transformed nation by 2050 probably won’t come true (Ministry of Education Blueprint 2012; Transformasi Nasional 2017).

In relation to the issues on graduate unemployment among developing countries, several concerns are raised over the quality and relevance of current education systems to train and equip graduates to face greater challenges in view of rapid development of technologies in industries (Ibrahim and Mahyuddin 2017). Where and who does the fault lie with if work readiness are not transferable from that of the Institution of Higher Learning to the Industry? Little is known whether the training received in acquiring all skills and competency development in IHLs are deemed appropriate or transferable to Industry. This study is aimed at ensuring that current work readiness of today’s graduates can be transferred to Industries of tomorrow. The main aim of this research is whether the current work readiness training is relevant with Industry needs? To achieved the main aim of this study, some research question regarding on graduates attributes, training, and current curricullum were tandem with industr needs?

2 Literature Review

With rapid globalization and changes in the economic development of the country toward an industrialized nation, there has been a tremendous impact and change in graduate skills and competencies expected in the workplace. Coupled with the advent of the Industrialized era 4.0 and digitalized economies, there is now a change in the nature of work and how graduates approach the way of work in the 21″ century (Bezuidenhout 2011). There is less dependence on the manufacturing industry and more towards that of a knowledge based economy propagated with the use of Information Technology. Decentralization, information sharing, teamwork and innovation are now key employability skills expected of graduates in Industry 4.0 and beyond.

With the change in the way of work, it is inevitable that changes are also expected out of work readiness. Studies indicate that essential skills deemed in the 1990’s far differ from what is expected of graduates in today’s workplace and industry (Stefanescu 2015; Zwane et al. 2014; Nkosana et al. 2014). Stakeholders from both the academic community and industry practitioners constantly voice concern over graduate employability and work readiness faced by graduates in fourth industries revolution (4IR) (Bhattacharyya 2017; Jackson 2016, 2015; Higdon 2016). In addition, the fact that supply of human capital exceeds employers’ demands casts a grave concern over the employability of our graduates (Ibrahim and Mahyuddin 2017). Ibrahim and Mahyuddin (2017) also stated that on year in 2015 unemployment rate among graduates at Malaysia is around 10.7%. There is three times higher than national unemployment rate. National unemployment rate is around 3.1%. In regional economies, Malaysia is among country were noted of graduates unemployment in number of double digits. Although unemployment rate has considerably lessened, the Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2017) indicates the rate of unemployment at 3.3% which means that graduates may not obtain immediate career placement upon graduation. In accordance to Malaysia’s graduate population, the figure stands at 434,000 (of its 13-million labor force) as of December 2012 (Chiew 2013). This translates to 54,103 unemployed graduates who had not attained job placement six months upon completion of graduate degree programs from public universities, private universities or colleges (Haziq Alfian 2017).

These concerns should be left unchecked, the desire for a developed nation status by 2020 and that of a transformed nation by 2050 may not be a reality (Ministry of Education Blueprint 2012; Transformasi Nasional 2017). Thus, the question we ask ourselves whether the current work readiness training is relevant with Industry needs? Are graduates equipped with the apt work readiness to be utilized in the Industry?. Are the work readiness in tandem with Industry needs? Are Industry work readiness attribute requirement asymmetry with that of the training provided in Institutions of Higher Learning?

Scores of studies are written on the importance of non-technical skills or employability skills for graduates to be work ready upon entry to the workplace (Adnan et al. 2017; Seetha 2014; Sackey and Bester 2016; Solnosky et al. 2013; Omar et al. 2012).The success of future graduates lies not only in technical competence but more so in non-technical expertise via their ability to communicate, innovate, and respond to different challenges with an innovative an adaptive approach toward knowledge creation necessary for Industry 4.0 (Roblek et al. 2016; Kagermann 2015). Yet, limited literature is available to indicate the desired employability skills and work readiness required for the workplace (Bhattacharyya 2017; Driver 2017; Suleman 2016; Johan 2015; Jackson 2013).

More importantly, are these skill sets deemed transferable from that of the Institution of Higher Learning to the Industry and vice-versa. The issue of transferability is crucial as it denotes the relevance of academic training received by graduates while in the Institution of Higher Learning (Suarta et al. 2017; Wang and Tsai 2014). Should current skills be redundant, curriculum planning on competency skills development in Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) should be relooked to ensure prudent economic and financial investment in the apt desired competencies be met to meet work demands of future workplace organizations (Devadason et al. 2010). The transferability of employability skills and work readiness is also vital as graduate employability determines the success of degree programs and marketable recognition offered by IHLs globally (Diver 2017; Paramasivam and Muthusamy 2012; Abdullah et al. 2008).

These developments in graduate unemployment have raised several key policy questions for emerging economies, regarding enhancing the quality and relevance of education systems to prepare for rapidly evolving industries, the types of jobs being created and the readiness of the human capital base, and measures to enhance matching in the labour market and alleviate information asymmetry on industry skill needs (Ibrahim and Mahyuddin 2017). ln addition, there remains limited study on measuring employability and work readiness in the new world of work (Bezuidenhout 2011; Boden and Nedeva 2010). Competence through the fusion of both domains of specific knowledge and generic skills is required to increase graduates’ competence to gain employability and be work ready (Khir 2006). A number of reports issued by employers have urged universities to make more explicit efforts to develop the ‘key’, ‘core’, ‘transferable’, ‘soft’, ‘employable’ and/or ‘generic skills’ or competencies needed in many types of employment.

Among some of the competencies are Communicative competence is relatively associated to the learner’s ability to effectively use a second or foreign language to communicate one’s ideas effectively (Oya et al. 2004). For some graduates, communicating in second language or foreign language creates speaking anxiety. This may lead to some compromise in the critical thinking skills, although not lacking in ideas and knowledge, and result in graduates lacking the communicative ability to verbalize critical thoughts, interpretations and observations—that may inadvertently translate to poor performance (Manalo et al. 2013). In other words, intangible skill acquisition can only be articulated if graduates possess the linguistic and rhetorical competence. While the Workplace readiness is a relatively new concept in predicting graduate potential. Caballero, Walker, and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz (2011) stated that work readiness exemplifies the desired degree that graduates actually possess the required attitudes and attributes that enable them to be ready to face the real workplace environment. For graduates to be deemed as being work ready, one exhibits the potential, ability and rigor to overcome challenges in the workplace and are able to show their ability, success and career progression in their jobs.

Other literature such as Casner et al. (2006) were defines the scope of work readiness to include skills such as Professionalism/Work Ethic, Teamwork/Collaboration, Oral Communications, Ethics, Social Responsibility, Reading Comprehension, English Language (spoken), Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, Information Technology Application, Written Communications, and Diversity. In addition, the applied skill related to the work readiness includes Information Technology Application. These skills have been deemed as “excellent and necessary skills” by employers (Casner et al. 2006).

Despite all the graduate training and exposure to non-technical skills, why then are there scores of unemployment among our graduates? It is also crucial to address the factors that hinder transferability of employability skills and adaptive work readiness of graduates to industry which may possibly include the Institution of Higher Learning ecosystem, teaching and learning facilities, teaching and learning approaches and financial expenses involved in industry engagement (Zanko et al. 2011). Singh and Singh (2008) makes mention of course contents and methods of learning at educational institutions that need to be improved and revised. Where is the source of the problem? Are graduates provided with the right training and exposure to the apt required skills necessary for the workplace? Where and who does the fault lie with if work readiness are not transferable from that of the Institution of Higher Learning to the Industry?

Little is known whether the training received in acquiring all skills and competency development in IHLs are deemed appropriate or transferable to Industry. For this purpose, further insight of stakeholder perceptions on transferability of students’ communicative competence in work readiness from institution of higher learning to industry environment is required. The investigation seeks identify the required ecosystem, manpower needs, facilities as well as support system required to ensure the ease of graduate transition from the Institution of Higher Learning to Industry 4.0 and beyond. This study were aimed at ensuring that current work readiness of today’s graduates can be transferred to Industries of tomorrow.

3 Works Readiness

Commonly, academic achievement and high technical skills is a very crucial factors to be concerned in order to equipped graduates for their future careers (Roth and Bobko 2000). (ACNielsen Research Services 2000) stated that the factors which is determine the degree of intelectual ability, learning ability and motivation to embrace successful is depend to the performance on academic achievements. However, in era of fourth industrial revolution academic performance or technical capabilities cannot working alone in order to determined graduates performance and achievement. In 21th centuries, industries nowadays looking graduates whose have a various general skills and specialites. Today trends, many employers interested with a graduates applicants whose have a multiskills and attributes that enable them to “prepare” or “prepare” for success in to the future by continously self learning to explore a new technology were rapidly changing work environment. In addition, there have many literature mentioned about the concept of work preparation. It’s about how employer predicted the potential of graduates to working at their organization or company (Hart 2008; Barrington and Wright 2006; and ACNielsen Research Services 2000).

4 Employer Perspectives on Graduate Work Readiness

Gardner and Liu (1997) was conducted a survey of more than 150 employers who were required to observe their new graduates in order to compare and evaluate their job preparation and job performance requirements. The sample of participants includes technical graduates (such as engineering, computer science, accounting) and non-technical graduates (such as commerce, social sciences, and communications). The purpose of the research is to evaluate graduates’ performance in specific skills/capabilities required for work, and to evaluate graduates’ educational and social readiness for work. 52 skills and abilities are divided into 9 categories, including: (1) speaking and listening, (2) reading, (3) writing, (4) mathematics, (5) thinking and reasoning, (6) organization skills, (7) Analyze and analyze data, (8) job skills, and (9) personal skills. The study found that some employers believe that their graduate employees are not fully prepared for entry-level jobs. Although employers are generally satisfied with the performance of graduates, there are still some significant differences between job requirements and graduate preparation. In general, technical graduates are less prepared than non-technical graduates in speaking, listening, writing, organization and personal skills. For technical and non-technical graduates, there is a lack of work preparation in terms of relationships and personal abilities. These skills are not taught directly in the classroom (Gardner and Liu 1997). However, nowadays, it is common for undergraduate courses to provide practical units that allow students to experience developing relationships and personal abilities outside of the classroom. Therefore, these findings may not apply to today’s graduates.

In addition, (Hart 2008) study of 301 organizations found that although employers are generally satisfied with graduates’ entry-level skills, they are less confident that graduates have the skills and knowledge necessary for promotion and promotion within the organization. Among the 12 key skill areas, employers believe that global knowledge, self-direction, writing, critical thinking, and adaptability are the areas where graduates are least prepared for work and therefore need to be improved.

Similarly, Casner et al. (2006) were conducted surveyed toward 400 US organizations on the readiness of graduates and clarified the application skills needed for 11 new recruits to succeed in the workplace. Employers consider professional ethics, oral and written communication, teamwork, collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving to be the most important skills for new graduates to enter the workplace. Regarding the overall preparation or work preparation of graduates, 24% of employers rated university graduates as “excellent”, 65% of employers rated it as “sufficient”, and 9% of graduates rated it as “inadequate”. In addition, in terms of written communication skills and leadership skills, graduates were rated as the least prepared.

Regarding to the previous studies and industries needs, research have been conducted in order to identify the work readiness skills deemed necessary for transferability by stakeholders (students, Institution of Higher Learning administrators, employers and policy makers in institution of higher learnings). The objective of this studies is very clear, it is to seeking the answer about what are the work readiness skills deemed necessary for transferability by stakeholders (students, Institution of Higher Learning administrators, employers and policy makers in Institution of Higher Learnings)?

5 Methodology

This study utilized an exploratory mixed method design. The combination of qualitative and quantitative methods complements each dimension (Fig. 1). A mixed method is chosen on this study in order to obtain a more comprehensive view and in-depth understanding of the research objective (Bhattacharyya 2014). Many studies have acknowledged the merits in mixing both quantitative and qualitative data collection in a single study (Creswell et al. 2003). Greene (2000) stated that for both quantitative and qualitative methods provide the flexibility to a researcher to investigate a research problem according to the research objective and purpose of the study. Quantitative methods suggest different layers of data, enriches the study and allows a researcher to study a large sample of participants which otherwise may not be feasible (Greene 2000). In addition, qualitative methods allow researchers to better understand the research context, insider experiences, close and direct engagement with the participants and settings (Creswell and Clark 2007). Thus, it is for the main reason why mixed method design was used to investigate the research objective. In scope of qualitative method, focus group discussion (FGD) among selected stakeholders being organized. In focus group discussion, data were collect via interview session and discussion in group. Have two different group were involved in FGD session, there are ex-students (Alummni) and the rest is an employers from public and privates sectors. All data have being recorded and analysed. Findings from interview analysed were used to develop research instrument in form of set of questionaires. Then, the questionaires were distributed to all respondents via email, whatsapp and any appropriates media social platform. Figure 1 show the entire methodology was implemented in this study.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Methodology of the research

Full size image

The samples involved in this study are 424 respondents from Institutions of Higher Learning in Malaysia which is divided by 311 students and 113 non-students. The sample size of interview respondents will be purposively sampled to attain data based on the respondents’ willingness to share their feedback. There will be interviews with employers, Institution of Higher Learning administrators and policy makers of IHLs. The purpose is to identify and correlate the factors between real world practices of the Institution of Higher Learning and Industry practitioners of the professional workplace by enhancing the quality and relevance of education systems to prepare for rapidly evolving industries. This way academia and industry work readiness efforts area aligned to industry job creation, human capital base, in line with the economic labour market needs necessary for nation building efforts.

6 The Development of Research Instrument

The development of research instrument is started by making the systematic literature review (SLR) for main research which is focusing on work readiness among university’s graduate. From the finding of systematic literature review, a focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted between the researcher and the stakeholders. In this study, stakholders consists of final year students, graduates, employers and academicians. FGD session was conducted in different session within 2 h for each group of respondents. Figure 2 show the procedure to design and develop research questionaire on work readiness.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flow chart to conduct FGD and developed research instrument

Full size image

Research instrument to measure the perception of work readiness among graduates and employers obtain two main sections. There are section A for collected data on profile of respondents and section B is to collected data on work readiness perception. In section B, questions was setting based on finding were got from SLR and FGD session.

Table 1 show the entire variables were got from the finding of SLR and FGD. All of these variables are the main source of the quantitative research questionnaire which is made to gathering large amounts of data from university’s graduate student in Malaysia. Discussion between all the researchers that have been involved in this research study was done countless of time to perfect the questionnaire. Due to Covid-19, an online survey of the pilot test of this study has to be done in order to get the data from employers and universities graduate.

Table 1 Variables and items in every section in questionnaire
Full size table

7 Validity and Reliability of Instrument

To ensure the level of feasibility and validity on the questionnaire, the face validity process was conducted by involved with two expertises in social science field. The validity form of content experts had to be done and send to the experts. Experts were chose based on specialty and longtime experience dealing with perfecting the questionnaire. They are asked to review and giving their feedback on the questionnaire as face validity of the research study.

The expert’s opinion on research study’s questionnaire feedback toward the questionnaire show that Section A which is section of profile of respondent is to re-design the question to ensure the coverage of the reply is more analytical and full range. While, their feedback toward Section B which is work readiness is need to be revised again. An improvement toward the questionnaire base on feedback from expertise has been made by the researchers for final test to gather the data from employers and universities graduate in Malaysia and those data will be the main source of this research study.

Then, the pilot test was conducted after the questionaire being revised by counted some suggestion and advised from expertise onto face validity. The conducting of pilot test in social science research is to determine the degree of validity towards research instruments. The data from pilot test which involving 65 person whose are related with universities whether they are final year students, employees or employers has been used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire as an instrument of the research study. All the data from online survey is analyse using the SPSS software to find out the Cronbach alpha value to measure the reliability statistics. Cronbach’s alpha, α (or coefficient alpha), developed by Lee Cronbach in 1951, measures reliability, or internal consistency. “Reliability” is how well a test measures what it should. If Cronbach’s alpha is below 0.60 meaning it is unacceptable, if Cronbach’s alpha between 0.60 to 0.65 meaning it is undesirable, if Cronbach’s alpha between 0.65 to 0.70 meaning it is minimally acceptable, if Cronbach’s alpha between 0.70 to 0.80 meaning it is respectable, if Cronbach’s alpha between 0.80 to 0.90 meaning it is very good and if Cronbach’s alpha much above 0.90 consider shortening the scale. In general, a score of more than 0.7 is usually okay. However, some authors suggest higher values of 0.90 to 0.95. The good value of Cronbach’s alpha will determine the questionnaire as reliability instrument. Table 2 are showing that work readiness Cronbach’s alpha is 0.884 meaning it is very good. Its also show alpha cronbach value in each construct on work readiness is very high (more than 0.8) which is the level of reliability is very high.

Table 2 Cronbach’s alpha value for each construct on work readiness
Full size table

8 Data Analysis and Finding

The data obtained were then analyzed using SPSS Version 27 software. The mean value for each construct of work readiness was taken to compare between the degree of work readiness among male and female graduates. In addition, the significant level of the relationship between men and women was also seen to determine whether there is a significant relationship or not for both male and female respondents on the level of work readiness among them.

Table 3 shows that for each construct in work readiness, the mean values for both male and female groups were almost the same and there was no significant change. Therefore, to see whether there is a significant difference between male and female graduates on their work readiness level, then T test was conducted. The results of T test can be seen in Table 4.

Table 3 The level of work readiness towards gender
Full size table
Table 4 The level of work readiness towards gender
Full size table

Based on Table 2, it is found that the t-value for the comparison of the level of work readiness of graduates in institutions of higher learning for male graduates and female graduates is t = 2.231 and the significant level of p = 0.965. This significance level was greater than 0.05 (p > 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho1) is accepted. So, there is no significant difference for the level of work readiness between male and female graduates.

The mean score of the work readiness level among male graduates (mean = 3.603) was smaller than female graduates (mean = 3.678). Nevertheless with a small difference, it can be concluded that the level of work readiness between female and male graduates are in the same level.

9 Discussion

Referring to the findings of this study, it was found that the perception among employers and unversities graduates towards male and female graduates in current scenario have a same degree on work readiness. Finding showed that the level of work readiness among graduates was moderate for both, male and female representative. This shows that graduates have gone through a fair learning process. The current curriculum of study does not seem to have a positive impact on the level of work readiness towards graduates. Students’ readiness to work was measured by assessing several key parameters such as level of self-confidence, self-skills, lifelong learning, communication skills, practical skills, interpersonal skills, digital skills, numeracy skills, leadership skills and entrepreneurial skills. All work readiness constructs could be mapping on each learning domains. The common learning domains are cognive, affective and psychomotor. The mapping in between learning domain and work readiness construct were doing to show the relation of work readiness and current curricullum in general way. Based on the findings of this study, by mapping the research finding on each constructs with learning domains it’s found that the attributes of current graduates were around in the low level of each learning domains.

The cognitive domain is seen as being dominated at the level of knowledge and understanding only compared to the higher level on cognitive domain such as application, analysis, evaluation and creation. Meanwhile, affective domains such as evaluating, giving feedback and communicating are also at a moderate level. The findings of this study are an indicator that the current curriculum were using at higher education institutions to producing students who are more relevant and meet the needs of the job market must to be reviewed and looking back. Curriculum in education should be tandem with the industries needed.

If the questions in the questionnaire of this study are mapped to the domains of cognitive, psychomotor and affective learning, it is found that the level of cognitive domains only revolve around the level of knowledge and understanding only. Meanwhile, the affective domain is focused on the level of the domain of receiving and giving feedback. Although, the research questions were mapped at the low domain level in the cognitive and affective categories but the tendency of graduates in answering the survey questions showed a relatively moderate level of mastery at the low domain level. In general, it is concluded that curriculum design and curriculum delivery methods in producing students with a high degree of work readiness must be reviewed and looking back.

9.1 Conclusion and Future Perspectives

If the questions in the questionnaire of this study are mapped to the domains of cognitive, psychomotor and affective learning as shown in Table 5 above, it is found that the level of cognitive domains only revolve around the level of knowledge and understanding only. Meanwhile, the affective domain is focused on the level of the domain of receiving and giving feedback. Although, the research questions were mapped at the low domain level in the cognitive and affective categories but the tendency of graduates in answering the survey questions showed a relatively moderate level of mastery at the low domain level. In general, it is concluded that curriculum design and curriculum delivery methods in producing students with a high level of work readiness should be reviewed.

Table 5 The mapping of learning domain with work readiness construct
Full size table