Malaysian Community Colleges Academician’s Perception and Challenges in Implementing the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition

Malaysian Community Colleges Academician’s Perception and Challenges in Implementing the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition

Rama Rao Lachanna¹, Md Rizal Bin Ramli², Darni Binti Mohamed Yusoff³

¹Mechanical Engineering Department, Politeknik Banting Selangor, Malaysia

²Governance and Excellence Division, Department of Polytechnic and Community College Education, Malaysia

³Department of Mathematics, Science & Computer, Politeknik Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300314

Received: 07 March 2025; Accepted: 17 March 2025; Published: 17 April 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines the understanding and implementation of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition (TTAC) among academic staff in Malaysian Community Colleges. Using a quantitative research approach, data were collected from 153 academic staff, including Heads of Programme and lecturers, through structured questionnaires. The analysis, conducted using SPSS, reveals that while academic staff demonstrate a strong understanding of TTAC, significant challenges persist in implementation. These include complexities in accreditation documentation, time constraints, inadequate training, and limited institutional resources. Despite strong management support, gaps in structured professional development hinder seamless adoption of the accreditation standard. The findings highlight the need for targeted training, streamlined accreditation processes, and improved resource allocation to enhance compliance and educational quality. This study provides valuable insights for policymakers, accreditation bodies, and educational institutions in strengthening accreditation practices and fostering continuous quality improvement within Malaysia’s community college system.

Keywords: Accreditation, Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard, Malaysian Community Colleges, Educational Quality, Implementation Challenge

INTRODUCTION

The Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition was established by the Malaysia Board of Technologists (MBOT) to set a consistent benchmark for technologist and technician education in Malaysia. This standard aims to ensure that educational programs produce graduates who are not only technically competent but also adhere to ethical practices and are well-prepared to meet the evolving demands of the workforce. The accreditation standard encompasses several key components, including guidelines for program accreditation, curriculum development, and quality assurance. These components are designed to align educational outcomes with industry needs, thereby fostering a strong linkage between education providers and employers.

In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and dynamic industry requirements, maintaining high educational standards is crucial. Accreditation serves as a mechanism to uphold the quality and relevance of educational programs, ensuring that graduates possess the necessary skills and knowledge to thrive in the professional environment. As the global workforce becomes more competitive, accreditation standards like the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Council (TTAC) Second Edition become vital tools for safeguarding educational quality and promoting continuous improvement. The Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition responds to these imperatives by setting out comprehensive criteria that encompass various aspects of educational quality. These include academics qualifications, learning resources, curriculum relevance and industry engagement. Such standards are essential in fostering a culture of excellence within educational institutions, promoting innovation, and ensuring that the programs remain relevant in a rapidly changing global landscape.

Despite the critical importance of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard, there is limited data on how well these standards are understood and implemented by Malaysian Community Colleges. Previous studies have identified several challenges associated with adopting accreditation standards in educational institutions. According to Harvey and Williams (2010), common barriers include a lack of training among academicians, insufficient resources to meet accreditation requirements, and the complexity of the standards themselves. These challenges are often compounded by limited institutional support, resistance to change, and the perceived burden of additional administrative tasks. Kayyali (2023) further emphasizes that the successful implementation of accreditation standards is contingent upon adequate support mechanisms, such as professional development opportunities, clear communication of expectations, and availability of resources. In many cases, the absence of these support structures has led to inconsistent application and varying levels of compliance across different institutions. In the context of Malaysian Community Colleges, these challenges can be particularly pronounced given the diversity in institutional capacity, resource availability, and varying levels of familiarity with the accreditation processes.

The introduction of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition comes at a time when Malaysia is striving to enhance its human capital development to support economic growth and competitiveness. Community Colleges play a pivotal role in this strategy, serving as crucial institutions for upskilling and reskilling the workforce. However, for these colleges to fulfil their mandate, they must adhere to high standards of quality, relevance, and accountability. Understanding and effectively implementing the TTAC Second Edition standards is vital for these institutions like Malaysian Community Collages to achieve their objectives. Accreditation ensures that the programs offered are of high quality, relevant to current industry practices, and meet the expectations of both employers and students. Yet, there remains a gap in the literature concerning the extent to which these standards are understood and effectively implemented within Malaysian Community Colleges. This gap highlights the need for further research to evaluate the current level of understanding among academic staff and identify any barriers that may hinder effective implementation.

This study seeks to enhance previous research by evaluating the understanding and implementation of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition among academic staff in Malaysian Community Colleges. By exploring the factors that affect compliance with these standards, this study will provide insights into the challenges faced by academicians and administrators and offer recommendations for improving adherence to accreditation requirements. Ultimately, this research seeks to contribute to the body of knowledge on accreditation in higher education, with a specific focus on the Malaysian context. It will provide a clearer understanding of how accreditation standards are perceived, the extent to which they are integrated into academic practices, and the impact they have on educational outcomes. The findings of this study will be valuable for policymakers, educational leaders, and accreditation bodies in formulating strategies to enhance the quality and relevance of technical and vocational education in Malaysia.

Research Objective and Research Questions

This study aims to explore the understanding and implementation of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition among academic staff in Malaysian community colleges. The primary focus is to assess how well academic staff comprehend the accreditation standard and to identify the challenges they encounter during its implementation. Understanding the depth of knowledge academic staff possess regarding the accreditation standard is crucial, as it directly influences the quality of curriculum delivery, adherence to institutional policies, and overall educational outcomes. A clear grasp of the accreditation requirements ensures that academic programs align with national education standards, ultimately benefiting students and the broader technical and vocational education and training (TVET) sector.

The second focus of this study is to investigate the main challenges and barriers faced by academic staff in implementing the accreditation standard. Despite the importance of accreditation in maintaining educational quality and consistency, staff often encounter obstacles that hinder effective implementation. These challenges may include resource limitations, administrative burdens, lack of training, or the complexity of the accreditation process itself. By identifying these barriers, the study aims to provide insights that can inform policy improvements, support strategies, and targeted training programs to enhance the implementation process. Understanding these challenges is essential for fostering a more supportive environment that empowers academic staff to successfully meet accreditation standards and contribute to the continuous improvement of Malaysia’s community college system.

Research question of this study is ‘What is the current level of understanding of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition among academic staff?’ and hypothesis testing is used to answer the research questions and achieve the objectives related to the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition among Malaysian community college academicians. The designed hypothesis is ‘Academic staff have a moderate understanding of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition.’

LITERATURE REVIEW

Accreditation is a cornerstone of quality assurance in higher education. It serves as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of academic programs, ensuring that they meet established standards of quality and relevance (Eaton, 2012). Studies have shown that the success of accreditation processes heavily depends on the understanding and engagement of academic staff (Harvey & Williams, 2010).

Understanding of Accreditation Standards

Accreditation standards are central to the mission of higher education institutions, particularly in aligning academic programs with the demands of the workforce. According to Harvey and Williams (2010), accreditation serves as both an evaluative and developmental tool. It allows institutions to reflect on their educational offerings, ensuring they meet quality standards while also identifying areas for improvement. The authors highlight that the primary purpose of accreditation is to maintain educational quality, with specific standards designed to ensure that academic programs remain relevant to current and future market demands. This relevance is achieved by setting criteria that institutions must meet to demonstrate their commitment to academic excellence and industry alignment.

However, the understanding of these standards by academic staff is crucial to their successful implementation. Eaton (2012) emphasizes that the success of accreditation depends not only on the accrediting bodies but also on the faculty and administrators who are responsible for implementing these standards at the program level. Faculty members need to be well-versed in accreditation requirements to ensure that the academic programs they design and deliver meet the benchmarks set by accrediting bodies. Inadequate understanding of these standards can lead to misalignment between institutional goals and accreditation criteria, ultimately affecting the institution’s ability to maintain its accreditation status.

Moreover, academic staff must recognize that accreditation standards are dynamic and evolve in response to changing industry and societal needs. Ensuring continuous professional development and familiarization with updated accreditation criteria is essential for keeping academic programs aligned with workforce requirements (Shellenbarger, 2022) (Bukhari et al., 2021) (Van De Mortel et al., 2023). Understanding accreditation standards thus extends beyond simple compliance; it requires a proactive approach to educational quality that promotes continuous reflection and adaptation. In the context of Malaysian community colleges, this is particularly important given the rapidly changing technological landscape and the need to produce graduates who are both skilled and adaptable.

Importance of Accreditation Standards

Accreditation standards provide a structured approach to program development and evaluation, aligning academic curricula with industry requirements. According to Van De Mortel et al. (2023) institutions with strong accreditation practices tend to produce graduates with higher employability rates and better alignment with workforce needs. As institutions strive to meet evolving societal needs and uphold educational integrity, the role of accreditation becomes increasingly critical. Accreditation not only provides a framework for evaluating and enhancing institutional performance but also fosters trust among stakeholders, including students, employers, and regulatory bodies. This assurance of quality is essential as it affects the institutions recognition and the value of its degrees in the job market. In the context of international education, as highlighted by (Yuzyk et al., 2019), the establishment of networks among accreditation agencies plays a pivotal role in ensuring that educational outcomes align with both national and international expectations.

As the landscape of higher education evolves, the future of accreditation standards becomes increasingly critical in ensuring quality and relevance. Institutions are expected to adopt a more integrated approach, aligning their programs with both industry needs and educational best practices. This is evident in the development of comprehensive evaluation frameworks, such as those that incorporate Educational Organizations Management System (EOMS) and context-input-process-product (CIPP) perspectives, which highlight curriculum, faculty support, and academic resources as key standards for educational success (Baum et al., 2009). Moreover, the global shift towards addressing complex issues like disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation underscores the necessity for accredited training programs that meet quality assurance standards. This emerging focus on collaborative, regionally accredited qualifications aim to enhance capacity development across various sectors, thereby fostering resilience and effective adaptation strategies (Buliruarua et al., 2016). Such developments indicate that future accreditation standards will play a pivotal role in shaping the educational landscape.

Challenges in Implementation Accreditation Standards

The implementation of accreditation standards, while crucial, often comes with several challenges that institutions must navigate. One of the most frequently cited barriers is the lack of adequate training for academic staff, particularly in understanding the intricate details of the accreditation process. Tadese et al., (2022) identifies insufficient professional development opportunities as a significant barrier to the effective implementation of accreditation standards. Faculty members may not always have access to the necessary resources or support to fully grasp the expectations set by accrediting bodies. This can result in inconsistencies in how standards are applied across departments or programs, undermining the institution’s ability to meet accreditation criteria uniformly.

Furthermore, resource constraints often exacerbate the challenges associated with accreditation. Implementing accreditation standards requires a significant investment of time, finances, and administrative support. Small institutions or community colleges may struggle with the costs associated with preparing for accreditation, including conducting self-assessments, maintaining necessary documentation, and undergoing periodic reviews by external accrediting bodies (Carvalho et al., 2022). In the context of Malaysian community colleges, which often operate with limited resources, these challenges can be particularly acute. Ensuring that faculty members have the time and support to focus on accreditation processes, in addition to their teaching and administrative responsibilities, is a difficult balancing act.

The complexity of accreditation standards is another significant challenge. Accreditation bodies often provide detailed and technical guidelines that institutions must follow, which can be difficult to interpret and implement consistently. Research by Head & Johnson (2011) suggests that the complexity of accreditation requirements can lead to confusion and misinterpretation among faculty and administrators. This complexity is particularly problematic when standards are updated frequently, requiring institutions to continuously adapt their processes and documentation. For institutions with limited capacity, such as community colleges, keeping up with these changes can pose a substantial burden.

The perception that accreditation is a bureaucratic and burdensome process further complicates its implementation. Educators and administrators may view accreditation as a compliance exercise rather than an opportunity for meaningful improvement. This perception, combined with the resource-intensive nature of accreditation, can result in a lack of engagement with the process, which ultimately undermines its effectiveness in driving educational quality improvements (Frank et al., 2020). Addressing these challenges requires a more streamlined and supportive approach to accreditation, with an emphasis on capacity building and professional development for faculty and administrators.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a quantitative approach using a descriptive survey design to assess the understanding, effectiveness, and challenges of implementing the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition (TTAC) in Malaysian community colleges.

Research Design & Method

A structured questionnaire was the primary tool for data collection, incorporating Likert-scale items to measure respondents’ understanding, experiences, and challenges with the TTAC. The survey covered demographics, understanding of the standard, effectiveness, implementation challenges, and staff satisfaction. Purposive sampling targeted 153 academic staff (Heads of Programme and lecturers) across all JPPKK zones, with a minimum sample size of 110, determined using Cochran’s formula.

Population and  Sample Size

The target population includes 153 academicians directly involved in TTAC implementation. The diversity of community colleges across Malaysia—urban and rural—ensures varied perspectives. The sample size (110) aligns with Krejcie & Morgan’s recommendations for reliability.

Research Instrument

The questionnaire underwent expert reviews and a pilot test with academic staff from Zone Melaka (September 24–26, 2024) to ensure validity and reliability. Revisions followed pilot feedback, and Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated, with a value ≥0.7 considered reliable.

Data Collection

Data were collected via Google Forms for broader reach and efficiency. Follow-up reminders ensured higher response rates (expected 60–70%). The approach allowed real-time tracking and secure data storage.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS, applying descriptive (mean, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (t-tests, correlations) to explore trends and relationships. Cronbach’s Alpha assessed reliability, and results were visualized through tables and charts for clarity.

FINDINGS

Respondent Profile Analysis

The respondent profile analysis revealed a nearly balanced gender distribution among the 113 respondents, with 52.2% male, 46.9% female, and 0.9% preferring not to disclose their gender. This slight male dominance aligns with typical trends in technical and vocational education and training (TVET), where male participation often surpasses female involvement. However, the near parity highlights positive progress toward gender inclusivity within Malaysian community colleges.

In terms of age distribution, the majority of respondents (67.3%) were within the 40–49 age range, followed by 27.4% aged 30–39, and smaller proportions aged 50–59 (4.4%) and 20–29 (0.9%). This indicates that most respondents are mid-career professionals with significant teaching and administrative experience, positioning them well to navigate accreditation processes. However, the limited representation of younger educators suggests a potential gap in future leadership, emphasizing the need for targeted professional development programs for early-career staff.

Regarding job positions, lecturers comprised the majority of respondents (60.2%), while Heads of Programme made up 39.8%. This balance reflects the integral roles of both curriculum implementers and academic leaders in ensuring compliance with the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition. Lecturers play a direct role in applying accreditation requirements within classroom settings, while Heads of Programme oversee policy alignment and institutional adherence. The geographic distribution of respondents spanned various regions in Malaysia, ensuring a diverse range of perspectives. The highest representation came from Melaka & Negeri Sembilan (22.1%), followed by Johor (18.6%) and Perak (13.3%). Other regions, including Pahang (12.4%), Kedah & Perlis (6.2%), and Sabah (7.1%), also contributed, while smaller percentages were recorded from Kelantan & Terengganu (3.5%) and Pulau Pinang (3.5%). This broad distribution enhances the study’s generalizability, as it captures regional differences in resource availability, institutional priorities, and accreditation implementation strategies.

An analysis of the respondents’ academic grades showed that mid-level positions were the most common, with 40.7% holding the DH47/48 grade and 28.3% at DH43/44. Lower grades such as DH41/42 accounted for 15.9%, while higher positions like DH51/52 represented 8.8% of respondents. The prevalence of mid-level staff highlights their central role in both teaching and administrative duties, making them key players in accreditation compliance.

In terms of teaching experience, most respondents had between 11–15 years (36.3%) and 16–20 years (29.2%) of experience, indicating a seasoned academic workforce. A smaller portion had more than 20 years of experience (16.8%), while early-career educators with less than 5 years of experience made up only 7.1%. This distribution suggests that the majority of respondents possess the expertise needed to navigate complex accreditation standards, though the relatively low number of highly experienced educators underscores the importance of mentorship programs to transfer institutional knowledge.

The analysis of academic qualifications showed that 64.6% of respondents held a bachelor’s degree, while 30.1% had completed a master’s degree. A small number of respondents held diplomas (4.4%) or Ph.Ds. (0.9%). While bachelor’s and master’s degrees meet the basic requirements for community college educators, the low number of doctoral degree holders may limit opportunities for advanced research and innovation in curriculum development.

Finally, the respondents’ fields of expertise reflected Malaysia’s focus on high-demand technical sectors. The largest group specialized in Electrical and Electronic Technology (39.8%), followed by Automotive Technology (14.2%) and Building and Construction Technology (12.4%). Other areas, such as Food Technology (8.8%), Manufacturing and Industrial Technology (10.6%), and Agro-based Technology (2.7%), were also represented, albeit in smaller proportions. This distribution aligns with the country’s economic priorities and highlights the importance of ensuring accreditation standards remain responsive to industry needs.

Understanding of TTAC Standard

The analysis of the data on understanding the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard (Second Edition) among community college academicians indicates a generally high level of familiarity and confidence in its implementation. The overall mean score of 4.05 (SD = 0.50) suggests that respondents have a strong understanding of the accreditation standard, with minor variations across different aspects. This finding aligns with previous research emphasizing the importance of clear accreditation guidelines in fostering compliance and improving the quality of educational programs (Saeed et al., 2021).

Among the individual items, the highest mean score was recorded for the statement, “The accreditation standard is relevant to my program’s needs” (M = 4.19, SD = 0.639), indicating that most respondents perceive the standard as beneficial to their academic programs. This perception of relevance is crucial, as alignment between accreditation standards and institutional needs is a key factor in successful implementation. Similarly, respondents reported high confidence in applying the accreditation standard in their work (M = 4.11, SD = 0.603), suggesting that familiarity with the guidelines contributes to their effective utilization.

However, a notable challenge was identified regarding training on implementing the accreditation standard, which had the lowest mean score (M = 3.77, SD = 0.655). This suggests that while respondents generally understand the accreditation process, there is a gap in structured training and professional development. Prior studies have highlighted that inadequate training can hinder the effective execution of accreditation requirements, leading to inconsistencies in adherence across institutions (Frank et al., 2020). Addressing this issue through workshops, continuous professional development, and institutional support can enhance compliance and ensure the successful integration of accreditation standards into academic practices.

Furthermore, the alignment of the accreditation standard with institutional goals received a relatively high mean score (M = 4.08, SD = 0.657), reflecting positive perceptions of its applicability within community colleges. This finding is consistent with literature emphasizing that accreditation frameworks should be tailored to the specific needs of educational institutions to ensure meaningful implementation (Said et al., 2011). Additionally, awareness of updates in the Second Edition of the standard (M = 4.10, SD = 0.668) suggests that efforts to disseminate revised guidelines have been moderately effective. However, continuous engagement and communication between accreditation bodies and academic staff remain essential to ensure ongoing compliance and quality assurance.

Overall, the findings indicate that while community college academicians have a solid understanding of the accreditation standard and its relevance to their programs, addressing gaps in training and professional development is crucial for enhancing its implementation. Institutions should prioritize structured capacity-building initiatives to equip academic staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate accreditation requirements effectively.

Challenges in Implementation of the Accreditation Standard

The analysis of the challenges in implementing the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition reveals several significant findings. The overall mean score of 3.79 (SD = 0.462) suggests that respondents moderately agree that challenges exist, indicating a need for strategic improvements to support effective implementation. The relatively low standard deviation reflects consistency in perceptions among respondents, highlighting shared experiences and common challenges across different institutions.

One of the most prominent challenges is related to understanding the accreditation requirements, as indicated by the statement, “I have had trouble understanding the requirements of the accreditation standard” (M = 3.72, SD = 0.661). This suggests that some academic staff experience difficulties in comprehending the detailed requirements of the accreditation process. The complexity of accreditation guidelines and the need for precise compliance can be overwhelming, particularly for staff who lack prior experience with such standards.

Another notable challenge is the perception that “The documentation required for accreditation is too complex” (M = 3.72, SD = 0.761). This indicates that the extensive documentation required for compliance poses a significant administrative burden. The complexity of documentation processes is a common issue in accreditation systems worldwide, often leading to faculty burnout and reduced engagement (Harvey, 2004). Addressing this challenge requires streamlining documentation requirements and providing clearer templates and guidelines to support academic staff in meeting compliance standards.

Interestingly, the statement “The management provides adequate support to effectively implement the Accreditation Standard” received a relatively high mean score of 4.08 (SD = 0.629). This suggests that respondents generally feel supported by their institutions, highlighting a positive aspect of the accreditation process. Effective management support, including administrative assistance, leadership commitment, and resource allocation, is crucial for successful accreditation implementation (Saeed et al., 2021). However, despite this support, respondents also identified challenges related to time constraints (M = 3.80, SD = 0.792) and inadequate resources (M = 3.80, SD = 0.643), indicating that institutional support may not be sufficient to fully address the demands of the accreditation process.

The finding that “There is a lack of training or guidance on how to implement the accreditation standard” (M = 3.85, SD = 0.658) highlights a significant gap in professional development and capacity-building initiatives. Adequate training and guidance are essential for academic staff to understand accreditation requirements, effectively implement standards, and maintain compliance. Previous research has emphasized the importance of continuous professional development programs and mentorship opportunities to support faculty in navigating complex accreditation processes (Frank et al., 2020).

Finally, the item “I face challenges in aligning my teaching practices with the accreditation requirements” recorded the lowest mean score (M = 3.64, SD = 0.824). This indicates that while some alignment challenges exist, they are less significant compared to other issues. Nevertheless, ensuring alignment between accreditation standards and teaching practices is essential for achieving educational quality and institutional objectives. Addressing this issue may require tailored pedagogical training programs to help faculty integrate accreditation requirements into their teaching methodologies.

Overall, the findings reveal moderate challenges in implementing the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard, particularly related to understanding requirements, documentation complexity, time constraints, and insufficient training. Although respondents feel supported by their institutions, additional measures are needed to streamline processes, enhance training programs, and improve resource allocation. By addressing these challenges, community colleges can enhance faculty engagement and ensure the successful implementation of accreditation standards.

Hypothesis Testing

The One-Sample t-test was conducted to examine whether the level of understanding of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition among academic staff is moderate, as hypothesized in Ha1: Academic staff have a moderate understanding of the accreditation standard. In this study, a test value of 3.0 was used, representing a moderate level of understanding on a 5-point Likert scale. The objective was to determine whether the mean understanding score significantly differs from this moderate benchmark.

The results indicate that the mean difference is 1.04867, with a t-value of 22.247 and 113 degrees of freedom (df = 112). The two-sided p-value is < 0.001, which is highly significant at the 0.05 level (p < 0.05). Additionally, the 95% confidence interval of the difference ranges from 0.9553 to 1.1421, suggesting that the true population mean difference is consistently above the moderate level. The positive mean difference and the significant t-value indicate that the respondents’ understanding of the accreditation standard is significantly higher than moderate (Grepperud et al., 2019). These findings reject the null hypothesis (H0: µ = 3.0), supporting the alternative hypothesis that academic staff have a higher than moderate understanding of the accreditation standard. This suggests that community college academicians are generally well-informed and knowledgeable about the requirements and guidelines of the accreditation process. Such a high level of understanding is essential for effective implementation and compliance with accreditation standards.

The significant result aligns with previous research indicating that continuous professional development and institutional support contribute to faculty’s understanding and confidence in applying accreditation requirements (Spowart & Turner, 2021). The finding also underscores the effectiveness of existing training programs and knowledge dissemination strategies used by the Malaysian Board of Technologists (MBOT). However, it remains essential to maintain this high level of understanding by updating faculty on policy changes, providing ongoing training, and fostering a culture of accreditation awareness.

Overall, the results indicate a high level of understanding among academic staff, highlighting the success of current accreditation practices in Malaysian community colleges. To sustain and enhance this positive trend, institutions should continue investing in faculty development programs and strengthening communication channels to ensure that all academic staff remain well-informed and actively engaged in the accreditation process.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the understanding and implementation challenges of the Technologist and Technician Accreditation Standard Second Edition (TTAC) among academic staff in Malaysian community colleges. Overall, the results indicate a high level of understanding of the accreditation standard, coupled with moderate challenges in its implementation, highlighting areas for improvement in training, resource allocation, and administrative processes.

The analysis of academic staff’s understanding of the TTAC revealed a strong familiarity with the accreditation standard, with an overall mean score of 4.05 (SD = 0.50), suggesting that most respondents are confident in their knowledge of the accreditation requirements. This aligns with previous research emphasizing the importance of clear accreditation guidelines in fostering compliance and enhancing educational quality (Saeed et al., 2021). Notably, respondents perceived the accreditation standard as highly relevant to their program’s needs (M = 4.19), which is essential for meaningful implementation. Confidence in applying the standard (M = 4.11) and awareness of updates in the Second Edition (M = 4.10) further reflect a well-informed academic workforce capable of navigating the accreditation process effectively.

However, despite this high level of understanding, the study identified a significant gap in structured training, with the lowest mean score recorded for the statement, “I have received sufficient training on how to implement the accreditation standard” (M = 3.77). This highlights the need for targeted professional development programs to strengthen academic staff’s capacity to apply the accreditation requirements consistently. Inadequate training has been widely recognized as a barrier to effective accreditation implementation, leading to inconsistencies in compliance and potential gaps in educational quality (Frank et al., 2020). Addressing this issue through continuous professional development, workshops, and mentorship programs would help bridge this gap and improve overall compliance.

The findings also shed light on the challenges faced by academic staff in implementing the TTAC. The overall mean score for challenges (M = 3.79, SD = 0.46) indicates that respondents moderately agree that obstacles exist, with notable issues related to understanding complex accreditation requirements (M = 3.72) and managing the extensive documentation required (M = 3.72). The administrative burden associated with documentation is a common challenge in accreditation systems, often leading to faculty burnout and reduced engagement (Harvey, 2004). Simplifying documentation processes and providing clear templates could alleviate these pressures and streamline compliance efforts.

Interestingly, while respondents acknowledged strong institutional support (M = 4.08) in implementing the accreditation standard, they also reported challenges related to time constraints (M = 3.80) and resource inadequacies (M = 3.80). This suggests that although management is supportive, the practical demands of the accreditation process still strain academic staff, impacting their ability to fully comply with accreditation requirements. Institutions could address this by allocating additional resources, adjusting workloads during accreditation periods, and fostering a more supportive administrative environment.

Another significant challenge identified was the lack of comprehensive training and guidance on accreditation implementation (M = 3.85). Continuous professional development is crucial for maintaining faculty competence and ensuring that accreditation standards are consistently applied across programs. Enhancing training programs and encouraging knowledge-sharing among academic staff can improve overall compliance and reduce implementation challenges. Additionally, some respondents faced difficulties aligning their teaching practices with accreditation requirements (M = 3.64), suggesting the need for pedagogical training that integrates accreditation standards into everyday teaching strategies.

The hypothesis testing further reinforced the finding that academic staff possess a high level of understanding of the accreditation standard. The One-Sample t-test revealed a significant difference from the moderate benchmark (M = 3.0), with a t-value of 22.247 (p < 0.001), confirming that the respondents’ understanding exceeds moderate levels. This outcome aligns with existing literature highlighting the positive impact of institutional support and professional development on faculty’s accreditation knowledge (Spowart & Turner, 2021). The significant result underscores the effectiveness of current training efforts and knowledge dissemination strategies but also emphasizes the importance of maintaining these initiatives to ensure continuous improvement.

Comprehension of the Accreditation Standard

The study indicates that although most academic staff have a basic awareness of the TTAC criteria, there is a notable deficiency in their thorough grasp, especially concerning the complexities of the accreditation process and its practical implementation. This conclusion corresponds with Spowart and Turner (2021), who discovered a widespread misunderstanding among faculty members, viewing accreditation processes as supplementary burdens rather than essential elements of educational improvement. Such impressions frequently arise from insufficient training and a lack of awareness regarding the advantages of accreditation, resulting in resistance and devaluation of its significance.

The data reveals that academic personnel often perceive the certification procedure as a bureaucratic duty, which detracts from their core teaching obligations. The qualitative input reflects a consensus among respondents regarding the necessity for more focused training sessions, workshops, and ongoing professional development programs to address current knowledge deficiencies. The lack of support mechanisms impedes effective implementation and promotes a culture of compliance instead of authentic engagement with the accrediting process.

To tackle these problems, it is essential for regulatory entities like the Department of Polytechnic and Community College Education (JPPKK) and the Malaysia Board of Technologists (MBOT) to formulate and execute organized training programs. These programs must be customized to meet the distinct requirements of academic personnel, emphasizing practical elements of the accrediting process, such as curriculum development, assessment techniques, and ongoing quality enhancement initiatives. By augmenting the comprehension and competencies of academic personnel, institutions can cultivate a more favourable attitude of accreditation, perceiving it as an instrument for professional development and educational superiority.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In summary, the study demonstrates that while Malaysian community college academicians generally have a strong understanding of the TTAC, challenges remain in areas such as training, documentation complexity, time management, and resource availability. Addressing these issues through enhanced professional development, streamlined administrative processes, and increased institutional support can improve the overall implementation of the accreditation standard.

To further strengthen implementation, this study proposes adopting a mixed-methods research approach in future studies to capture deeper qualitative insights, alongside quantitative analysis. This combination will offer a more comprehensive understanding of the lived experiences of academic staff and the nuances of TTAC implementation. Expanding research to include polytechnics, universities, and other higher education institutions will provide a broader, more comparative perspective on how different institutional environments influence accreditation success.

Additionally, identifying best practices from high-performing institutions, both locally and internationally and integrating these strategies into structured training programs and resource planning can support institutions facing challenges. Case studies showcasing successful TTAC implementation should be developed to serve as practical guides. A longitudinal approach is also recommended to monitor ongoing challenges, track improvements over time, and measure the long-term effectiveness of interventions. To enhance the success of TTAC implementation, this study emphasizes the need for evidence-based strategies drawn from institutions with high compliance rates. Developing structured, accessible training programs tailored to academic staff’s needs is crucial for fostering a deeper understanding of accreditation requirements and reducing barriers to implementation (Frank et al., 2020). By analysing best practices from high-performing institutions — both locally and internationally — policymakers and accreditation bodies can extract practical approaches to streamline documentation processes, optimize time management, and improve resource allocation. Additionally, conducting longitudinal studies is essential to track the evolving nature of these challenges, monitor improvements over time, and assess the sustained impact of TTAC on institutional performance (Grepperud et al., 2019). This long-term perspective ensures that interventions remain relevant and adaptable to emerging needs, supporting continuous quality enhancement in Malaysia’s community college system.

These findings and recommendations offer valuable insights for policymakers, accreditation bodies, and educational institutions. By embracing a more inclusive, data-driven, and adaptive approach, stakeholders can enhance accreditation practices, empower academic staff, and promote continuous quality improvement within Malaysia’s community college system.

REFERENCE

1. Bukhari, S. M. U. H., Shah, N. H., & Arif, M. H. (2021, July 1). Contemporary Trends in Quality Assurance in Distance Education. International Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 6(2), 100-108. https://doi.org/10.36261/ijdeel.v6i2.1865
2. Buliruarua, Leigh-Ann, Chan, Emily Y.Y., Chan, Gloria, Davey, et al. (2016). Accredited qualifications for capacity development in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. https://core.ac.uk/download/153444652.pdf
3. Carvalho, N., Rosa, M. J., & Amaral, A. (2022). Cross-Border Higher Education and Quality Assurance. Results from a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Studies in International Education, 27(5), 695–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153221076900
4. Eaton, J. S. (2012). Accreditation and the federal future of higher education. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
5. Frank, J. R., Taber, S., Van Zanten, M., Scheele, F., & Blouin, D. (2020). The role of accreditation in 21st century health professions education: Report of an International Consensus Group. BMC Medical Education, 20(S1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02121-5
6. Grepperud, S., Mathisen, T. A., & Pedersen, P. A. (2019). Accreditation in a differentiated duopoly. Managerial and Decision Economics, 40(3), 336. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3005
7. Harvey, L. (2004). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080042000218267
8. Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen Years of Quality in Higher Education (Part Two). Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 81–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2010.485722
9. Head, R. B., & Johnson, M. S. (2011). Accreditation and its influence on institutional effectiveness. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(153), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.435
10. Kayyali, M. (2023). The Evolution of Quality Assurance Systems in Higher Education. International Journal of Innovation and Research, 1(1), 1–9.
11. Saeed, S., Almuhaideb, A. M., Bamarouf, Y. A., Alabaad, D. A., Gull, H., Saqib, M., Iqbal, S. Z., & Salam, A. A. (2021). Sustainable Program Assessment Practices: A Review of the ABET and NCAAA Computer Information Systems Accreditation Process. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), 12691. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312691
12. Said, S. M., Chow, C., Mokhtar, N., Ramli, R., Ya, T. M. Y. S. T., & Sabri, M. F. M. (2011). Accreditation of engineering programs: An evaluation of current practices in Malaysia. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9180-6
13. Shellenbarger, T. (2022). Accreditors stepping up to the challenge: Reimagining the future of nursing. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 17(3), 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2022.03.004
14. Spowart, L., & Turner, R. (2021). Institutional accreditation and the professionalisation of teaching in the HE sector. IntechOpen eBooks. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99805
15. Tadese, M., Yeshaneh, A., & Mulu, G. B. (2022). Determinants of good academic performance among university students in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03461-0
16. Van De Mortel, T., Mitchell, C., Shuker, M., Needham, J., Kain, V., Sanger, G., & Pierce, B. (2023). A program quality framework: a collaborative teaching team approach to quality assurance, quality enhancement and staff capacity building. Frontiers in Medicine, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1242408
17. Yuzyk, O., Mazaikina, I., Bilanych, H., & Yuzyk, M. (2019). Quality of higher education in Ukraine and Poland: comparative aspects. Comparative Professional Pedagogy, 9(1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.2478/rpp-2019-0008