Truly, a “quality” writings from Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus…
Points of contentions:
1. It is categorised as non-refereed text for the conference. I would have thought public paper should not include spot quotes and non-refereed information establishment. In the part of quoting models indifferences, quoting of one model was not tallied to the comparative model used.
2. Coming from the head of school and a director, if they are in my fellowship, this publication would have been put back for further referral.
3. Also, in one part of the writings, a system was referred to as an instrument without qualifying the nature, and/or construct, and/or mechanism of such instrument.
4. The citation(s); in ambiguity; of the differences in models adopted per locale were not qualified by data to show differences therein.
5. “becoming more and more” is flawed in the English grammars.
6. The dis-ambiguity of the abstracts and the introduction/conclusion is also questionable. The cultural differences as compared to “To those important issues are related also cultural difference of the students and staffs, time difference between campusesâ€™ locations and many others.” and “increasing cultural level of the local population”
7. Requoting “To those important issues are related also cultural difference of the students and staffs, time difference between campusesâ€™ locations and many others.”, I wonder how sentence of such constructs (not complying to subject and Predicate rules) could exist in a conference paper?
Wonder what’s the take on quality of education by Wee Ka Siong on the stance of IPTS after he reads this publication?