e-Learning & Interactive Lecture: SoTL Case Studies in Malaysian HEIs

e-Learning & Interactive Lecture: SoTL Case Studies in Malaysian HEIs

Cetakan Pertama/ First Printing, 2015

Hak Cipta Pusat Pengajaran & Teknologi Pembelajaran, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia/ Copyright Centre for Teaching & Learning Technologies, National University of Malaysia 2015

Hak cipta terpelihara. Tiada bahagian daripada terbitan ini boleh diterbitkan semula, disimpan untuk pengeluaran atau ditukarkan ke dalam sebarang bentuk atau dengan sebarang alat juga pun, sama ada dengan cara elektronik, gambar serta rakaman dan sebagainya tanpa kebenaran bertulis daripada Pusat Pengajaran & Teknologi Pembelajaran, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia terlebih dahulu.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Centre for Teaching & Learning Technologies, National University of Malaysia.

Diterbitkan di Malaysia oleh/ published in Malaysia byPusat Pengajaran & Teknologi Pembelajaran Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor. Malaysia

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Data-Pengkatalogan-dalam-Penerbitan/

Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

e-Learning & Interactive Lecture: SoTL Case Studies in Malaysian HEIs edited by:Mohamed Amin Embi

ISBN 978-983-3168-48-4


Editor:Mohamed Amin Embi

v

Preface

Assalamualaikum wbt

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning or SoTL is one of AKEPT’s agenda so that Malaysian HEI lecturers’ can be transformed into ‘Reflective Practitioners’. This way, they can reflect on the approaches and methods they use to enhance learning. Due to crucial role of SoTL in promoting effective pedagogy, it is important for AKEPT’s trainers to be actively involved in SoTL and share their SoLT findings with others. Accordingly, the whole community will be updated and benefited with latest findings and technologies useful for promoting innovative teaching and learning.

This publication is timely, in fact, the first of the ‘SoTL Symposium Publication Series’, hence, it can be considered a ground-breaking work in this field. I sincerely hope that more title in this series can be produced in the near future.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, as the Head of the Training of Trainers Module for e-Learning and Interactive Lecture, for initiating and editing this book. I also would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to all the authors for their contributions making the publication of this book a reality.

Prof. Dr. Mohd Majid Konting, Director, Higher Education Leadership Academy

Prof. Dr. Mohd Majid Konting

vi

Preface

Assalamualaikum wbt and Salam 1Malaysia,

With the perspective of fulfilling vision 2020, this centre has a special focus on the promotion of teaching and learning leadership in Malaysian institutions of higher education. The Centre for Leadership in Learning and Teaching has developed more than 15 Training of Trainers modules to enhance learning and teaching in Malaysian HEIs. Two of these modules are on i) e-Learning, and ii) Interactive Lecture headed by Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin and his team for successfully organizing the 1st Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Symposium on e-Learning and Interactive Lecture on 19th to 20th August 2014. At the same time, I would also like to extend my appreciation for his proactive endeavour initiating this inaugural SoTL Symposium Publication Series. Hopefully, such great work would expand the knowledge of SoTL in facilitating Malaysian HEIs lecturers to adopt innovative teaching and learning strategies in their classrooms. Finally, I would like to thank and congratulate all the authors for their contributions in making the publication of this book a success.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ismi Arif Ismail Deputy Director, Centre for Leadership in Learning & Teaching, AKEPT

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ismi Arif Ismail

vii

Preface

Assalamualaikum wbt and Salam 1Malaysia

One way to transform teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education of institutions is by developing reflective practitioners via evidence-based teaching. In this context, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is an important platform for this transformation at AKEPT and Ministry of Education. To achieve this end, three Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Symposiums have been successfully organized. The first was held at AKEPT in August 2014. The second and the third were held at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in December 2014 and May 2015 respectively. The fourth symposium will be organized on the 17th and 18th of November 2015 at AKEPT.

This edition is a compilation of selected papers from the 1st SoTL Symposium on e-Learning and Interactive Lecture. There are altogether 17 chapters encompassing case studies, action research and concept works.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all contributors for making this edition a success. I would especially like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Mohd Majid Konting, Director of AKEPT and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ismi Arif Ismail, Deputy Director, Centre of Leadership for Learning and Teaching, AKEPT for their continuous support in making the SoTL Symposiums and this Publication Series a success.

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi, Director, Centre for Teaching & Learning Technologies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia / Head of ToT Module for e-Learning & Interactive Lecture / Editor

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi

1 2 3Overview of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

SoTL Initiatives on e-Learning and Interactive Lecture in Malaysia

Learners’ Readiness to Adopt e-Portfolio: A Preliminary Study

1 21 37

4 5 6Evaluation of Blended Learning with Blendspace for Robotics Subject

Measuring the Acquisition of Engineering Laboratory Experience through the Application of e-Learning: A Pilot study in UniMAP

iTeaching for uLearning: Interactive Teaching Tools for Ubiquitous Learning in Higher Education

49 69 89

7 8 9Assessing HOTS in e-Learning among University Students in Malaysia

Analysis of Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’ Behavioural Intention to Use Web-based Interactive Learning Tools

Use of Google Scholar-Informed Pattern Hunting (GSIPH) for Enhancing Writing

101 141 153

Contents

10 11 12Adoption of a Project-based Learning as a Learning Strategy in e-Portfolio Assessment for Art and Design Courses

Edmodo for Interactive Lecture: A Focus on Transparent and Ubiquitous Learning

The Use of Padlet.com to Enhance Student Teachers’ Communication Skills in Universiti Malaysia Sabah

171 183 195

13 14 15Practices of Interactive Lectures among Lecturers in UPM

One Size Fits All?: SoTL and Flipped Learning

Edmodo Application and Teaching Performance: Embed and Engage

205 221 239

16 17Awareness and Acceptance of Interactive Learning Based on Web 2.0 Tools

Use of Google Scholar-Informed Pattern Defining (GSIPD) for Writing Improvement

249 261

Chapter

1

Overview of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Mohamed Amin Embi & Ebrahim PanahUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Introduction

Some scholars argue that an attribute of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) is engaging in inquiry and investigation with the primary focus on student learning (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999). Adding this attribute can reflect a significant change in emphasis from original formulation of a scholarship of teaching proposed by Boyer. During the subsequent decade, national and international journals, academic associations and conferences have been established to enhance and disseminate the faculty research products on teaching. As a result, promotion of SoTL has appeared as a movement in higher educations.

Proponents of SoTL research are highly hopeful for its potential effect on higher education. For instance, the home Website of the International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning defines SoTL research as a key way to foster teaching effectiveness and success, student learning results, and the constant transformation of academic cultures and communities. Likewise, the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (2009) enhances SoTL research with the purpose of promoting student learning, boosting the practice and profession of teaching as well as fostering the recognition and rewards to engage in teaching via positioning it as scholarly work. The question is whether such lofty goals can be realized and appreciated through SoTL research. To date, demonstrating increased SoTL research activity seems to be easier than identifying direct evidence of such transformative impacts. Some pose a question whether SoTL research has yet been

Chapter

1

2


engaged in important, critical educational issues (Kreber, 2005). A survey by O’Meara (2006) reported that conventional research priorities were found to be a barrier to recognize SoTL in research-oriented institutions. She points out that the effect of SoTL is subject to cultural and structural factors. This chapter starts with a description of Boyer’s (1990) original proposal for a scholarship of teaching, and the changes proposed by Hutchings and Shulman (1999). Then, key challenges to the assumptions regarding the mechanism through which SoTL research can achieve its transformative impacts as well as potential directions for the future are presented.

Definition of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

The concept of teaching scholarship still remains ambiguous to many faculties (Franklin & Theall, 2001). Similarly, according to Menges and Weimer (1996), the scholarship of teaching is an amorphous term. Therefore, it is obvious that it is necessary to redefine the vague concept of scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). The Illinois State University defines SoTL as “systematic reflection on teaching and learning made public”. Nevertheless, SoTL, as a vague concept, is not simply straightforwardly defined. According to Kreber (2005), the coinage of the term is attributed to Boyer and his colleagues. Thus, it appears consistent to discover how Boyer describes the term scholarship.

Boyer provides a broad and extensive meaning for scholarship. One that legitimizes the full scope of academic works (Boyer, 1990; 1997). Likewise, Boyer presents four areas which are included in academic works such as the scholarship of: discovery which is close to the old concept of research; integration that makes the connections across different disciplines; application that serves the interest of the bigger community and in such activities, theory and practice critically interact, and teaching and build bridges between the teacher’s understanding as well as the student’s learning. The most significant conclusion that Boyer points at is that a more comprehensive view of what it means to be a scholar, that is, the four scholarships are found to be overlapping and tied closely to each other, in turn forming an interdependent whole. Theory, practice and teacher development are considered as inclusively connected phenomena. Accordingly, Dreyfus’s and Dreyfus’s professional development theory (1986) can be described and recommended for application as a framework in order to make academics in trainings aware of potential stage developments while interweaving theory and practice.

Theory and Practice in Support of Professional Development

According to Molander (1996), theoretical and practical knowledge are obviously distinguished from each other. Theoretical knowledge, facts associated to “know-that” is constantly changing and consequently unstable. It is not conclusive and may never be absolutely right or wrong. So, finding the theories relevant to teachers at this time of increasing diversity in students and staff population is of paramount importance.

3


Alternatively, practical knowledge is definitive and evident. Hence, “Know-how” is closely tied to taking action and to carrying out judgments while performing (Molander, 1996). Correspondingly, Polanyi (1983) argued that “…we can know more than we can tell” (p. 4). This pre-logical phase is known as tacit knowledge (unspoken & implicit). Standing in the center of tacit knowledge, Know-how is not distanced and thus, not often documented, consequently making it difficult to make expert knowledge explicit. Therefore, it appears awkward trying to uncover tacit knowledge through theory. To unveil tacit knowledge, a reasonable strategy is observing how an expert or proficient person acts in different situations and via personal training (Kuhn, 2012).

As long as systematized and structured teaching has been around, the discussions regarding the proportion and significance between theory and practice in education has been continuing. Despite this long lasting debate, not much has been resulted. However, it is essential to challenge the mainstream academy’s rejection to see the values of training university lecturers professionally. It is argued that knowing-in-action is accomplished through training not teaching (Schön, 1983). A point should be made that one can learn through performing, as a lecturer/teacher, and thus developing scholarship of teaching is important. Boyer (1990) suggests that theory and practice are interwoven, as given in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: The relationship between theory and practice

4


It is crucial for course planners to have knowledge about and realize the strength of using formerly existing as well as well-working theory. The goal of incorporating theory and practice is archived when course participants tend to describe the higher education teacher training with the consideration of both theoretical and practical aspects.

Previous Research on Professional Development in Stages

Åkerlind (2007) has reported a research on academic’s conceptions of their own growth as well as development as university lecturers. Her findings show that a comprehensive understanding of teaching might precede a teacher’s development. Such broader understanding of teaching can include the relationship between theory and practice; however, it is not always the case. Hence, as a teacher, one needs to reflect on whether the object of the verb teaching is the subject that is taught or if the objects of the verb teaching are the people who are learning. In this vein, Kember (1997) makes excellent comparisons of various categories of teaching conceptions. He claims that lecturers usually develop through stages consistent with qualitative changes in their conceptualization of teaching process. One way of supporting conceptual change with teachers is connected with highlighting the relationship between theory and practice. Villegas-Reimers (2003) states that stage models can only be useful to a certain degree as teachers’ characteristics and opportunities vary. McKenzie (2014) emphasizes that teachers/lecturers do not necessarily progress via a set of conceptual stages at all.

Nevertheless, teachers are not aware of the stage theory and may not even have an opportunity to consider it and stand the risk of lingering an undesirable stage. It is stated that theories on progression through different stages of professional development have formerly been employed in other fields compared to education, for example, in psychotherapy (Kember, 1997; Ralph, 1980; Rodenhauser et al., 1989; Yogev, 1982). How can such theories contribute to the field of higher education? Kreber notes that: “Teaching continues to be undervalued…” (2005, p 5). He presents three different ways by which higher education lecturers can engage in teaching, specifically: teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of teaching. Likewise, Kreber discusses how teachers construct knowledge of pedagogical content and popularize their pedagogical know-how, for example, in peer-reviewed media, using teaching portfolios, mentoring colleagues and taking part in conferences on teaching and learning. His ideas are closely connected to Boyer’s discussions in Scholarship Reconsidered (1990). Similarly, Kugel (1993) discusses how college professors’ teaching abilities appear to develop in 6 stages, including: self; subject; student; student as receptive; student as active and student as independent.

5


In summary, what Kreber and Kugel present are regarded as descriptive models on professional development; however, although they highlight the need for reflections on teaching (practice) and research (theory), they do not meticulously examine how theory and practice can interplay to inspire academic developments. Boyer (1990) claims that the scholarship of use is not considered as a one-way street, the implication is that knowledge is not first explored and then applied. The relationship between theory and practice can be far more dynamic and one renovates the other (Boyer, 1990). Nevertheless, neither Boyer nor Kreber obviously describe how to hold an interaction between theory and practice in teaching and learning contexts. In the subsequent section, the five steps which were introduced by the Dreyfus brothers, are firstly introduced and then connected to professional development of university lecturers. Their five-step model provides a concrete proposal of how theory and practice are interwoven and can contribute to academic development with reference to the concept of scholarship of teaching and learning.

Dreyfus and Dreyfus: Five Steps from Novice to Expert

The Dreyfus brothers (1986) have introduced their theory, a scheme of five steps from novice to expert. Their theory on skill-acquisition (Figure 1.2) illustrates that a person usually passes through 5 stages of qualitatively diverse perceptions of his or her task. In what follows, the steps are presented from stage one to five, that is, from novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient to expert. The researchers state that, persons do not seem to leap abruptly from rule-guided “knowing that” to experienced-based “knowing-how”, as professionals obtain a skill via instruction and experience. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) use science as theory in contradiction of rules of thumb obtained through practice and experience. Normally, rules of thumb work based on the pattern, that is, if you observe a definite phenomenon, you need to act in a certain way.

However, unpredictable situations can plan systematic learning consistent with the decided aims difficult (Skovsgaard, 2004). Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) assert that theory and practice mutually rely on each other in a helpful process where the course participant develops his or her competence. Hence, expertise is only accomplished when both elements are developed and appreciated.

6


Figure 1.2: A scheme of five steps from novice to expert

Dreyfus and Dreyfus’ skill model makes it possible for professionals in various fields to be aware of potential stages existing in a teaching career, consequently, stimulating a discussion about the relationship between theory and practice. Such discussion is closely linked to Boyer’s (1990) discussion upon the necessity to debate between theory and practice. The following texts are mainly inspired by the works of the Dreyfus brothers (1986) and Benner, Tanner and Chesla (1996).

Stage 1: Novice

The novice learns how to recognize objective facts, features and rules to determine actions. Therefore, beginners mainly need to identify the routines but no experience from situations they make a plan to be active in is necessary. Usually, the novice possesses a set of rules that s/he applies irrespective of the situation as s/he is teacher-

7


centered. To solve different problems, at this stage, teachers would apply several rules no matter what the teaching situations would be. Also, the teacher would have no or little reflection on the didactical questions, such as why, what and how. At this stage, teachers would inconsiderately push through their teaching plans. Here, the main theme is that the inexperienced and unskilled teacher’s first and primary needs are practical personal experience, that is, distinct teaching skills to act as a teacher. Nevertheless, merely obtaining instructions and guidelines about various teacher tools such as how to arrange the blackboard, how to make use of the overhead and how to prepare a well-structured class, etc. is no assurance for good quality teaching. Therefore, guidance by rules may be counterproductive to successful, effective performances, as the rules would be context-free not telling the novice teacher what information is applicable in a given situation. Thus, an inexperienced teacher has a limited help connected with a de-contextualized collections of fast teaching solutions.

Stage 2: Advanced Beginner

In the second stage, experience is more significant than any forms of facts or rules. By practical training in real situations, the advanced beginner initiates to develop an intuitive sensitivity intended for meaningful components, influencing the situations. The meaningful elements are known as “situational” and differ from context-free components. For instance, to be able to make an assessment of a certain teaching situation, the teacher relies on experience gained from resembling teaching situations (Benner et al., 1996). Normally, advanced beginners may not feel a sense of self-sufficiency and autonomy, and consequently do not take full responsibility for their performances (Huberman, 1989).

In the professional development process, the advanced beginner should take into consideration perceived similarity with previous examples. This results in a requirement for practice and support in various learning situations to achieve patterns. Usually, the patterns are individually developed and thus appear to be complicated to express. Building an understanding of an entire teaching/ learning situation is difficult for novice and the advanced beginner. Quite the opposite, they must concentrate on memorizing and remembering the rules they learned.

Stage 3: Competent

Compared to the novice and advanced beginner, the competent performer differs in terms of responsibility. Instead of acting merely automatically, the competent performer selects and acts based on a plan. Therefore, the competent performer may no longer be considered as acting objectively. Accordingly, the competent performer would develop the ability to pay attention to just a few of the enormous number of factors affecting a teaching and learning situation. Taken from the plan that the competent performer chooses to use can also be a perspective, according to significant awareness of the problems in front of him or her. A teacher can typically develop competence following the performance of similar tasks for two to three years using long-term goals. Another feature of competence is connected with being in control

8


of the teaching/learning situation and being able to deal with unforeseen situations. Likewise, the competent performer admits the fact that there are numerous possible scenarios, and therefore realizes the impossibility to precisely identify and anticipate how to act in a specific situation. The competent performer indicates a great deal of awareness as well as deliberate planning. Competence is exposed by way of improved effectiveness. Characteristics for the competent instructor appear to be important when it comes to university teachers’ professional development. As discussed, one critical characteristic is that of responsibility. It is not possible to blame a specified set of rules for failure or success; the competent teacher seeks for explanations in himself or herself.

Stage 4: Proficient

The proficient performer develops understanding of the situations holistically. A proficient performer would have an intuitive apprehension and anxiety about a situation according to experienced-based knowledge. The proficient performer perceives a situation as an entirety contrary to having a list of things to complete. Other researchers also emphasize the significance of intuition for the proficient performer (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986). Proficient university instructors are best taught via case studies where their ability to build an understanding of a situation appears to be visible and valuable. If the proficient performer is provided with the opportunity to reiterate experience, s/he improves even further. In a specific situation, the proficient performer will have the opportunity to have a contribution with his or her method of appreciating the situation. So, when the proficient performer lastly comes to a loss of required words, an opening is achieved where novel knowledge is required.

Stage 5: Expertise

The expert does not rely on analytical principles like rules or guidelines to relate his or her practical understanding to suitable measures. Conversely, the expert typically knows what to do according to practiced understanding (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986). In accordance with enormous experience, the expert can intuitively understand each situation and accordingly react appropriately without wasting time on selecting between numerous alternatives. Such developed ability as well as sharpness to differentiate and interpret diverse situations from one another is what distinguish the expert from the proficient performer. Normally, the expert takes an effort to avoid “tunnel vision”, via considering many different perspectives as well as conferring with others that represent deviant opinions. The ability to differentiate an enormous number of situations comes with expertise (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986).

Usually, the expert is student-centered. Communicating their know-how to others is one of the issues for experts. Individual experience or tacit knowledge typically resists verbal descriptions and thus would be very tough to share with peers. Regularly, this fleeting knowledge causes experts not to be recognized by standard criteria. In the process of development of their performance, experts can, hence, act as mentors for their colleagues. The expert would have a wide understanding

9


according to situational experience, and know-how is regarded to be a combination of practical and theoretical knowledge. The expert university instructor would embrace holistic perspectives conducting a fluid as well as flexible teaching performance, that is, teaching on the base of intuition rather than detailed plans. In the following section, recommendations are discussed about how higher education lecturer training may be arranged to stimulate academics’ stage developments through connecting theory with practice. Figure 1.3 illustrates an assessment framework of scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education.

Figure 1.3: An assessment framework of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

SoTL can be examined in three aspects including SoTL goal setting, SoTL levels and SoTL components. SoTL goal setting is related to how educators add values to their institutions; SoTL levels is associated to the growth of educators’ SoTL capacity; and SoTL components are connected to the core areas of SoTL that instructors are expected to contribute (Figure 1.3).

Concerning SoTL goal setting, instructors can add values to their institutions through 1) contributing to their institutions’ educational mission, 2) advancing .i.e., distributing knowledge in their own field, and 3) engaging in the educational community. Educators’ summary of main achievements, such as a stating goals, responsibilities and philosophy of teaching and learning, with regard to institutional goals and plans (that is, contributing to educational mission) is crucial (4). Furthermore, when teaching is considered as a form of scholarship, subsequently the practice of

10


teaching has to be seen as promoting new knowledge (advancing knowledge in the field). Teaching Aim is to make students’ learning possible, whereas the aim of scholarly teaching is making transparent how learning would be possible (5). In reference to scholarship of teaching, the focus will be on how teaching process is evaluated by reviewing of teaching documents (5). Engaging with educational community is considered as evidence that instructors’ work is informed by what is identified in the field (i.e. scholarly teaching) and how instructors contribute to knowledge in the relevant field (i.e. scholarship of teaching) (6). This information presents the contextual basis against which SoTL can be assessed.

SoTL levels are classified into four levels including quantity, quality, scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching (4, 6) (Figure 1.3). Quantity is concerned with descriptive information about the types, roles and frequencies of educational activities. This is a fundamental requirement for every new instructor/educator (6). Also, this can be measurable concerning teaching hours per semester, the number of students supervised, etc. Quality is related to creating evidence that activities reach excellence by using comparative measures when accessible (6). This can be measurable by students’ feedback, peer feedback, head of department feedback and so on. Scholarly teaching deals with drawing from the literature besides best practices in the related field for systematically designing, implementing, assessing, and redesigning an educational activity (6). Any work done will be considered scholarly by meeting six standards; the work must be described by clear goals, sufficient preparation, suitable methods, important results, effective presentation as well as reflective critique (2). A scholarly teacher chooses the teaching method with the best chance of assisting students in achieving the learning objective. Scholarship of teaching is associated with faculties that involve in educational scholarship through both drawing on resources and best practices in the relevant field, and via contributing resources to it (6).

According to Shulman (1999), in order a work to be reflected as scholarship, it has to fulfill three criteria such as 1) it must be popularized, 2) it must be accessible for peer review and criticism based on recognized standards, and 3) it must have the capability of reproduction some way and constructed on by other researchers (2, 7). Documentation instigates demonstrating that product of an educational activity is publicly, openly accessible to the educational community in a form that other scholars can construct on. The product can be obtainable at the local level (that is department, school or university) or at the regional, national and international levels. When a product is made public and in a form that others can build on, peers will be able to assess its values to the educational community on the basis of accepted criteria. Such levels can be used as guideline for policy makers in order to set expectation based on the levels, for instance, for a new instructor to be promoted to a higher position, the assessment would be highlighted on quantity level as well as quality level. However, to those who are appointed to Professorship, the assessment needs to be emphasized on the scholarly teaching as well as scholarship of teaching levels.

There are six core areas (SoTL components) which are identified in the literature including teaching, curriculum, learner assessment, advising/ mentoring/ supervising, educational leadership/ administration, and educational professional development (4,

11


6, 8, & 9). Teaching is connected with any activity that promotes learning, such as direct teaching and construction of related instructional materials (6). Learner assessment is associated with any activity concerning measuring learners’ knowledge, skills along with attitudes (6). Curriculum is related to a longitudinal set of systematically designed, sequenced and evaluated educational activities which occur at any training level, setting or in any delivery format (6). Advising/ mentoring/ supervising are regarded as a developmental relationship where instructor facilitates the achievement of a learner’s and/or colleague’s goals (6, 10). It also contains all activities connected with production of learning package/ activity to boost formation, development and enhancement of learners’ and/or colleague’s personal qualities as well as professionalism that will support them in study and future career (10). Educational leadership along with administration is connected with activities that transform and renovate educational programmes and develop the field (6, 9). Educational professional development is associated to activities/events linked to promotion, development as well as recognition of personal qualities as an instructor (9). A point here should be made that each element is judged in line with the SoTL goal setting and SoTL levels as discussed previously. To sum up, using this component could assist policy makers in capturing all aspects of SoTL which have been done by instructors. The whole assessment framework is illustrated in the Figure 1.3.

In conclusion, the assessment framework may serve as a guideline for policy makers in higher educations to systematically take advantage of SoTL efforts that have been illustrated by instructors. Optimistically, higher education institutions put more weight and value on SoTL than the research publications for promotion and reward.

Teaching as Scholarship

Boyer’s (1990) proposal for a scholarship of teaching was based on the premise that the dominance of research had concealed other significant academic contributions to society. Accordingly, he put forward an argument that the term “scholarship” had appeared to be synonymous with “research”: concurrently other academic contributions (like teaching) had been devalued. So, in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, he reclaimed the term “scholarship” and redefined its meaning. His more comprehensive conceptualization of scholarship included discovery (research), integration, application and teaching of knowledge. He suggests that he has intended the four domains of scholarship to be valued equally, correspondingly and appropriately. For instance, Boyer states that university missions have to be meticulously redefined and the concept of scholarship creatively, innovatively reconsidered, and that scholarship ought to be given a broader, more extensive meaning, one that results in legitimacy to the complete scope of academic work. Furthermore, according to Boyer, these domains of scholarship are four distinct, yet overlapping, functions.

Boyer reinforces the distinctiveness of the scholarships of teaching and research by showing how these forms of scholarship may be assessed. He argues that scholarship may be evaluated thoroughly, even when it is signified in formats instead of refereed journals and monographs. In this vein, he highlights that textbooks and other popular

12


writings are used to publicize complex ideas to non-specialist audiences. Performance and artistic productions are regarded as legitimate formats of scholarship which are amenable to peer evaluation. Likewise, teaching is a form of scholarship that can be evaluated by using descriptions of the theory employed to inform teaching, peer observation, procedures and self-assessments of teaching, discussion of products, and information on student perceptions. Normally, peer reviewed publications connected to teaching are defined as another form of possible peer review intended for the scholarship of teaching; however, there is no strong suggestion that these kinds of publications are an essential condition for scholarship in teaching.

Boyer’s (1990) claims that the domains of scholarship may be distinguished through their different goals and activities, and they must be assessed accordingly. In fact, Hutchings and Shulman (1999) show that the outlining of good teaching as serious intellectual work has been the powerful message that most readers received from Scholarship Reconsidered.

Research-Oriented Scholarship

Hutchings and Shulman (1999) have also referred to colleagues who defined scholarship of teaching as an ambiguous term. Such critics used the semantic possibilities rising from the novel combination of “teaching” and “scholarship.” Particularly, assumed distinctions between excellent or expert teaching, scholarly teaching, and scholarship of teaching appeared to be red herrings and distracting attentions from the essential logic of Boyer’s (1990) proposition. However, Hutchings and Shulman have criticized and added questioning and investigation (that is, research on teaching & learning) to the attributes that they had formerly specified for the scholarship of teaching and learning. This means that the work may be subject to peer review, observation and adoption by others. Thus, they presented the paradoxical concept of SoTL as a realm of scholarship that is separate from that of research, yet requires research to be described as a domain of scholarship.

Hutchings and Shulman’s (1999) significant departure point from Boyer’s model of scholarship is the addition of the attribute of research. It is challenging to settle with Boyer’s approach, that is, to rebalance the values assigned to the different types of academic contributions through the evaluation of each in terms of its own goals and activities. They have justified the new necessity as the means to an end. That is the consequential research would enhance the teaching of the individuals that conducted the research, and can also benefit others’ teaching and learning. They claim it is the mechanism by which the profession of teaching itself advances. Hence, the scholarship of teaching can serve all teachers and students. Today, similarly, SoTL leaders and institutions concur on this issue. The important question is whether a research-oriented model of SoTL has the capability to fulfill these expectations.

13


Challenges for Research-Oriented Models of SoTL

Closer investigation of the claims discussed above show a fundamental assumption that the novel understandings built by individuals who engaged in SoTL research may be used by others. This can well take place on some occasions, thus, initially the supposition appears reasonable. Nevertheless, we may not necessarily take action on new information and be consistent with rational arguments. If SoTL research is planned to have a significant effect on teaching practices in higher educations, two key challenges (epistemic and educational) need to be overcome. These challenges are discussed at length in the following sections.

Epistemic Challenges

The SoTL epistemic challenges are twofold. The first challenge is connected to academics’ expectations of research evidence standards. The second challenge is related to the discontinuities between various types of knowledge. Cross and Steadman (1996) have discussed the significant distinctions between formal educational research and the classroom research involved in SoTL. While the usefulness and quality of formal educational research typically fulfills standard criteria for the evaluation of research quality, conducting research in the classroom usually constrains the feasibility and practicality of research methods and designs, and thus making it difficult to meet these quality criteria. Likewise, cross and Steadman state that findings of this kind of “unwarranted” investigations may only be considered as “tentative hypotheses” useful for others, and claim that the classroom researcher probably builds a base of knowledge regarding what is useful for them in their disciplines with their students than producing knowledge that others can construct on. Academics are not likely to value knowledge which cannot be shared.

Weimar (2006) has also documented the challenges associated to classroom research. Nevertheless, her proposal of different standards for several classes of pedagogical research is not likely to be received considerately by those academics that are already hesitant of the credibility and reliability of research on teaching. Hence, it would be easier to dismiss and terminate research than applying varying standards.

Some academics might even be sceptical of the probability that anything valuable could be obtained and learned from research to enhance teaching, particularly, if they assume that undervalue university teaching, formerly identified by Weimar (1997). Discontinuities and dissonance between previous beliefs and novel evidence concerning teaching may also pose challenges and problems for SoTL as a mechanism to impact other teachers. For example, Prosser and Trigwell, (1999) claim that differences in teaching conceptions could lead us to refuse ideas perceived as pertinent and beneficial by those with diverse conceptions of teaching. Likewise, Ho (2000) has shown the significance of changing teaching conceptions to achieve enhancement in teaching.

14


Furthermore, there is an important discontinuity between the types of explicit information and knowledge typifying reports of SoTL research, as well as the implicit procedural knowledge that guides practices like teaching. For instance, Jarvis (1999) has emphasized the role of personal experience (i.e., pragmatic knowledge) along with tacit knowledge in formation of practice. The long-term challenge of professional education, like teaching, is to combine them effectively.

Educational Challenges

Present academic conventions are to circulate research and novel ideas in the form of text, hard copy or soft copy articles and books. Unfortunately, this is perceived as one of the least effective and efficient ways to impact behaviors including teaching practices. Systematically reviewing the literature has examined the effectiveness of various methods of disseminating information aimed at changing behavior. Usually, interactive approaches are constantly greater than educational materials (Reardon, Lavis & Gibson, 2006). Literature on professional development designates the significance of situated learning and of practicing new skills in the context where they are to be employed (Sharpe, 2004); they may be precluded while learning is according to textual information only.

Directions for the Future

Reappraising the Role of Research-Oriented SoTL

The epistemic and educational factors discussed above are essential to models of SoTL that rely on research to be legitimized. They possibly limit both the degree to which faculty involves in SoTL and how much other researchers can benefit from SoTL study conducted by individuals. Some of the educational problems and challenges can be alleviated by attending to structural factors. For instance, the researches on professional and faculty development indicate the significance of social interactions for learning. One consequence is that advocating collaborative approaches to SoTL can be more beneficial compared to solitary engagement. A second consequence is that dissemination of SoTL researches through workshops and gorgeous, interactive media may have more effect than conventional publication strategies. Correspondingly, McKinney (2007) provides a summary of other common recommendations in terms of structural support for SoTL researches: such as increasing engagement in as well as support for SoTL, upholding a broad definition, and enhancing the quality and relevance/application of the research. However, these strategies have limitation, that is, they possibly only affect faculty that are interested in learning via and from SoTL research. It appears to be easier and more effective and efficient to persuade uninterested and unmotivated faculty to contribute to other methods of development than engaging them in SoTL research.

It is much more difficult to tackle the epistemic challenges to the predicted effect of SoTL research on the process of teaching and its relevant status within higher educations. Huber and Hutchings (2005) have emphasized the significance of

15


providing faculty with adequate time and support to carry out high quality research. Nonetheless, neither of such resources can assist in overcoming the restrictions that typical teaching conditions may impose on research methods and design. Absence of control conditions and adequate participants to accomplish statistical power are regarded as common problems and challenges in quantitative classroom research, whereas many qualitative methods are found to be too intensive to implement when teaching. Likewise, Cross and Steadman (1996) have wisely advised against making an expectation of classroom research to create generalizable and growing contributions to our cooperative understanding. Nevertheless, such research can sometimes be important to build more profound and useful understandings of one’s own teaching and students.

Furthermore, there are conflicting and contradictory recommendations regarding the most suitable types of investigation for SoTL. Normally, advocates of classroom as well as practitioner research emphasize the benefits of the SoTL researchers’ “insider” status for conducting qualitative research along with the value of descriptive research which provides insights into learning processes as well as individual differences amongst students (Cross & Steadman, 1996; Jarvis, 1999). On the contrary, other writers highlight the significance of evaluating and refining creativities and innovations in teaching, or the necessity for critical inquiry to recognize hidden assumptions as well as counter inequities. So, it is time to use stock of the methods with questions applied in SoTL research and to examine what kinds of researches are being pursued, where these researches are heading, and why.

In light of such concerns and inadequate resources, it is indispensable to contemplate carefully and critically on what can be achieved by supporting research-oriented models of SoTL. A teacher/instructor may invest in enhancing the quality and dissemination of SoTL research, nonetheless, must recognize the opportunity costs besides the limitations of the return on such investments. Much more is required than we presently know concerning whether and how SoTL research may improve the process of teaching and learning of those people involved, and whether and how it is valuable for fostering the teaching and learning of others. It is necessary to know more about how best to prepare and advocate faculty who are engaging in it. And far more information on SoTL research may be incorporated most effectively and successfully into an overall strategy for improving the quality together with perceived value of teaching and learning in the relevant institutions.

Resolving the Paradox of Research-Oriented Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

It appears to be ironic that some of the resilient supporters for SoTL research have realized that teaching that takes learning very seriously also has to be recognized as substantive and intellectual work (Huber & Hutchings, 2005). Correspondingly, Huber and Hutchings have also urged more wide-ranging documentation of teaching with more suitable formats so that colleagues may access and understand teaching complexities; that intellectual credits for teaching efforts must be acknowledged; and that teaching need to be rewarded and valued in institutional policies and procedures. Such recommendations are considerably similar to those suggested by Boyer (1990).

16


The convergence between these two positions enables us to resolve the argument and debate concerning the proper attributes and activities connected with a scholarship of teaching and learning. It is argued that research conducted on teaching and learning can be a legitimate and significant area of research in its own right compared to justifying such research as an attribute of a varied form of scholarship. Hence, research on teaching and learning may be categorized and assessed based on the criteria utilized for other research. Medical education, as an example, can inform strategies to promote and advance similar research in the other disciplinary contexts. Similarly, specialized centers for medical educations have nurtured and raised physicians as future researchers and allowed partnerships with researchers coming from education and other disciplines. Such partnerships can lead to cross-fertilization of ideas as well as methodologies and can create new research questions, and novel ways of building understanding of old research questions. Other relevant noteworthy innovations like the use of standardized patients intended for teaching and assessing clinical skills were provided by substantial and considerable grants for educational innovations.

Once research on teaching and learning is accepted as a field of research, it is no longer necessary to claim it as an attribute of the scholarship of teaching. It then becomes much more straightforward to argue that learning-centered teaching is a legitimate and important academic activity which merits the accolade of scholarship in its own right.

Building a New Model of the Scholarship of Teaching

It is difficult and challenging to find models of the scholarship of teaching focusing explicitly on students’ learning. A model of scholarship proposed by Trigwell and Shale (2004) is distinctive in its focus on students. Contrary to models that focus almost completely on demonstrations of fundamental pedagogical knowledge or researches on teaching, Trigwell and Shale’s model emphasizes on teaching as a process and practice and in action. Here, the scholarship of teaching equals with pedagogic resonance, described as the bridge constructed between teaching knowledge and the student learning resulting from that knowledge. So, the individual acts of teaching constitute pedagogic resonance, and the effect of pedagogic resonance is experienced by students. Pedagogical resonance is a difficult concept to operationalize. According to Trigwell and Shale, it can be recognized as points of synergy in teacher and students’ experiences.

Nevertheless, the procedure of making this identification appears to be cumbersome, and their descriptions demonstrate that neither the criteria against which it would be assessed, nor how it could be employed to inform future teaching. The proposed model provides an alternative. Hence, accepting learning-centered teaching, that is, teaching which promotes profound and transformative learning as an effective form of scholarship can be the starting point. Then, it becomes straightforward to the application of the principle of constructive arrangement and alignment for the identification of appropriate activities and outcomes connected with this scholarship. Consequently, the principle products and indicators of scholarship could be the

17


range and quality of the student learning stimulated. The alignment, quality along with rigor and consistency of the activities and resources that can contribute to the outcomes is also observable and assessable, formatively and summatively. Moreover, such assessments can be made by using tools and frameworks which are developed in large scale, formal researches on the conditions which impact students’ learning as well as success (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004). Last but not least, one can improve the educative potential of this model through encouraging students and scholars to enhance their learning and teaching via critical, collective reflection (Høyrup & Elkjaer, 2006) on what is, and on what need to be, learned; and on how our institutions, social relationships and individual practices should be organized so as to learning can be best reinvigorated, accomplished and assessed.

References

Åkerlind, G. S. (2007). Constraints on academics’ potential for developing as a teacher. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 21-37.

Benner, P., Tanner, C. A., & Chesla, C. A. (1996). Expertise in nursing practice caring, clinical judgment and ethics. Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Boyer E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie.

Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL). (2009). Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/scholarship-teaching-learning.

Cross, K. P. & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dreyfus, H. L. & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Putting computers in their place. Social Research, 53, 57-76.

Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.

Ho, A. S. P. (2000). A conceptual change staff development programme: Effects as perceived by the participants. International Journal for Academic Development, 3 (1), 24-38.

Hoyrup, S., & Elkjaer, B. (2006). Reflection: Taking it beyond the individual. Productive reflection at work, 29-42.

Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. The Teachers College Record, 91(1), 31-57.

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31,5, 10-15. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/scholarship-teaching-

Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics/ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction. 7( 3), 255-275, New York: Pergamon Press.

18


Kreber, C. (2005). Charting a critical course on the scholarship of university teaching movement. Studies in Higher Education, 30 ( 4), 389-405.

Kuhn, T. (2012). The Structure of Macintosh revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kugel, P. (1993). How professors develop as teachers. Studies in Higher Education, 18(3), 315-228.

McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning: The challenges and joys of juggling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Menges, R. J., & Weimer, M. (1996). Teaching on solid ground: Using scholarship to Improve practice. Jossey-Bass Inc., 350 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104.

Molander, B. (1996). Kunskap i handling. Daidalos AB. Göteborg.

O’Meara, K. (2006). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Have academic cultures really changed? In 30 (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research, 128, 77-95.

Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester, Mass.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding teaching and learning: The experience in higher education. Buckingham: SHRE and Open University Press.

Ralph, M. B. (1980). Learning psychotherapy: A devlopmental perspective. J Psychiatry. 43(3), 243- 250.

Reardon, R., Lavis, J., & Gibson, J. (2006). From research to practice: A knowledge transfer planning guide. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health, 19. Retrieved from http://www.chsrf.ca/kte_docs/IWH_kte_workbook.pdf

Rodenhauser, P. & Rudisill, J. R., & Painter, A. F. (1989). Attributes conducive to learning in psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 23 (3).

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner-how professionals think in action. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. New York.

Sharpe, R. (2004). How do professionals learn and develop? Implications for staff and educational developers. Enhancing Staff and Educational Development, 132-153.

Shulman, L. (1999). The scholarship of teaching. Change, 31(5),11-17.

Skovsgaard, A.M. (2004). Dialogue and reflection between student nurses and their instructor in clinical practice. Vård i Norden. 71(24), 45-46.

Trigwell, K., & Shale, S. (2004). Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 29 (4), 523-536.

Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.

Weimar, M. E. (1997). Assumptions that devalue university teaching. The International Journal for Academic Development, 2, 52-60.

Weimar, M. E. (2006). Enhancing scholarly work on teaching and learning: Professional literature that makes a difference. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Woodhouse, R. A. (2010). Hype or hope: Can the scholarship of teaching and learning fulfill its promise?. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 13.

Yusoff, M.S.B., Rahim, A.F.A., Noor, A.R., Yaacob, N.A., & Hussin, Z.A.M. (2009). The BigSib students’ peer group mentoring programme. Medical Education, 43(11), 1106-1116.

Yogev, S. (1982). An eclectic model of supervision: A developmental sequence for beginning psychotherapy students. Professional Psychology, 13(2), 236-243.

Chapter

2


Mohamed Amin Embi & Ebrahim PanahUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Introduction

Due to the importance of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in Malaysian higher education, this chapter first briefly looks at the perspectives of SoTL in higher education in Malaysia and highlightes related issues. Subsequently some principles of SoTL adoptable for Malaysian context are suggested. Lastly, the chapter presents the summary of the following 15 chapters with the focus on objectives, methodology, analysis techniques, issuers and suggestions.

Overview of SoTL in Malaysian Higher Education

Malaysia’s National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2020 regards the university sector as the asset of the nation for human capital formation in response to global neoliberal economic pressures designed for change (Meeraha, 2011). This Plan has seven imperatives as two of them are directly associated to enhancing the teaching and learning quality (Sirat, 2010). The government has planned to reform the sector by acting based on the principles of a State Facility Model requiring a direct role in controlling most university activities (Meeraha, 2011). The Ministry of Higher Education was established in 2004 and its Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT) was assigned responsibility to ensure that all university lecturers appreciate the opportunity as well as support to foster their teaching. Currently, AKEPT is developing a national teacher qualification framework for the sector. Such Master

Chapter

2


22

Trainers’ initiatives (Konting, Singh & Idris, 2009) contain 15 modules for those who wish to learn about university teaching and come to be mentors for colleagues. Likewise, Master Trainers turned to be skilled teaching subject and offer academic development leadership as they provide the training for the next cohort of Master Trainers. Thus, learning cascades via their institutions as well as the sector. A module on SoTL supports this initiative with SoTL skills which facilitate learning in the other 14 modules (Konting, Singh & Idris, 2009). In this vein, teams of academics from all over Malaysia are presently developing each subject module, and there are 3 levels in the framework of the curriculum with the highest which is equivalent to a master’s degree. Correspondingly, AKEPT is seeking to benchmark its work globally and search for best practice. It has invited numerous experts from across the world for the facilitation of national workshops in order to explore SoTL, academic leaderships, as well as other teaching subjects. Consequently, some challenges have been identified as follows:

The first is the transformation of ideas with epistemological roots in the Western countries to a Malaysian context (Servage, 2009). Malaysia has adopted a Western style of higher education according to the British university system. Basically, the sector is recognized worldwide from structural as well as organizational perspectives. Nevertheless, university working practices will be shaped by different cultures of Malaysian society (Selvaratnam, 1985). While the academic community is typically orientated to a system with Western academic value, it also can operate within a complex and distinctive blend of Asian heritage and cultural values (Kennedy, 2002). Malaysian university staff is working within powerful academic and management hierarchies with role-boundaries which are clear and respected; whereas at the same time working relationships is based on collectivism and preserving social synchronization at all cost (Harland, Raja Hussain & Bakar, 2014; Merriam & Mohammed, 2000).

The second challenge is connected with defining SoTL. The Scholarship of Teaching (SoT) has emerged from Boyer’s influential report for America’s Carnegie Foundation, ‘Scholarship Reconsidered’ (Boyer, 1990). Boyer held the view that stronger value of higher education for disciplinary research is detrimental to teaching and requires restoring some similarity between these activities. His view was aimed at the university academic to re-conceptualize research, teaching, and service in the four domains of scholarship including discovery, integration, application and teaching. Discovery is basically research; integration is the use of the current knowledge; application is related to the application of knowledge to practice; and finally the SoTL is basically teaching as a more scholarly effort.

For those who encounter SoTL for the first time, each domain seems to be a distinct activity, and it will be confusing why ‘teaching’ is perceived as a part of the SoTL. Likewise, Boshier (2009) argues that Boyer might not have wanted his concept to be disaggregated in this way; nonetheless, academic work can be experienced as numerous discrete tasks. Concerning SoTL, Fincher and Work (2006) stated: “teaching itself is not a scholarship but teaching can include the scholarship of application, integration, and research” (293).


23

The SoTL was regarded as a ‘hard sell’ and Boshier (2009) has listed 26 various and competing published definitions. Such complex evolution of an idea has led to challenges for anyone who wishes to put it into practice. For instance, SoTL later involved ‘learning’ when it turned to be fashionable or appropriate to add this term whenever teaching is mentioned (Shulman, 2011). SoTL is becoming more generally known as SoTL; however, it has been vague whether or not the addition of ‘learning’ was connected with an academic’s own learning or the learning opportunities offered for students. Hutchings and Shulman (1999) as well as Haigh (2012) have clearly seen the aim of SoTL as enhancing student learning, while others consider the concept pertaining to the teachers practice (Kreber, 2005) or academic work more commonly (Brew, 2010). The issues of definition and purpose elucidate a contested field and thus when our academic development activities for AKEPT have been planned; they were done with a specific set of principles and values. The principles included the following:

1) SoTL is research into the subject of one’s own teaching.2) The topic for research should be of interest to the researcher.3) In time, SoTL research might be undertaken more broadly in the field of higher

education (Harland 2012).4) SoTL research is identical to research in any other comparable knowledge

field using the same rules and quality standards and is subject to peer review (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999).

5) The focus is first on the SoTL researcher’s learning and then learning in the wider community.

6) Disciplinary research expertise can often be used for SoTL inquiries.

Correspondingly, the principles were expressed in the following values:

1) Research into teaching should be a liberating praxis that develops emancipatory knowledge.

2) Academics have the freedom to determine their needs and be their own authority in teaching.

Noteworthy is that these principles may not describe SoTL globally but were selected due to their perceived clarity to support the current drive to develop both the quality of teaching and learning and the quality of disciplinary research in Malaysian universities (Harland et al. 2014). This chapter summarizes the rest of the book for the comfort of the reader. In what follows, the summary of 15 chapters is provided.

Summary of the Chapters

Chapter 3: Learners’ Readiness to Adopt e-Portfolio: A Preliminary Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the learner’s readiness towards the use of e-Portfolio in their coursework. At the pilot stage, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) has been chosen with a total number of 30 respondents studying Bachelor of Art and Design Education and practicing coursework. The findings showed that there are five constructs involved in the learners readiness


24

in different perspectives such as (1) technology accessibility (2) online skills and relationship (3) motivation (4) internet discussion and (5) importance to success. The learner’s readiness is to ensure students need to be occupied with a certain basic skills and to allow them fully utilize the online learning before implementing the e-Portfolio. The study also reported the e-Portfolio can be used to analyze and assess student’s work. This study concludes that there is a need to highlight the concept and ability of e-Portfolio in collecting, managing, grading, recalling and reflecting. Portfolios tend to offer a better holistic picture of students understanding, since they hold more than one piece of evidence, rather than the traditional one-time assessment such as a test, paper, or project. This study has come up with promising result; however, as the study has collected data from small number of students (30), one should be cautious in generalizing the results. Moreover, the study has only dealt with the breadth of the issue while the depth of the issue yet to be delved into through qualitative study.

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Blended Learning with Blendspace for Robotics Subject

This study focused on the evaluation of blended learning with blend space for robotics subject with three main objectives: a) to identify the usage of “Blendspace” application which can have an impact on students’ achievement in Robotics; b) to review the relations between factors like contents, opportunity, facilities and motivation which can give impact to students’ achievement in robotic technology; and c) to review which items in the application that has attracted students’ interest to learn by using this application. To achieve these objectives, this research used actual observation design using pre-test and post-test. Using this method, assessment was done before and after as respondents have gone through both kinds of learning methods. The learning contents for both methods were the same with introduction to robotics technology. The difference is the delivery method of the contents. The study result shows that blended learning approach through blendspace application was well received by students since they are able to easily and effectively cope up with learning process. This finding is reaffirmed by the finding of past study by Hisham (2012) where he reported that higher learning outcome obtained with the usage of blended learning approach can actively engage students to get information and fasten the learning process. The study has focused on a new approach to language teaching and learning with encouraging results. However, the study has not dealt with the depth of the issue by conducting interview.

Chapter 5: Measuring the Acquisition of Engineering Laboratory Experience through the Application of e-Learning: A Pilot Study in UniMAP

This pilot study dealt with measuring the acquisition of engineering laboratory experience through the application of e-learning. The study attempted to achieve three objectives: a) to propose a new method for assessing individual practical intelligence acquired as a result of performing the laboratory experiments b) to analyse the score of practical intelligence acquired for individual students (undergraduates and postgraduates) based on the experts’ score as a reference score and c) to make recommendations for enhancing assessment practices in engineering education to


25

promote development of practical intelligence towards greater industry-readiness of engineering graduates.

A short survey was conducted to assess the satisfaction level of the students on their first experience with e-Learning approaches. Based on the feedbacks, 89% of the respondents agree that e-Learning approach has enriched their learning experiences. In this research, the researcher attempted to show the possibility of measuring experience, tacit knowledge and implicit knowledge that has not been assessed or measured in the past studies when evaluating different laboratory experiences for engineering students. It is possible that techniques for measuring experience that have emerged from attempts to improve selection in recruitment processes may provide a way to measure that elusive component of engineering laboratory experiences referred to by most people as “hands-on practical experience”. The study suggests that the method of assessing experiences and skills also can be used as a job performance test where usually psychologist used psychology method to measure the job performance. For technical job which usually need experience and skills to solve related technical problems, this method is appropriate to measure their job performance. The study has achieved its objectives with interesting implications. Nevertheless, this is a pilot small scale study with short survey.

Chapter 6: iTeaching for uLearning: Interactive Teaching Tools for Ubiquitous Learning in Higher Education

The focus of this study was on iTeaching for uLearning as interactive teaching tools for ubiquitous learning in higher education. The study aims to address the following objectives: a) to find out the roles of iTeaching tools in enhancing ubiquitous learning; b) to investigate students’ perception of the affordances of iTeaching tools. To achieve the objectives, the study employed a case study research design. The researcher chose this research design as it examines a phenomenon in its natural setting and its findings are interpreted in terms of the meanings people bring to them. In this case, it focused on learning environments in higher education involving undergraduates. A total of 80 participants from two separate English remedial classes (40 each) participated in this study and they were trained by the researcher. They were chosen mainly because the inclusion of iTeaching tools in the teaching and learning activities was said to be able to engage them to learn the English language more effectively. In addition, the face-to-face contact hours for the classes were only two hours per week, which prompted the researcher to extend the learning environment to the online platform. All 80 participants possessed a mobile device and could access Internet regularly.

The data obtained from the questionnaire was tabulated accordingly and analyzed using descriptive statistics. In particular, mean score was used to indicate the participants’ perception on their overall uLearning experience based on the given items. The study reported that the students were very positive about the use of iTeaching tools, especially in promoting ubiquitous learning. Despite its exploratory nature, this study has showcased how iTeaching tools can increase students’ motivation in learning the course content without having to depend on what is going on in the classrooms. The study implication is that iTeaching tools also lie upon the instructor’s


26

ability to integrate them well in their pedagogy. The tools would not be able to do miracle if the instructor is not well-versed in using them for various teaching and learning activities. The result of the study is encouraging; however, experimental study using pre-test and post-test is required to investigate the real effect of the tools.

Chapter 7: Assessing HOTS in e-Learning among Students of HEIs in Malaysia

This study attempted to assess Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in e-learning among students of HEIs in Malaysia. The study aim was to assess the higher-order thinking in e-Learning environment among HEIs students. The study used survey approach. From the Web survey that has been conducted, a total of 255 students from Social Science and Science or Technology disciplines from 5 HEIs participated in this study. The HEIs that were formally involved in this study include UMP, UKM, UPM, UPSI and UTeM from various fields of study such as the technical science or engineering and social science. The levels of study of respondents to the online survey are varying from students in Year 1 to Year 4.

The study reported that the HOTS for all five universities are still at a lower level i.e. C3. Instructors should design activities that trigger and promote HOTS specifically for C4 and above. Instructors need training on best practises of e-learning tools that promote HOTS. Web 2.0, e-portfolio and Brainstorming, and group publishing are the most common activities among the students that contribute to the development of HOTS at C6 level (Creation) based on their perspectives. Active learning is one of the strategies to address the students’ needs and to ensure appropriate instructional design support for achieving HOTS. The study suggested blended learning and flipped classroom can build appropriate environment for active learning to enhance students’ engagement. Educators and learner can co-create and organize the syllabus. Students have to take charge of their own learning. When applying technology to learning, certain activities can be utilized to bring about greater effect. The study proposed students need to connect, communicate, collaborate and think critically, to achieve higher order thinking skills. The major implication is that e-Learning activities must be well-planned in order to take into account the demands of e-Learning to improve HOTS. This study has involved the students from different universities across disciplines and has shed light on the issues of HOTS with encouraging results and recommendation. However, further study may supplement the quantitative approach with qualitative approach using mixed method design to deepen the understanding of the issue.

Chapter 8: Analysis of Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’ Behavioural Intention to Use Web-based Interactive Learning Tools

This study focused on analysis of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in Understanding University Students’ Behavioural Intention to use Web-based Interactive Learning Tools. This study used purposive sampling method because the scope is limited to students who attended Marketing Communication and Tourism Marketing courses during semester 2, session 2103/2014 in Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT). During


27

the semester, these two courses employed interactive lectures via Web 2.0 edutools like blendspace.com, voicethread.com and padlet.com. A total of 174 (N=174) undergraduate students participated in the study. The courses ran from February until May 2013 over a period of approximately 14 weeks.

In general, the findings suggest that TAM can be applied legitimately in the context of determining students’ behavioral intention to use Web-based Interactive learning tools. All hypotheses were supported. A closer look at the constructs proved a full mediating role of attitude towards usage (ATU) between perceived ease of use (PEOU) and behavioural intention to use (BIU). Perceived usefulness (PU); however, was partially mediated by ATU. Although PEOU had a significant effect on ATU, which led to a significant effect on BIU, PU remained the main construct that influence students’ behavioural intention to use Web-based Interactive tools. The significant PEOU-ATU-BIU relationship is consistent with past study findings (Shroff et al., 2011) which explains why students may have intention to use the system when they perceive it is easy to use. Knowing that students already perceived the usefulness of the system and the fact that the perception leads to favourable intention to use it, it becomes apparent and easier for educators to encourage and promote more interactive lectures via Web-based Learning tools. This study has examined students’ acceptance of the new education tools through TAM and has reported encouraging results. However, experimental study may investigate the real effectiveness of the tools.

Chapter 9: Use of Google Scholar-Informed Pattern Hunting (GSIPH) for Enhancing Writing

Due to the importance of Web corpus accessible through academic search engine (Google Scholar) for language learning and writing improvement, this study explores how effectively Malaysian trainee teachers’ use Google Scholar Informed Pattern Hunting (GSIPH) tool, using Google Scholar to elicit natural patterns from the Web, for solving academic writing and writing improvement in terms of pattern. This is a qualitative study which involved 17 Malaysian pre-service trainee teachers. The study used open-ended questions, semi-structured focus group interview and document analysis. To analyze the obtained data, thematic analysis was carried out. The study reported that Malaysian PTTs use GSIPH for compensatory purpose (to cover their lack of knowledge or temporary memory lapse) while producing piece of writing. The analysis of data obtained from sample of PTTs writing also showed that they have used this tool effectively. Further, the study found that the PTTs have elicited different patterns (lexical and grammatical collocations). However, as the study is qualitative with the purpose of exploring the phenomenon, the result may not be generalizable. So, a large scale quantitative study is needed to be undertaken.

Chapter 10: Adoption of a Project-based Learning as a Learning Strategy in e-Portfolio Assessment for Art and Design Courses

The purpose of this study was to investigate the Project-based Learning (PjBL) as a learning strategy in the development of an e-Portfolio in selected coursework. At


28

the preliminary stage, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) has been chosen with a total number of 30 respondents undergoing Bachelor of Art and Design Education with practicing coursework. In this context, the preliminary study was conducted to examine the adoption of PjBL into e-Portfolio using survey approach. The study has implication for appropriate instructional methodology, course, instructors, interaction and collaboration. The study suggests that the design of the reflecting component should focus on: 1) acquisition of all the necessary knowledge, 2) adequate depth of study, 3) effective and efficient research methods, 4) logical and effective reasoning processes, 5) conceptual integration of knowledge and 6) effective problem solving strategies. This research has come up with encouraging results along with recommendations. However, the study has only involved 30 students using survey approach. So, further study with greater number of participants may help identify the issue.

Chapter 11: Edmodo for Interactive Lecture: A Focus on Transparent and Ubiquitous Learning

This study dealt with transparent and ubiquitous learning. The study sought to achieve the following objectives: a) to investigate students’ perceptions of the usage of Edmodo towards their learning and in particular interactive learning b) to examine how the students utilize Edmodo in expressing their study motivation c) to examine how the students use Edmodo in demonstrating their collaborative learning and d) to explore how effective is the lecture delivery as a whole. The study involved a total of 52 students enrolled in the ‘Optical Communications’ course at the Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia. The course was designed for 42 hours lecture and 42 hours practical (laboratory works) within 14 weeks. The students consisted of 20 female and 32 male students with the race distribution of 54% Malays, 42% Chinese and 4% Indians. The instruments were questionnaire and observation.

This study can be considered as a partial and preliminary investigation on the Edmodo features that can support for transparent and ubiquitous learning. Based on the results gathered, it was shown that; by providing transparent feedback and ubiquitous learning platform, this online tool can help drive students’ intrinsic motivation as well as collaborative learning with the support from face-to-face interactive lecture. Although the results were quite encouraging, the way this study was carried out can be improved further by employing triangulation method such as conducting interview with some of the students.

Chapter 12: The Use of Padlet.com to Enhance Student Teachers’ Communication Skills in Universiti Malaysia Sabah

Given the importance of the use of Padlet.com to engender student teachers’ communication skills, this research intends to achieve the following objectives: a) to investigate the effectiveness of Padlet.com’s features in supporting the collaborative efforts of the student teachers in promoting the cultivation of their communicative skills b) to examine whether Padlet.com improves the communication skills (CS),


29

critical thinking and problem solving (CTPS) and teamwork skills (TS) of student teachers while working collaboratively.

The research involved 59 year two and three student teachers from Universiti Malaysia Sabah from the Faculty of Psychology and Education. They took Computer and Multimedia course – a faculty compulsory course for a Bachelor in Education degree in Semester 2 Year 2013/2014. They were required to complete a multimedia project as part of the course requirements. The project requires them to create multimedia materials for teaching and learning. Two main instruments were used to elicit data in this research, namely questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. The collected quantitative data from both sections of the questionnaire were analysed descriptively using mean for reporting central tendency of distribution. The qualitative data from the semi-structured interview was analysed using discourse analysis method.

The research reported that the student teachers use Padlet.com effectively to cultivate communication skills. Padlet.com provides important support structures to promote collaborations among student teachers to improve their communicative skills, critical method for problem solving and crucial skills for working in a team. The findings show that student teachers perceived the use of Padlet.com to improve their communication skills positively. They were able to demonstrate the use of Padlet.com in communication successfully. They suggest that lessons must be designed carefully to ensure that Web 2.0 tools such as Padlet.com can provide positive implications to the student teachers. Overall, the study has achived its objectives with highlighting the effectiveness of Padlet.com. However, while the study uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches, experimental study through comparing the result of traditional and new approachs using this tool may show the real effectiveness of the tool.

Chapter 13: Practices of Interactive Lectures among Lecturers in UPM

Given the importance of virtual tools for interactive lectures, this study focused on the practices of interactive lectures among lecturers. So, the study embarked on the following objectives: a) to determine the usage of interactive lecture among UPM lecturers b) to identify the learning tools used in the interactive lectures c) to determine the challenges and limitation in using interactive lecture. To collect data, a survey approach using questionnaire was employed.

The study results revealed that lecturers’ familiarities with interactive learning tools were due to several factors. Firstly, lecturers tended to use less technical, simple, easy and time-saving tools. Secondly, lecturers were interested in utilizing online interactive tools as compared to offline interactive tools. Thirdly, lecturers tended to use free of charge application and fourthly, lecturers were keen on utilizing popular applications. In this regards, ‘Whatsapp’ fits the criteria and thus lecturers were mostly familiar in using it as their interactive learning tool as compared to other interactive learning tools that are available in the market. Furthermore, lecturers’ tendencies to using different tools for different purposes were also observed. From the findings on lecturers’ purposes of using Putra LMS, it was reported that they were keen on using it eclectically and simultaneously for notes, assignment, grading, discussion, sharing, and


30

discussion rather than separately. The finding of this study is encouraging. However, to deepen the understanding of the lectures’ perceptions and use of such interactive tools, qualitative study using interview may be useful.

Chapter 14: One Size Fits All?: SoTL and Flipped Learning

This study problematizes the approach to flipped learning as an on-going experimentation towards developing the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) due to the current digital age. Using the ‘3Es of the Flipped Learning Methodology’, the researcher concluded that a successful flipped classroom must do these three things. Firstly, it must engage the learner’s interest and participation before and after the class. Secondly, it must encourage a continuous, critical and creative output by learners based on equally continuous, critical and creative input by the instructors. Thirdly, a successful flipped learning environment must embrace reflective attitude about the teaching and learning that is taking place and it has to be done by both the learner and the educator. Only with this type of structured and focused methodology, the researcher may decide if the blending of online learning space with the physical learning space can be successful. The researcher’s stance is that as a teacher of the 21st century she continues to “work with tentative ideas”, “experiment” with any resources at her disposal including technology, and with the “experimentation in action” draw her own conclusions about what she feels is the best approach for her students as the learners of her courses. To her, this is the basis of her scholarship of teaching and learning and the approach she has taken to develop her methodology of flipped learning. While the discovery and remarks of the researcher are encouraging, this study is a kind of reflective study where the researcher (as a teacher) is reflecting on her action and experience in the classroom.

Chapter 15: Edmodo Application and Teaching Performance: Embed and Engage

This study dealt with Edmodo Application and Teaching Performance: Embed and Engage. Edmodo is one of the e-learning tools used as e-learning platform to enhance teaching and learning (Mohamed Amin Embi, 2011) of the university core courses in University Malaysia Pahang (UMP) namely Ethnic Relations, Soft Skills and Islamic and Asian Civilization which are non-engineering courses in nature. In addition, this chapter covers on the instructor experience and challenges in embedding and engaging teaching and learning activities via Edmodo with impact on teaching performance. In conclusion, embedding and engaging through Edmodo for teaching and learning activities are possible to be done with proper technical and operational supports in terms of providing the real and virtual platform to interact within and beyond class hours. The study suggests that it significantly contributes to excellent performance and benefits for both instructors and students simultaneously. Accordingly, the attempt to blend the non-engineering course like Ethnic Relations with Edmodo application gives the technical mode to attract the students’ engagement and interactions with the course. Moreover, the successful implementations of Edmodo are worth and recognised by the university management when the instructors were awarded an


31

award related to teaching and learning through the online evaluation and feedback by the students.

Chapter 16: Awareness and Acceptance of Interactive Learning Based on Web 2.0 Tools

This study investigated awareness and acceptance of interactive learning based on Web 2.0 Tools. The method used in this research is descriptive and inference survey using questionnaires as the instrument. This method is aimed at studying and reviewing the lecturers’ knowledge in JKE on interactive learning and their readiness in using the method in learning and teaching process. About 60 questionnaires were successfully gathered and analyzed using SPSS program. The collected data were translated into certain codes representing the variables as appeared in the questionnaires. Data were analyzed based on frequency, mean score and standard variance.

Concerning level of knowledge and competence of respondents to the interactive learning, majority has the awareness of ICT as an interactive learning tool. However, it was found that there are still a significant number of lecturers who are not equipped with the proper knowledge about this. So, the study suggested that more training related to this course is needed to be conducted. In terms of level of acceptance-based interactive learning using Web 2.0 applications in learning and teaching, this fact seems a contradicting statement. From one angle, the respondents have agreed that this learning based on iterative Web 2.0 applications has many advantages over conventional learning. However, at the same time, they are not really supportive in giving encouragement to fellow lecturers to use interactive teaching methods. Therefore, further verification and clarification are needed on why in principle they belief but at the same time their confidence level is still very low.

Regarding obstacles faced by the lecturer in Electrical Engineering Department in a polytechnic in the use of interactive learning applications based on Web 2.0, it was shown that the majority do not have an internet access and computer (either desktop or laptop) at their residence. The study has some implications such as organizing regular training program, establishing a steering committee and working group, reviewing the progress and achievement of lecturers, holding workshops, etc. This study has focused on lecturers’ awareness and acceptance of Web2 tools, with important roles in popularizing the education tools and has reported interesting results. However, class observation may supplement the obtained data to see their real use in the classroom.

Chapter 17: Use of Google Scholar-Informed Pattern Defining (GSIPD) for Writing Improvement

Given the important role of Web as corpus and Google Scholar as concerdancer, this study examined how effectively PTTs use Google Scholar Informed Pattern Defining (GSIPD), using Google Scholar to correct and verify patterns based on frequency, tool for solving writing problem and writing improvement. The study involved 17 Malaysian Trainee Teachers studying at UKM. The open-ended questions, interview and document analysis comprised the instrument for data collection. To analyze the


32

data from open-ended questions and interview, thematic analysis was used, while the data from document was analyzed using frequency. The finding revealed that PTTs have positive view of GSIPD and have corrected their erroneous patterns effectively. The errors corrected are predominantly linked to lexical and grammatical collocations which based on literature constitute the challenges of Malaysian ESL writers. However, since the study is basically qualitative with small number of participants, a large scale quantitative study is required to identify the factors affecting the use of GSIPD tool while composing text.

Conclusion

This chapter presents the summary of the book chapters. It reviewed 15 chapters on SoTL and discussed the objectives, methodologies, data analysis techniques, research results and findings, implications and suggestions. It also highlighted their merits and demerits. It was reported that the researchers have attempted to examine and investigate the use of different education tools. In the meantime, they have identified the issues of application of these tools and accordingly offered some suggestions to address the issues.

References

Boshier, R. (2009). Why is the scholarship of teaching and learning such a hard sell. Higher Education Research and Development, 28 (1), 1-15.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Jossey-Bass.

Brew, A. (2010). Transforming academic practice through scholarship. International Journal for Academic Development, 15 (2), 105-116.

Fincher, R. M. E., & Work, J. A. (2006). Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching. Medical Education, 40 (4), 293-295.

Haigh, N. (2012). Sustaining and spreading the positive outcomes of SoTL projects: Issues, insights and strategies. International Journal for Academic Development, 17 (1), 19-31.

Harland, T. (2012). University teaching: An introductory guide. London: Routledge.

Harland, T., Raja Hussain, R. M., & Bakar, A. A. (2014). The scholarship of teaching and learning: challenges for Malaysian academics. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(1), 38-48.

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L.S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31 (5), 11-15.

Kennedy, J. C. (2002). Leadership in Malaysia: Traditional values, international outlook. Academy of Management Executive, 16 (3), 15-26.

Konting, M. M., Singh, E.K., & Idris, Z. (2009). Transforming higher education in Malaysia: The AKEPT’s teaching and learning initiatives. International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 1289-1299, Barcelona, Spain, EDULEARN09. http:// library.iated.org/view/KONTING2009TRA.

Kreber, C. (2005). Charting a critical course on the scholarship of university teaching movement. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (4), 389-405.


33

Meeraha, T. S. M. (2011). Inculcation of action research among university lecturers. Procedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences 15, 3620-3624.

Merriam, S. B., & M. Mohammed. (2000). How cultural values shape learning in older adulthood: The case of Malaysia. Adult Education Quarterly, 51 (1), 45-63.

Selvaratnam, V. (1985). The higher education system in Malaysia: Metropolitan, crossnational, peripheral or national? Higher Education, 14 (5), 477-496.

Servage, L. (2009). The Scholarship of teaching and learning and the neo-liberalization of higher education: Constructing the ‘entrepreneurial learner’. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 19 (2), 25-44.

Shulman, L. S. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account and reflection. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5 (1), 1-7.

Sirat, M. B. (2010). Strategic planning directions of Malaysia’s higher education: University autonomy in the midst of political uncertainties. Higher Education, 59 (4), 461-473.

Chapter

3


Syamsul Nor Azlan Mohamad, Mohamed Amin Embi & Norazah Mohd NordinUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Introduction

Since 1990s, the use of Electronic portfolio or known as e-Portfolio is one of the new ranges of educational instrument that has been gradually implemented in a few higher education institutions for curriculum, teaching content and assessment. Two reasons for this growth can be attributed to the rise of the constructivist approach to education which emphasizes learning by experience and a rise in the wide spread use of computer technology in education.

In higher education institutions, students are creating portfolios for the purpose of supporting their learning needs for assessment (Michelson & Mandell, 2004; Baume & Yorke, 2002; De Rijdt, Tiquet, Dochy, & Devolder, 2006; Klenowski, Askew & Carnell, 2006; Seldin, 1997; Wolf, 1991; Wright, Knight & Pomerleau, 1999). This argument was supported by Love and Cooper (2004) who cited e-Portfolio as having the most significant effect on education as it involves techniques in instruction and evaluation (Lopez-Fernandez & Rodriguez-Illera, 2009). Instead of paper-based teaching and learning, most of the higher institutions here have been using e-learning as a medium of teaching learning due to the potential and the benefit of technologies.

Teaching and learning applications in ICT have a very high potential to change the educational process to support higher order thinking skills among learners. However, the evidence is still limited in data. The role and potential of ICT in bringing major changes in the education system cannot be questioned. The increase in number,

Chapter

3


38

sophistication, and the role of ICTs in providing rich and effective tools to transform teaching and learning are more autonomous, authentic and entertaining.

E-Portfolio in Malaysia

In the Malaysian context, e-Portfolio is seen as one of the approaches that have shown considerable promise (Campbell, Melenyzer, Nettles & Wyman, 2000; Palomba & Banta, 2001; Chapman et al., 2000; Clark & Eynon, 2009; Li Li & Kunglin Wang, 2010) underlying the national policy and agency. Although e-Portfolio has been developed in many countries and fields, there is little research focused on it (Woelfel et al., 2014). DeFabio (1993), Jamentz (1994) and Tillema (1998) state that the proponents of portfolio are better predictors in assessing and improving students’ cognition, especially higher order thinking (HOTs) skills specifically in higher education institution (Gikandi et al., 2011). In Malaysian context, Mohamed Amin Embi (2010) highlighted that 90% of HEIs are planning to extend the use of e-Learning including by having e-Portfolio in their systems. Unfortunately, to date, there is a little research, which has shown the existence of e-Portfolio.

Portfolio Practice at Unversiti Teknologi MARA

Social Science and Humanities cluster at Universiti Teknologi MARA consist of five faculties (1) Faculty of Education (2) Faculty of Art and Design (3) Faculty of Music (4) Faculty of Mass Media and Communication and (5) Faculty of Film, Theater and Animation which are practicing Portfolio as a routine in formative assessment. It is also followed by the standard of assessment that has been proposed by Malaysia Qualification Accreditation known as MQA as a guideline in assessing students in higher education institution especially for Art and Design courses. As such, the portfolio becomes important formative assessment evidences for managing their visual art and design projects, researching, relating knowledge, and becoming committed to ongoing professional development and critical thinking, as they learn to collect, display, articulate, evaluate and communicate their ideas.

Are We Ready to Adopt e-Portfolio?

There is still little evidence that claims to support such argument (Ayala, 2006; Hartnell-Young & Morris, 2007; Tosh et al., 2005). The previous findings did not reveal that learners’ learning benefited from using e-Portfolio. The past literature only revealed about the student learning dependency on the perspective of lecturers or researchers’ belief on e-Portfolio (Acker, 2005; Barrett & Carney, 2005; Cambridge et al., 2001; Jafari & Kauffman, 2006; Tosh et al., 2005; Yancey, 2001; Zubizaretta, 2004). Considering the use of e-Portfolio at the HEIs, it is still limited although almost all HEIs in Malaysia use an e-learning system as a support tool to engage and collaborate with the learners. The preliminary study needs to be conducted to investigate the learner’s readiness towards the use of e-portfolio in their coursework. The learner’s readiness was measured based on five components which consisted of (1) technology


39

accessibility (2) online skills and relationships (3) motivation (4) internet discussion and (5) the importance of success.

Methodology

The purpose of this study is to investigate the learner’s readiness towards the use of e-Portfolio in their coursework. At the pilot stage, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) has been chosen with a total number of 30 respondents who were undergoing Bachelor of Art and Design Education focusing on coursework.

Data Analysis and Findings

Respondent’s Profile

In this study, simple frequency and descriptive analysis were conducted on the demographic attributes. Table 3.1 present the descriptive result of the respondent’s profiles. As shown in the table, 16.7 (n=5) were male and 8.3.3% (n=25) of the respondents were female. In terms of ages grouping, almost half 46.7% were 24-25 years, 26.7% were 20-21 years, 16.7% were 22-23 years and 10% were 25 years above. The frequency of the internet usage was taken into account to see the tendencies of the respondents in maximizing the facilities, as stated 56.7% of respondents were active and very often used the internet, followed by 23.3% with extremely often and 5% of the respondents in a moderate level. Based on this report, the data showed that 60% of the students were mostly surfing the internet using off-campus mode compared to 40% of them who were on-campus.

Table 3.1: Frequency of Demographic Respondents

Demographic Attributes Frequency % (Percentage)

GenderMaleFemale

525

16.783.3

Age20-21 years22-23 years24-25 years25 years above

85143

26.716.746.710.0

WirelessOn-campusOff-campus

1218

4060

Internet UsageSlightly oftenModerateVery oftenExtremely often

15177

3.316.756.723.3


40

Technology Accessibility

The first construct of this study showed that there is a need to have access to a computer with adequate software (M=4.33, SD=0.547), as illustrated in Table 3.2. The accessibility merely is more important when the computer is occupied with an Internet connection (M=4.17, SD=0.648). However, this report also stated that the hardware meeting up a standard and requirement is a way to avoid the disruption when students access the technology (M=4.07, SD=0.828). This result is consistent with finding of a study by Supyan and Azhar (2008) who stated that Malaysia is still grappling to equip the e-learning facilities in teaching and learning. However, the universities in Malaysia, especially UiTM, are progressively in the needs of infrastructure to ensure the learners can benefit from the use of technologies.

Table 3.2: Technology Accessibility

No. Items Mean SD

1 I have access to a computer with an Internet connection. 4.17 0.648

2 I have access to a fairly new computer (e.g., enough RAM, speakers, CD-ROM).

4.07 0.828

3 I have access to a computer with adequate software (e.g., Microsoft Word, Adobe PDF).

4.33 0.547

Online Skills and Relationships

The second construct displayed the online skills and its relationships with the use of e-portfolio. Before the implementation of e-portfolio, the students need to have a basic competency in online skill to help them manage the resources. Based on this report, basic skills in operating a computer, basic skills in information searching, and online management will ensure the success in prolonged online learning (M=4.57), as shown in Table 3.3. Secondly, the students would be comfortable using computer several times a week to participate in a course (M=4.40, SD=0.609), then it allows the students to ask question (M=4.17, SD=0.592), and enables them to reflect via online tools (e.g., email, chat) to work on assignments with students who are in different time zones (M=4.13, SD=0.629). Some students used a few strategies such as an emoticon to express thoughts and feelings (M=4.10, SD=0.607), comments column is very helpful (M=3.90, SD=0.712) and facilitating responses to another (M=3.87, SD=0.629). The result has shown that learner’s mind was occupied with basic online skills to help them manage their learning. Ideally, the e-Portfolio will fully be utilized to maximize the use of Web2.0 tools to create a collection of evidences as a part of assessment for learning. Before assessment, the process of storing, reflecting and showcasing artwork is the contents that include the evidence-based learning to prove their progress and achievement. The more learners’ competence in their online skills, the more resources can be manipulated for the search and benefit of their own learning.


41

Table 3.3: Online Skills and Relationships

No. Items Mean SD

1. I have the basic skills to operate a computer (e.g., saving files & creating folders).

4.57 0.728

2. I have the basic skills for finding my way around the Internet (e.g., using search engines & entering passwords).

4.57 0.626

3. I can send an email with a file attached. 4.57 0.679

4. I think that I would be comfortable using a computer several times a week to participate in a course.

4.40 0.498

5. I think that I would be able to express myself clearly through my writing (e.g., mood, emotions & humor).

4.10 0.607

6. I think that I would be able to use online tools (e.g., email & chat) to work on assignments with students who are in different time zones.

4.13 0.629

7. I think that I would be able to schedule time to provide timely responses to other students and/or the instructor.

3.87 0.629

8. I think that I would be able to ask questions 4.17 0.592

9 I think that I would be able to make comments in clear writing. 3.90 0.712

Motivation

Regarding motivation, a moderate mean for all items was reported, as demonstrated in Table 3.4. Mostly students depend on the instructor to motivate them along the teaching and learning process online as much as possible (M=3.40, SD=0.675). Somehow, students face an on-screen distraction that enables them to complete the work or assignment (M=3.37, SD=0.809) and also the surrounding might affect the motivation (M=3.30, SD=1.055). Based on this result, there are some indicators illustrating that, motivation is the main factor in promoting and encouraging learners to actively participate and involve in the learning process. The development of e-Portfolio should focus on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Reinforcing this idea will bring about and develop confidence to engage with the learning.

Table 3.4: Motivation

No. Items Mean SD

1 I think that I would be able to remain motivated even though the instructor is not online at all times.

3.40 0.675

2 I think that I would be able to complete my work even when there are online distractions (e.g., friends sending emails or Websites to surf ).

3.37 0.809

3 I think that I would be able to complete my work even when there are distractions in my home (e.g., television, children, etc.).

3.30 1.055


42

Internet Discussions

It was reported that the Internet discussion is the convenient way to carry on the conversation (M=4.40, SD=0.621) and the respondents agreed it is the effective way of learning, as depicted in Table 3.5. However, some of the students preferred to have more time to prepare and respond to a question (M=4.00, SD=0.871) and they are willing to follow along with an online conversation (M=3.87, SD=0.681). In another point, it was shown that the students are relatively more comfortable having several discussions taking place in the same online chat even the instructor might not be able to join together. In the learning environment discussion, Web 2.0 offers a solution to overcome the barrier of time and geographical distance. Now, learners can access the content at anytime and anywhere as well as self-paced learning. In higher education, e-learning is very useful and it can function in two methods which are synchronous or asynchronous e-learning. However, with this opportunity, e-Portfolio seems like a bright idea to embark on and is adapted as a great support tool in higher education.

Table 3.5: Internet Discussions

No. Items Mean SD

1 I think that I would be able to carry on a conversation with others using the Internet (e.g., Internet chat & instant messenger).

4.40 0.62

2 I think that I would be comfortable having several discussions taking place in the same online chat even though I may not be participating in all of them.

3.83 0.87

3 I think that I would be able to follow along with an online conversation (e.g., Internet chat & instant messenger) while typing

3.87 0.68

4 I sometimes prefer to have more time to prepare responses to a question.

4.00 0.87

Importance to Success

Online learning will be successful if the learner recognizes its importance. The students felt that prior experiences with online technologies (e.g., email, Internet chat & online readings) are important to their success with online course (M=4.23, SD=0.679), as illustrated in Table 3.6. The frequent participation (M=4.13, SD=0.679), course materials and technical support (M=4.10, SD=0.548) throughout the learning process are important to their success in online coursework. In addition, some important roles, for example, quick administrative (M=4.07, SD=0.583) and instructor (M=3.90, SD=0.885) support will ensure that students sustain and use online learning for their benefits.


43

Table 3.6: Importance to Success

No. Items Mean SD

1 Regular contact with the instructor is important to my success in online coursework.

3.90 0.88

2 Quick technical support is important to my success in online coursework.

4.10 0.54

3 Quick administrative support is important to my success in online coursework.

4.07 0.58

4 Frequent participation throughout the learning process is important to my success in online coursework.

4.13 0.62

5 I feel that prior experiences with online technologies (e.g., email, Internet chat & online readings) are important to my success with online course.

4.23 0.67

6 The ability to immediately apply course materials is important to my success with online courses.

4.10 0.54

Conclusion and Implications

Based on the findings, in relation to the learner’s readiness in different perspectives, five constructs were discussed including (1) technology accessibility (2) online skills and relationship (3) motivation (4) internet discussion and (5) importance to success. Learners’ readiness is to ensure that students need to be occupied with certain basic skills and to allow them fully utilize the online learning before implementing the e-Portfolio. The e-Portfolio can be utilized to analyze and assess student’s work. This study concludes that there is a need to highlight the concept and ability of e-Portfolio in collecting, managing, grading, recalling and reflecting (Batson, 2002). Portfolios tend to offer a better holistic picture of student’s understanding, since they hold more than one piece of evidence, rather than the traditional one-time assessment such as a test, paper or project. At the end, Portfolios allow the students to become responsible and invest in their own education (Jarvinen & Kohonen, 1995; Krause, 1996; Ross, 1996; Smith & Tilemma, 2001; Sturrock & Early, 2007; Thomas et al., 2001). Instructor and administrator are the key supporters to ensure students prolong the interest and benefit the use of online learning. The specific learning strategy and instructional design need to be considered to increase their motivation and intention. It can be concluded that e-portfolios should serve as excellent holding places for student reflections because they can be viewed by faculty, students, administration, future employers, and to whomever the student chooses to share that particular portfolio.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study still has its limitation as the samples do not cater the whole population of a Social Science and Humanities cluster. This study could benefit the early stage on justifying the reliability of the instrument. Therefore, there is a need for the instrument to be tested to make sure it is reliable and could be used in the actual


44

fieldwork. For future study, it is very important to determine preferable sampling techniques to match with the requirement and represent the population of the study.

References

Acker, S. (2005). Overcoming obstacles to authentic e-portfolio assessment. Campus Technology Newsletter: Technology-Enabled Teaching/eLearning Dialogue.

Ayala, J. (2006). Electronic portfolios for whom? Educause Quarterly, 29(1), 12–13.

Barrett, H. & Carney, C. (2005). White paper: Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: the REFLECT initiative researching electronic portfolios: Learning engagement and collaboration through technology. Retrieved from http://www.taskstream.com/reflect/whitepaper.pdf

Baume, D., & Yorke, M. (2002). The reliability of assessment by portfolio on a course to develop and accredit teachers in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 7–25.

Cambridge, B. L., Kahn, S., Tompkins, D. P., & Yancey, K. B. (Eds.). (2001). Electronic portfolios: Emerging practices in student, faculty and instructional learning. American Association for Higher Education.

Campbell, D.M., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H., &Wyman, R.M. (2000). Portfolio and performance assessment in teacher education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Chapman, P., Fames-Moore, M., Szczygiel, M., &Thompson, D. (2000). Building internet capabilities in SME. Logistics Information Management, 13(6), 353-360.

Clark, J.E. & Eynon, B. (2009). E-portfolios at 2.0 – surveying the field. Peer Review, 11(1), 18-23.

De Rijdt, C., Tiquet, E., Dochy, F., & Devolder, M. (2006). Teaching portfolios in higher education and their effects: An explorative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1084–1093.

DeFabio, R. (1993). Characteristics of student performance as factors in portfolio assessment. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355556.

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D. D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333-2351.

Hartnell-Young, E., & Morris, M. (Ed.). (2007). Digital portfolios: Powerful tools for promoting professional growth and reflection (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Jafari, A., & Kaufman, C. (2006). Handbook of research on ePortfolios. IGI Global., 1-648.

Jamentz, K. (1994). Making sure that assessment improves performance. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 55-57.

Jarvinene, A., & Kohonen, V. (1995). Promoting professional development in higher education through portfolio assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20 (1), 25-36.

Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and professional development in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 267- 286.

Krause, S. (1996). Portfolios in teacher education: Effects on pre-service teachers’ early comprehension of the portfolio process. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(2), 130-138.

Li Li & Kunling Wang. (2010). The design and implementation of e-Portfolio based performance assessment system in e-learning. International Conference on E-Business and E- Government.

Lopez-Fernandez, O., & Rodriguez-Illera, J. L. (2009). Investigating university students’ adaption to a digital learner course portfolio. Computers & Education, 52, 608-616.


45

Love, T., & Cooper, T. (2004). Designing online information systems for portfolio-based assessment : Design criteria and heuristics. Journal of Information Technology Education, Research, 3(1), 65-81.

Michelson, E., & Mandell, A. (Eds.). (2004). Portfolio development and the assessment of prior learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (Eds.). (2001). Assessing student competence in accredited disciplines: Pioneering approaches to assessment in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Ross, E. W. (1996). The role of portfolio evaluation in social studies teacher education: How evaluation practices shape learning experiences. Social Education, 60(3), 162-166.

Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions (2nd Ed.) Bolton, MA: Anker.

Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2001). Long-term influences of portfolios on professional development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 183-203.

Sturrock, D., & Early, C. (2007). Mahara e-Portfolio system implementation case study. Retrieved from http://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/176/1516/AUT%20ePortfolio%20Impleme ntation%20Case%20Study.pdf. Thomas.

Supyan, H., & Azhar, J. (2008). The prospects of online forum at tertiary level. In Norizan, AR, & Abd. Ghafur, A. (Eds.), Policy and Implementation of E-learning at Institutions of Higher Learning, 108-122.

Thomas, K.R., Lamson, S., & King, A. (2001). Training teacher candidates to create Web-based electronic professional portfolios. Paper presented at Central Missouri State University’s Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Retrieved from the ERIC database.

Tillema, H. H. (1998). Design and validity of a portfolio instrument for professional training. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(3), 263-278.

Tosh, D., Light, T. P., Fleming, K., & Haywood, J. (2005). Engagement with electronic portfolios: Challenges from the student perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/97/91

Woelfel, K., Murray K, & Page, M. (2014). Electronic portfolios for professional educators - graduate students and instructors. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(2),175-183.

Wolf, K. (1991). The schoolteacher’s portfolio: Issues in design, implementation, and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 129–136.

Wright, W. A., Knight, P. T., & Pomerleau, N. (1999). Portfolio people: Teaching and learning dossiers and innovation in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 24(2), 89–103.

Yancey, K. B. (2001). Digitized student portfolios. In B. L. Cambridge, S. Kahn, D. P. Tompkins & K.B. Yancey (Eds.), Electronic portfolios: Emerging practices in student, faculty, and institutional learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education, 15-30

Zubizaretta, J. (2004). The learning portfolio. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Chapter

4

Evaluation of Blended Learning with Blendspace for Robotics Subject

Amri Yusoff, Norzela Noh & Roswan IsmailUniversiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Introduction

The application of ICT technology in teaching and learning process would cause a paradigm shift in pedagogical aspect of a teacher in delivering an effective teaching. Several previous researches have proved that technology implementation is capable of revolutionizing teaching techniques, learning methods and educational management fitting with the current era and generation (Johan, 2013).

One of the technologies that have become a buzzword among educators is the Web 2.0. This application enables users to display, expand, and share their creativity and ideas with anyone and anywhere. This application, in fact, is based on the open source education provided freely and can be used without limitation except several specific packages that are to be paid. This open source concept is designed so that the interaction process in virtual environment becomes simple and structured. This Web development has created the new, hybrid learning approach known as blended learning.

Blended learning is an educational approach which combines two different models; face-to-face learning model and distance learning model using technology as the main medium in providing and accessing learning contents. According to Procter (2003), blended learning is defined as an effective, different combination in terms of educational technology, technology and delivering mode for fulfilling the learners’ requirements. Besides that, blended learning is also a learning program which is

Chapter

4


50

composed of more than one applied models to optimize learning outcome and to reduce cost (Singh & Reed, 2001).

Besides that, Valianthan (2002) states that a combination of several delivery methods such as collaboration software, Web based courses and information management practices makes blended learning as a solution in new age of education. In addition, this blended learning method also involves various application of educational technology and combined with traditional learning methods: face-to-face and lecture. Therefore, this blended learning method offers a lot of advantages that are preferred by learners and educators. These advantages are:

1) The usage of blended technology and methodology which foster the learners’ achievement.

2) It can be applied to mixed ability learners with several different comprehension levels and learning styles.

3) It is cost-effective as this method is able to reduce educational expenses.4) The various application of the technology is able to draw learners’ interest.5) Learning contents are easy to access by learners anywhere, anytime.

The Usage of “Blendspace” Application

This application is called Web 2.0 technology, which is used to manage teaching and learning process. According to American Library Association (ALA), this application is declared as the best teaching and learning site in 2013. This declaration is based on identified criteria for fulfilling 21st century learning standard which are the arrangement of useful knowledge, the usage of application and other information tools for analyzing and managing information. Furthermore, this standard also sets that one application in this category is the application of technology and information tools for arranging and displaying knowledge and comprehension so that other user can see, use and access the specific contents.

This “Blendspace” application requires the user to create subscription account and create “canvas” and users are able to put teaching contents by drag-and-drop technique. The contents uploaded in the “canvas” can be obtained from the links in World Wide Web. On top of that, users can use various media such as video, pictures, images, quizzes, multimedia presentation and so on.

Research Issues

In Malaysia, the scenario in higher education teaching and learning process is done by visual and auditory method where learners need to do a lot of reading and use hearing sensory while discussing in classes (Rosniah Mustaffa, 2007). This one-way teaching method is done between students and lecturer with minimum communication between them. This technique is used in lecture hall and students only listen and jot down the inputs that they received while lecturer delivers the learning contents. This situation has given rise to a question whether it can give maximum input for students to comprehend? This is because the capacity of a lecture hall usually is 50 students with different comprehension levels.


51

Research Objectives

There are three main objectives in Experimental and Evaluation of Blended Learning with “Blendspace” for Robotics Subject:

1) To identify the usage of “Blendspace” application which can give an impact to students’ achievement in Robotics.

2) To review the relations between factors like contents, opportunity, facilities and motivation which can affect students’ achievement in robotic technology.

3) To review which items in the application have attracted students’ interest to learn by using this application.

Research Hypothesis

There are three identified hypotheses in this research which are:

1) Null hypothesis 1 (Ho1): There is no difference in students’ achievement whether using traditional learning method or blended teaching method by “blendspace”.

2) Null hypothesis 2 (H2): There is no relationship between contents, opportunity, facilities and motivation factors that can influence students’ achievement in robotic technology subject.

3) Null hypothesis 3 (H3): The items in “blendspace” application cannot draw students’ interest to learn using it.

Literature Review

Constructivist Theory and Blended Learning Approach

Changes in learning approaches are also occurring along with the characteristic of Generation Y who is born with the “state-of-the-art” technologies around them. Generation X learners use more traditional learning approach where the learning activities are passive; teacher’s teaching and students’ listening (Aziz & Zaitun, 2008). This situation changes holistically where teachers today, not only are using this traditional way but also they are incorporating the application of internet technology and computers for learning purposes. They even encourage learners’ active engagement to discover and explore their own knowledge. There is one Chinese proverb says, “I listen and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand”. This kind of proverb has verified constructivism theory, that is, the knowledge is not created outside but it is constructed inside the learners’ mind by the experiences they have gone through (Poh Swee Hiang, 2005).

Hence, learning approaches that use the constructivism theory are the methods that create active students in learning activities and encourage them to construct their own knowledge on the topic that they have learnt. Thus, the role of a teacher also changes from a tutor to a facilitator or a mentor. According to Abu Hassan (2003),


52

one of the important element in constructivism is that a teacher needs to identify learners’ existing knowledge, ensure that the learning activities are students-cantered and the learning will happen if the learners combine existing knowledge with ideas to restructure new ideas, and next is to give chances to them to cooperate with teacher, share ideas, experiences and make reflection. On top of that, in a research done by (Acar & Tarhan, 2005), they have showed that constructivism approach is able to help in explaining why learners have the wrong understanding in chemistry class and where the fault is. This approach also emphasizes the importance of knowledge flow between educator and learners.

Besides that, Professor George Hein (1991) suggests that there are nine principal of learning through constructivism theory:

1) Learning involves time because it requires maturity to develop the knowledge.2) People learn from surroundings and construct the meaning.3) Learning involves language that we use for understanding.4) People need knowledge to learn: every new knowledge is imprinted with the

negotiation and assimilates with the prior knowledge.5) Learning involves society activity: our learning is using interaction with the

people around us. 6) Learning involves contextual: we learn to construct the learning as we grow

within the environment.7) The construction of the meaning is not just happened in the mind but also

can be implemented with the hands.8) Motivation is an important factor in order to acquire knowledge. 9) Learning is an active process where students use external sensory input and

build the meaning out of it.

Apart from that, according to (Greece, 2003 in Nimer & Lorne, 2013), learner also must be responsible to construct meaning actively and not be isolated from self-dialogue and communication with others. This relates to communication concept between learner and community in learning environment to obtain knowledge. Meanwhile, constructivist theory also is a comprehension modification process towards reflection outcome and one experience. This process is also accentuated in social constructivist theory where the social relationship in a grouping arrangement is applied as the learning strategy. This can help learner to construct knowledge with group members from the social relationship among the group members (Dougiamas, 2005).


53

Technology adaptation in today’s learning has made the previous constructivism theory be adjusted to the digital learning environment with the rise of digital learning theory known as connectivism theory. Connectivism theory is a learning theory in digital world. Siemens (2004) states this theory is a successor to behavioural, cognitive and constructivist theories. Several principals in connectivism theory include:

1) Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is an essential skill.

2) Learning is a process of joining dedicated nodes or information sources.3) Current knowledge is the core of all connectivist learning activities.4) Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to enable continuous

learning.5) Capacity to know is more important than what is currently known.6) Learning and knowledge rests on mixture of opinions.7) Learning may reside in non-human machines.8) Decision-making is a learning process.

Thus, this theory approach not only requires active learners’ engagement in obtaining and constructing the meaning of learning, but also comprises learning environment and its relationship with each other. The learning process can happen effectively and rapidly with the existence of internet connectivity and information transfer that happen almost all of the time. Hence, blended learning approach is the method that complies with the current education needs. Metiri Group (2003) affirms that this 21st century skill is important to all learners in digital environment. Among the 21st century learner skills are: critical thinking skills, problem solving skill, communication skill, collaboration skill, life and career skill, learning and innovation skill, media, information and communication technology skill and school’s core subject mastery skill (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).


54

Blended Learning Approach in the Classroom

There are six models in Blended learning (BL) which are face-to face drives, Rotation, Flex, Online Lab, Self- Blend and Online Driver. Table 4.1 shows the models discussed:

Table 4.1 Blended Learning Model

Model Definitions

Face- to- face Drives This model normally requires students to sit in the front of computer and take instructions from the instructor via online and in the long distance mode.

Rotation This model requires both online and offline mode of learning. During the online, student learns through the computer as intermediary between student and teacher, while in the offline mode, student learns through normal classroom mode.

Flex This requires online session. It is more flexible because during the hours of learning, teacher will be available during the lesson for a set of predetermined hours to assist the student.

Self-blend This model is similar to self-learning by the students. Usually it requires the students to go through the lessons with the help of eLearning material such as video or DVD. After the lesson, students require to solve some problems or homework on their own.

Online Driver This model requires a live teacher to sit remotely far from student and student takes the lesson with online session with the teacher. Face to face also can be conducted but not in the regular basis.

Source: Modified from Idaho Digital Learning Academy, (2011).

All of these models are categorized into two types which are online learning model and hybrid or combined learning model, as given in Figure 4.1.


55

Figure 4.1: Hybrid Learning Model (Clayton, Michael & Heather, 2013)

This hybrid theory is the combination of new technologies with old technologies and displays relative innovation preservation towards new technology. For instance, automotive industry has used hybrid car model throughout its development from the application of petrol engine to alternative power engine. This shows the preservation of old technology and in the same way, introduces new technology to bring about more benefit to human and environment. The same goes to the education nowadays, where the need to apply new technology while preserving old technology for an effective learning outcome. According to Clayton, Michael and Heather (2013), there are four main characteristics in hybrid learning; using both old and new technology, the main target is the existing user and not to the new user who is only looking forward to use only new technology, the ability to perform tasks is the same way like using old technology, and the outcome supposed to be better and acceptable using new technology, able to be reducing the gap or “foolproof” from distraction of innovation in which it will not reduce the mastery level or will not require experts to handle it.

Meanwhile, the introduction of hybrid theory in education rises when the concept of blended learning exists. The concept uses both conventional and new online technology. Therefore, blended learning approach is one of the best methods as it combines the best online feature with benefits gained from traditional method. Thus,


56

Rotation Model, Station Rotation and Flipped Classroom are the models that use hybrid innovation. Meanwhile, Flex Model, A la Carte, Enriched Virtual and Individual Rotation, in contrast, distract the traditional system.

However, in the implementation of blended learning, some strategies are required so that this method can achieve an expected learning outcome. There are five main keys that need to be followed to make sure that this blended learning can be applied through Keller, Gagne, Merill, Clark and Gery theories (refer to Carman, 2005). Five key elements are shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: The Combination of Blended Learning Theories. Source: Carman (2005).

Based on Figure 4.2 above, Carman states five keys to conduct blended learning:

1) Live event: live learning or face-to-face learning in the same time and place or same time but different place.

2) Self-paced learning: combination with self-learning which is possible for learners to learn for themselves anywhere, anytime.

3) Collaboration: combining cooperation aspects or collaboration between educators and learners and learners with learners.

4) Assessment: assessing learners’ knowledge. Pre-test is conducted to find the learners’ previous knowledge before self-learning is implemented; meanwhile, post-test is conducted during or after the learning process to measure the acceptance of knowledge contents.

5) Performance Support Materials: to ensure learning aids which are prepared digitally so learners can access online or manually.


57

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the blended learning method can be achieved from five main aspects (Farahiza, 2010):

1) Good learning design will produce effective blended learning.2) Good learning design is the main principle of learning.3) Thorough learning principles are used with specific learning outcome,

characteristic of learners, learning environment and existing learning sources.4) ICT technology is used to improve certain learning aspects.5) Completed blended design can maximize the learning activity from various

mode and medium.

Methodology

This research uses actual observation design using pre-test and post-test (Davis, 2003; Rockwell & Kohn, 1988). By this method, assessments are done before and after respondents have gone through both kinds of learning methods. The learning contents for both methods are the same which is Introduction to Robotics Technology. The difference is the delivery method of the contents. The details for this method are shown in Figure 4.3 which shows the conceptual frame as the guidance for conducting this research.


58

Figure 4.3: Conceptual Frame of Blended Learning Research of Robotics Course


59

From Figure 4.3, there are two types of methods that are used in delivering the contents of Robotics Technology including Method A and Method B. For the Method A, which is a delivering method by face-to-face lecture, the respondents are given a set of pre-test before the teaching begins and post-test after the teaching has been delivered. Same goes with Method B, the method that uses online learning method. Method B is conducted using Web 2.0 application which is ‘blendspace’. The pre-test and post-test are uploaded with the learning contents in “canvas” provided and respondents need to answer test questions from the blendspace account. On top of that, every respondent has to undergo all the parts in that “canvas” starting with first frame to the last frame and they also need to give conclusion on the contents they have learnt using an application known as “Padlet.com” attached together with the “canvas”. Respondents can interact with each other and their lecturer from the comment space and in “Padlet.com” synchronously if they are connected to each other in the same time. Else, they can interact asynchronously from the comment or notation provided in “Padlet.com” or at the left side of frame on every uploaded contents in the “canvas”.

The set of pre-test and post-test for both methods is the same but is done in two different sets in terms of arrangement of questions. Respondents who undergoe online learning is free to learn anywhere they like.

Research Sample

This research was conducted among the students of Bachelor in Information Technology for the course of MCU 3033 Robotic Technology. 60 respondents involved as the sample in this research. These respondents have to go through two phases of learning; face-to-face lecture and online learning using blendspace.com.

Research Instruments

The instruments used in the research consist of two kinds of test sets which are pre-test and post-test with survey questionnaire regarding to the courses conducted. For pre and post-test sets, the items are based on subject scheme provided by Sultan Idris Educational University’s lecturer, Dr Amri Bin Yusoff. However, the limitation is the items in the sets are only based on the topic of Introduction of Robotics Technology. The main source of the instrument is obtained from two Websites which are http://science.howstuffworks.com and http://demo.jspicher.com

Questionnaires provided are modified from the University of Central Florida (UCF) and American Association of States Colleges and Universities (AASCU) with fund form Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC). The questionnaires is downloaded from https://blended.online.ucf.edu/ evaluation-resources/survey-instruments/ which is provided as the template for any researches or universities who want to study the changes happened using blended learning approach. This modified survey is divided into three parts: A, B and C. Researchers have provided some demographic information in Part A, while Part B is about the response of blended learning. For Part C, researches are to review the responses of the blendspace.com application usage in terms of contents, requirements, opportunity of collaboration, motivation, facilities and items


60

that draw learners’ interest to learn using the application. Measurements for this survey is the likert five point scale with score 1 to 5. Thus, based on the analysis made, it shows that Cronbach Alfa Multiplication Value for instruments in this survey is 0.94. This indicates that the instrument has the high reliability and the items constructed are able to measure the concept of this research.

Results

All the data obtained from the survey and student’s marks in pre and post-test are then analysed using SPSS version 19.0. There are three kinds of analysis used which are Paired t-Test, Sprearman Rho Correlation Test and Friedman Test.

Testing the First Hypotheses

Null Hypotheses (Ho1) for this research is:

There is no difference in students’ achievement whether using traditional learning method or blended teaching method by “blendspace”. Paired Sample t-Test is used to analyse pre and post-test score for both Methods: A (Traditional) and B (Blended Learning). The outcome of the analysis is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Analysis of Traditional and Blended Learning Methods of Teaching

Paired Differences

t dfSig.

(2-tailed)MeanStd.

Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 Pre Test Score Traditional Method - Post Test Score Traditional Method

-2.02 1.98 .255 -2.53 -1.51 -7.90 59 .00

Pair 2 Pre Test Score Blended Learning Method (BL) - Post Test Score Blended Learning Method (BL)

-5.13 2.70 .349 -5.83 -4.44 -14.71 59 .00


61

The result of t-Test shows (t = -7.90, df = 59, ρ = 0.00, ρ < 0.05) that there is a significant difference of achievement between scores in pre-test and post-test for Method A (Traditional) with scores for pre-test and post-test for Method B (Blended Learning). Besides, this result also explains that there is significant difference of achievement that is (t = -14.71, df = 59, ρ = 0.00, ρ < 0.05) for post-test score between respondents achievement for Method A (Traditional) with Method B (Blended Learning).

Therefore, the analysis explains that research hypothesis 1 is rejected. The result of the t-test also shows that using blended learning method results in better achievement and the “Blendspace” application helps in improving students’ achievement. This can be seen in higher mean score in post-test, 5.13 compared to mean score in pre and post-test for Method A (Traditional) which is only 2.02. This difference shows the negative value as the result is obtained by subtracting mean score for pre-test with mean score for post-test. Nevertheless, the value still shows the significant difference in students’ post-test score from the blended learning approach rather than from traditional method.

So, the first Null Hypothesis (Ho1) which is there is no significant difference between traditional learning method with blended learning method using “Blendspace” application is rejected and alternative hypothesis (Ha1) which is there is a significant difference between traditional learning method and blended learning method using “Blendspace” application is accepted.

Testing the Second Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis 2 (Ho2) in this research is:

There is no relationship between factors: contents, opportunity, facilities and motivation that gives impact to students’ achievement in Robotic Technology.

The type of inferential statistics used to test this hypothesis is Spearman Rho Correlation Test and the result is shown in Table 4.3:


62

Table 4.3: Non-Parametric Correlation Analysis – Spearman Rho Test.

Opportunity Contents Motivation Facilities

Opportunity Correlation Coefficient

1.000 0.63** 0.54** 0.54**

Sig. (2-tailed) . 0.00 0.00 0.00

N 60 60 60 60

Contents Correlation Coefficient

0.63** 1.000 0.63** 0.71**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 . 0.00 .00

N 60 60 60 60

Motivation Correlation Coefficient

0.54** 0.63** 1.000 0.61**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.00 . 0.00

N 60 60 60 60

Facility Correlation Coefficient

0.54** 0.71** 0.61** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.00 0.00 .

N 60 60 60 60

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The relationship seen between opportunity and contents is significant which is (r = 0.638, ρ = 0.00, ρ < 0.05) with medium relationship rate. This means that each student has equal opportunity to obtain the contents that they have learnt through “Blendspace” application. Meanwhile, the relationship between opportunity and motivation also shows medium relationship rate with (r = 0.545, ρ = 0.05, ρ < 0.01). The relationship between opportunity and facility is also significant which is (r = 0.542, ρ = 0.05, ρ < 0.01) and has medium correlation rate. Highest relationship can be seen between contents and facilities factors. This explains that students can access Robotics Technology learning contents easily, swiftly and effectively if facilities like internet connection and other hardware such as laptops, smart phones and so on are reachable. To conclude, all four factors which are opportunity, motivation, facilities and contents have an influence on the achievement of the respondents in the pre and post-test scores. Hence, the Null Hypothesis 2 (Ho2) is rejected.

Testing the Third Hypotheses

The analysis method for research analysis three is selected from non-parametric test using Friedman Test to review which item has highest mean value and is the pull factor for students’ interest to learn using “Blendspace” application. Hypothesis testing is conducted for Null Hypothesis 3 (H3) which is:


63

Items in “Blendspace” application cannot draw students’ interest to learn. The findings are shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5.

Table 4.4: Mean Rank Value of each item in “Blendspace”

Items Min Rank

The Website Link item draws interest to learn using Blendspace. 6.72

YouTube item draws interest to learn using blendspace. 7.53

Education Item / teaching aids other than blendspace application draws students’ interest to learn.

5.63

Audio item draws students’ learning interest in blendspace. 5.81

Vodcast item draws students’ learning interest in blendspace. 4.28

Notes material item from uploaded powerpoint draws students’ learning interest in blendspace

5.93

Online Quizzes items are appealing. 5.81

Item “Comment” space draws students’ learning interest in blendspace. 5.95

Item “share” draws students’ learning interest in blendspace. 5.54

Item uploaded pictures draws students’ learning interest in blendspace. 6.43

Item material arrangement is appealing. 6.38

Table 4.5: Friedman Test Results

N 60

Chi-Square 63.42

df 10

Asymp. Sig. .00

Analysis the Friendman Test result (Table 4.5) shows that overall all the items uploaded in Blendspace draw students’ interest to use this application. Items that gain highest mean rank value are Youtube, Website link and pictures. These three items can draw students’ interest to learn. Moreover, item arrangement aspect in “canvas” also influences with mean value of 6.38. For that reason, this test result is significant, [χ2 (10, N = 60) = 63.42, ρ < .05)], which shows that the interest to learn is influenced by the uploaded items that can be found in the application. Good content item arrangement and structured teaching design can simplify learning process and amplify learning outcome (Richey, 1986).


64

Conclusion and Recommendations

Blended learning approach through blendspace application is well received by students since they are able to easily and effectively cope up with learning process. This finding is supported by past research (Hisham Dzakiria & Rahman, 2012) where his research finding shows that higher learning outcome was obtained with the usage of blended learning approach. It actively engages students to get information and foster the learning process.

Besides that, the changes of achievements are increased in pre and post-test scores, where mean value difference is (5.13). This shows that blended learning is able to help students to comprehend the learning contents in Robotics Technology and they can rapidly adapt with the exposure of educational technology although this application was just being introduced to them. This is because the usage of technology can create interesting learning situation, easy information access and can be conducted anytime, anywhere. Holistically, learning through blended learning approach using Web 2.0 tools such as Blendspace.com will:

1) Help lecturers to design better teaching strategy.2) Accommodate to young learner preferences.3) Make teaching and learning process in Robotics subject more interesting, easy

and fun.4) Allow students to be more motivated and learn by self-exploration.5) Encourage collaboration or sharing knowledge among the peers.

During this research, we also found a few recommendations for future research which are:

1) Diversify types of learning activities including project-based learning individually or in groupings and grade students’ achievements as a motivation, and, encourage them to actively engage in learning process.

2) Use various medium such as Vodcasting.3) Use flipped learning strategy as the preparation before learning process starts.4) Encourage content sharing between students.

In conclusion, blended learning approach is able to help learners learn in effective virtual environment. Moreover, the exposure to the usage of educational technology not only broadens the skills but also is able to make communication network and information transfer faster and more efficient. The advantages of Web 2.0 are seen through lecturers as well as through learners by preparing them with knowledge and skills towards 21st century. Hence, this approach is the method that is acceptable and usable in 21st century.


65

References

Abu Hassan Kassim. (2003). Kurikulum sains sekolah Malaysia. Johor: Fakulti Pendidikan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2005). Effect of cooperative learning strategies on students understanding of concepts in electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 349-373.

Aziz Nordin & Zaiton Osman. (2008). Penerapan konstruktivisme di dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran asid dan bes di lima buah sekolah di Pekan, Pahang. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Skudai, Johor.

Carman, J.M. (2005). Blended learning design: Five key ingredients. Retrieve from: http://www.agilantlearning.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%- 20Design.pdf. (2Disember 2013)

Clayton, M. C., Michael, B., H., & Heather, S. (2013). Is K–12 blended learning disruptive? An introduction of the theory of hybrids. Clayton Christensen Institute.

Davis, G. (2003). Using retrospective pre-post questionnaire to determine program impact. Journal of Extension, 41(4). Retrieved from: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/constructivist learning.htmlS.

Dougiamas, M. (2005). The philosophy behind Moodle. Retrieved from: http://docs.moodle.org/en/Philosophy.

Farahiza, Z. A. (2010). Blended learning in higher education institute in Malaysia. Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT 2010. 454-466.

George, E. Hein. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Institute for Inquiry.

Idaho Digital Learning Academy. (2011). 6 Model of blended learning. Retrived from:http://www.idahodigitallearning.org/Portals/0/Files/6%20Blended%20Learning% 20Models.pdf.

Hisham Dzakiria & A. Rahman (2012). Blended learning (BL) as pedagogical alternative to teach business communication course: Case study of UUM executive Diploma Program. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 297-315.

Johan Eddy Luaran. (2013). Pengintegrasian Web 2.0 dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Subjek Sejarah dan Geografi. Seminar Pendidikan Sejarah dan Geografi. UMS. 29-30 Ogos 2013.

Metiri Group. 2003). Understanding computer–based digital video. Teach Trends, 46(4), 19-22 & 57.

Nimer, A., & Lorne, O. (2013). Aiding participant and engagement in a blended learning experiment. Journal of Information System Education, 24(2).

Partnership for 21st Century Skill. (2007). Learning for the 21st century a report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Retrieved from : http://www.p21.org/downloads/P21_Report.pdf. 9

Poh, S. H. (2005). Pedagogy of science. Teaching and Learning Strategies, 76-78.

Procter, C., (2003). Blended Learning in practice, in inaugural education in a changing environment conference. University of Salford, Salford.

Richey, R. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. London: Kogan Page.

Rockwell, S., & Kohn, H. (1989). Post-then-pre evaluation. Journal of Extension, 27(2).

Rosniah Mustaffa. (2007). Mengadaptasikan gaya pembelajaran pelajar ESL: satu kajian kes pelajar tahun satu di UKM. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies, 7 (1), 1-32.


66

Siemens, G. (2004). Constructivism: A learning theory for digital age. Retrive from: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Centra software, 1.

Valianthan, P. (2002). Blended learning models. Learning Circuit. Retrived from: http:www.learningcircuits.org/2002/aug/2002/valianthan.htm.

Chapter

5

Measuring the Acquisition of Engineering Laboratory Experience through the

Application of e-Learning: A Pilot study in UniMAP

Zol Bahri Razali & Mohammad Harith AmlusUniversiti Malasysia Perlis

The Needs of Measuring Experience in Engineering Laboratory

Universities are placed under considerable pressure to produce employable graduates as the number of unemployed graduates is steadily on the rise. Industries are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable candidates. Poor working skills and inexperienced engineers are also suggesting that engineering graduates do not seem to be aware of the kinds of experience needed in their work. Experience is often referred to as the ability of a person to solve practical challenges in a given domain. The lack of experience may be due to the way in which explicit knowledge is valued and subsequently assessed in engineering education through examinations, tests, laboratory reports and tutorial exercises. The lack of effective assessments of experience indicates implicit devaluation of experience which can significantly impair engineering students’ ability to acquire and value experience.

Therefore, we proposed a new method of assessment for measuring experience acquired by engineering students after performing engineering laboratory classes. The novices-experts approach will be used in designing the assessment instruments based on the observation of behaviors of students (novices)/experts and novices/experts representative work-related situations. To achieve the objective, a group

Chapter

5


70

of task-force students undertook practical technical problem solving activities in a specific laboratory tasks and in-depth observation and interviews on their behaviour was carried out. Based on the data of their behaviours, a set of online experience instrument was developed, expected of using survey monkey tools.

To establish a valid and reliable experience instrument, a group of experts (lecturers, teaching engineers and senior technicians in the field) tested the instruments and in-depth interview on their work-related situations was carried out to fine tune the instrument. For the purpose of measuring experience, the novices used the experience instrument. The experience can be measured by calculating the difference between novices and experts’ ratings. Zero difference shows that novices’ experience is close to that of experts. Overall, the e-Learning approaches and tools were used in developing and implementing the experience instrument.

To start the research, we developed our understanding about the practical learning outcomes from traditional laboratory classes. Previous research has shown that by using psychological tools to measure experience in a laboratory class, a significant gain in hands-on experience can be measured. For the first time, therefore, if we can demonstrate that there are real advantages inherent in hands-on laboratory classes, we can measure this advantage. It is possible that measurements of experience may reveal new and more powerful ways for students to acquire practical knowledge and skills from remote laboratories as well. The anticipated outcome is that the results could demonstrate a novel method of laboratory classes’ assessment by measuring individual experience acquired after performing the laboratory tasks.

The Needs of Experience in Workplace

Statistic report by the Ministry of Higher Education on graduates’ employments shows that out of the 184,581 students, who graduated in 2012, 24% failed to secure permanent jobs six months after graduation. Out of these, 27.7% are from the technical disciplines which include engineering disciplines (Straits Times, July 2012). The high percentage of unemployed graduates from the technical discipline is alarming as heavy financial costs have been incurred in producing technical graduates. Thus, the technical sectors must seek the source and solutions to the current situation.

The engineering education sector, in particular, is facing greater challenge in meeting the diverse demands of industries which expect graduate engineers to be well-prepared to provide innovative solutions as technical specialists, system integrators and change agents. A JobStreet survey involving human resource managers in Malaysia on common reasons for turning down job-seekers gave indicators to the problem that need to be resolved by education providers. From this survey, 60% of the respondents reported that the reason they were forced to turn down job-seekers are poor work skills and weak personality and character.

The unemployed graduates issue is also related to the issue of engineering students’ behaviour. Experienced engineers have lamented that engineering graduates do not seem to be aware of the kinds of practical intelligence needed in their workplace (Trevelyan, 2010; 2011). This may result from the way in which explicit knowledge

Measuring the Acquisition of Engineering Laboratory Experience through the Application

71

is valued in engineering education, practically, all assessments measure explicit knowledge. The lack of emphasis on practical intelligence development is prevalent despite research findings on their relevance to career success in engineering. Findings from numerous empirical studies (Razali & Trevelyan, 2008a; 2008b; 2009) indicate that the acquisition of practical intelligence in workplace settings and laboratory classes is just as important as explicit technical knowledge. This implicit devaluation of practical intelligence could significantly impair engineering students’ ability to acquire and value practical intelligence. Devaluation of practical intelligence could be partly due to a lack of knowledge in implementing valid and reliable assessment of practical intelligence. Therefore, developing new model to include effective assessment could be one way to overcome this problem.

Many engineering educators (Trevelyan & Razali, 2012; Lindsay, 2010) reported on fundamental learning phenomena in conventional hands-on laboratories. To explore this issue, the educators started a project to understand more about the practical learning outcomes from traditional laboratory classes. What they found surprised them. They came across a substantial body of research on the notion of ‘practical intelligence’ (PI) that is related to the ability of a person to solve practical issues in a given domain. Psychologists (Bijker, 1995) evolved practical intelligence measurement instruments as part of an extended discipline-wide debate on predicting on-the-job performance of people using results from psychometric tests. Trevelyan and Razali (2012) found that they could apply these techniques to measure significant gains in practical intelligence resulting from participation in hands-on laboratory tasks. Practical intelligence is unrelated to students’ results from conventional assessment (examinations, tests, lab reports & tutorial exercises). More interestingly, they found the evidence that suggests the possibility that practical intelligence can predict students’ ability to perform fault diagnosis tasks.

In the past, regarding the evaluation of engineering students’ laboratory work, most assessment involves only explicitly specified learning outcomes; explicit propositional knowledge that can be written in a laboratory report or examination, or tested in a quiz or multiple choice test. In evaluating the laboratory class effectiveness, student evaluations or opinions may also be included (Feisel & Rosa, 2008; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2009; Ma & Nickersen, 2009). Explicit learning outcomes, usually written in a handout guide a laboratory class, create tendency in students to perform laboratory exercises in order to learn them. Implicit learning, on the other hand, may not be intentional. In a laboratory class setting, students will learn more than just the stated objectives of the class. Through their experience, they will learn many other things that may not seem to be important for gaining marks, but are helpful in achieving a commonly desired objective for students, completing the class as quickly as possible. In an electronics laboratory, for example, this learning might include convenient ways to strip connecting wires, ways to make reliable electrical connections, etc. This is what we refer to as practical knowledge, and one way to measure this learning is through the notion of practical intelligence, originated by Sternberg et al. (1995). Practical intelligence enables action with appropriate results.


72

However, researchers have found that practical intelligence can be effectively measured (Cianciolo, Matthew, Sternberg & Wagner, 2010). Therefore, Razali and Trevelyan (2008a; 2008b; 2009) present an effective way to measure practical intelligence that have been acquired by engineering students from laboratory experiences. What they learn from this work is that students’ learning in laboratory classes is not as what they expected. They were surprised, time after time, that they overestimated the knowledge in students (Trevelyan & Razali, 2012). Thus, there is still much to discover and this investigation will provide some research tools to enable others to follow similar investigations. There are significant implications for developers of remote laboratories and technology education researchers from this work. In order to solve the problem, we explored a fundamental issue of lacking of working skills or poor working skills among engineering graduates, which is a perplexing issue as students have attended practical laboratory classes and industrial training during their study. This suggests a new method of assessment to measure practical intelligence acquired by students after performing the laboratory tasks.

Another issue is connected with domain psychology where each and every engineering student has their own talents or aptitudes. For working in engineering field, the talent of engineer or technician should belong to them, thus they will probably be able to complete the job in appropriate and right way (Trevelyan, 2011). One person is not born with a talent, but the talent can be developed along the way of their life. Similar to problem stated above, engineering graduates do not seem to be aware of the kinds of talent or aptitude of engineers in work-field. The engineer’s talent among students (such as deep understanding of how things work, apply thorough and methodical approach and ongoing analysis of results) can be developed during study period by emphasizing on them and the significance of practical intelligence.

The Needs for Changes in Engineering Education for Global Market

Over recent decades, there have been periods of rapid change in engineering education. Until the 1950s, engineering education was largely based on an empirical and practical education with many hours spent at drawing boards and in workshops. The 1960s marked the ascendancy of scientific analysis which was further strengthened in the 1970s with digital computers that made analytical methods far more accessible. Science, theory and analysis have almost completely displaced practical skills from the engineering curriculum with the possible single exception of hands-on laboratory classes (Crawley, Malmqvist, Ostlund & Brodeur, 2007). Together with these changes, there have been continuing reservations expressed about the practical skills and competencies of engineering graduates. These concerns led to the introduction of generic outcome definitions for engineering education in 2000 in several countries (ABET, 2001, 2003 & 2008). These changes have led to some improvements, but concerns about graduate abilities are still voiced by many practicing engineers (Abdul Razak, 2004; Razali & Trevelyan, 2009).

With the development of ever more complex technologies and demands for educating more students, there has been an increasing need for new approaches to engineering education especially for global collaboration in engineering projects


73

(Lucena, 2006). In other words, the modern university seeks to extend learning opportunities to its students anytime and anywhere (for example via online classes and online laboratories) to be successful in the global educational marketplace (Sivakumar, Robertson, Artimy & Aslam, 2005). This scenario is only possible because of the rapid evolution of the personal computer and its integration into the engineering laboratory. These developments have helped to offset some of the costs of installing expensive equipment and have improved the laboratory experience through computer use in data acquisition, data reduction, design assistance and simulations (Feisel & Rosa, 2008).

For instance, distance learning courses have become an important tool to provide access to a college education for a wide population of place-bound students, particularly, those in areas remote to a major university campus. Online courses and laboratories make the university more accessible to mature students returning to school to update their current skills or acquire new ones (Abdel-Salam, Kauffman & Crossman, 2010). In addition, online classes provide greater flexibility to students who benefit from being able to control the time, pace and order in which they study the course materials. Virtual classrooms, televised and online courses, video-supported sessions, virtual-collaborative learning environments, e-campus, and e-labs have become part of academic teaching. These emerging learning tools have provided a wide array of opportunities to distance learning students who may have otherwise not pursued higher education (Jimenez-Leube, Almendra, Gonzalez & Sanz-Maudes, 2011).

Previous research indicates that distance learning can be as effective as face-to-face instruction. For example, although many factors influence students’ performance including learning style, motivation (Corter, Nickerson, Esche & Chassapis, 2004), previous learning experience and learning strategy, students at remote sites in a well-planned distance education program can achieve a performance comparable to that of students who receive on-campus instructions. This issue of the effectiveness of online courses has received the attention of many other researchers in recent years (Taylor & Trevelyan, 2005).

E-Laboratory in UniMAP: Fulfiling the Needs

Recently, there has been a trend towards providing blended learning classes through online access. This trend is driven by a demand for increased flexibility and opportunities in the delivery of classes to students. A blended learning class is made possible by advancements in network infrastructure and development of multimedia protocols for seamless transport of information. However, in running the blended learning approach, it has the possibly of unintended consequences of affecting the learning outcomes. Hence, in designing a blended learning approach, the developer must ensure good pedagogy and learning practices given to the users.

Although an e-laboratory cannot completely replace first-hand experience, it provides more time for students to interact with the equipment. Typically, a conventional laboratory class allows each student only a few minutes. By allowing


74

students to operate the equipment online for an hour or more at a time, it is expected that students are able to significantly enhance their learning. It is clear that the choice of laboratory technologies, i.e. e-laboratory, could change the learning environment and the effectiveness of learning. Hence, to measure the effectiveness and enhancement of student’s learning while running the e-laboratory, the Telelabs project (Trevelyan, 2012, 2014) combined automated assessment and performance monitoring techniques with laboratory equipment available via the Internet. The developed assessment techniques are to measure the effectiveness of e-lab and provide incentives for students to improve their learning.

One serious concern that has been raised is that valuable practical experience would be lost by using an electronics laboratory (e-labs). They use real data, but the data is acquired through the mediation of a computer interface. As an example, proficiency in the use of basic equipment such as oscilloscopes and signal generators is an important skill for engineers. Handling real components and taking the necessary precautions can be done when circuit-building are important abilities. For instance, the need to connect a power supply correctly reinforces the differences between active and passive components in a way which is lost in a simulator. Finally, there has been a concern that students would place a large premium on the use of real equipment, and that the place of practical work in helping to bridge the gap between theory and reality may be lost. Work in a real laboratory imposes time and physical boundaries both for students and academic staff. It requires significant scheduling effort and financial investments. Therefore, e-laboratories are hopefully becoming increasingly common in the teaching of undergraduate engineering courses in UniMAP. With all the focus on hands-on learning, learning by doing and the practical and personal skills a student can learn in the laboratory, it seems strange to remove the student again by implementing an online laboratory. However, a number of motivations are cited for the development of e-laboratory. According to Trevelyan (2012), some incentives for implementing e-laboratories include:

1) Distance learning can make laboratory experiences more widely available outside the universities in which they are developed.

2) It provides worldwide access for students and researchers in poor and developing countries.

3) Flexible delivery, allowing students to work on the laboratory at times, which best suit them.

4) Improving learning effectiveness by allowing better sequencing with lecture material. Often timetabling restrictions mean that a laboratory is run over several weeks; therefore, the completion of a laboratory may not coincide with lectures pertaining to the relevant material. E-laboratories can be completed as a series of short tasks, tied closely to tutorial questions and lecture material. This longer-term learning strategy gives a student time to digest information and has the potential to improve learning effectiveness significantly.

Researchers also have looked at student preferences and educational outcomes related to e-laboratories. Corter and Nickerson (2004) found that most of the student respondents rated the effectiveness and the impact of the remote lab to be comparable


75

or better. The results of the study seem encouraging for advocates of e-laboratories. There was some tendency for students of higher ability to give higher ratings to specific aspect for e-labs, but lower-ability students to give slightly higher ratings to the e-labs when they were compared directly to the hands-on format. Although there is a slow trend to shift from real to e-laboratory classes, little attention has been paid to the pedagogical differences caused by this shift. In a recent study by Lindsay (2010), he showed that remote laboratory classes are introducing distance and technology-mediated interfaces into the laboratory environment. Each of these factors has been shown to have an impact upon learning outcomes. He insisted that the learner constructs their reality from the situations and scenarios that they encounter, where their understanding is based on their experience. Different experiences will lead to different constructions, for example, two learners who encounter different material will learn different things, but for some instance, based on their past experiences, two learners who encounter the same material will assimilate it differently.

Research Gap

Engineering industrial employee and experienced engineers have lamented that engineering graduates do not seem to be aware of the kinds of experience needed in their workplace. This may result from the way in which explicit knowledge is valued in engineering education, practically, all assessments measure explicit knowledge. The lack of emphasis on experience development is prevalent despite research findings on their relevance to career success in engineering. Numerous empirical studies indicate that the acquisition of experience in workplace settings and laboratory classes is just as important as explicit technical knowledge. This implicit devaluation of experience could significantly impair engineering students’ ability to acquire and value experience. Devaluation of experience could be partly due to a lack of knowledge in implementing valid and reliable assessment of experience. Therefore, developing new model to include effective assessment on experience could be one way to overcome this problem.

Purpose of Conducting the Pilot Research

1) To propose a new method for assessing individual practical intelligence acquired as results of performing the laboratory experiments.

2) To analyse the score of practical intelligence acquired for individual students (undergraduates and postgraduates) based on the experts’ score as a reference score.

3) To make recommendations for enhancing assessment practices in engineering education to promote development of practical intelligence towards greater industry-readiness of engineering graduates


76

Research Question

In this pilot study, the researchers measured the acquisition of experience in a relatively constrained situation, a sequence of planned laboratory experiments. The researchers hypothesize that experience is developed in the mind of a learner either intentionally or unintentionally as a result of performing laboratory tasks, and that this can be measured by comparing to experts’ experiences (experts average = 0). Thus, the researchers proposed a null hypothesis:

“ there is no statistically significant difference in the experience gained by students who performed the laboratory exercises and those who did not perform the laboratory exercises, based on experts’ reference score. ”

If this hypothesis is proved to be false, we can conclude that we can detect the acquisition of experience during the laboratory exercises. The results may also show if there is any difference in the level of experience among students before and after performing a single laboratory exercise.

Pilot Study

We predicted that the students will gain experience as a by-product of performing the laboratory class and we can measure this by assessing a restricted range of practical knowledge. Thus, we developed an on-line survey instrument to measure experience in the context of laboratory classes that support the subject Introduction to Electrical and Electronics Engineering. The aim of this on-line survey instrument is to assess experience by measuring some aspects of students’ practical knowledge related to the laboratory experiments. Students can take the subject in their first or second semester. This instrument is used to test a large sample of students in the second half of 2014. The subject is compulsory for all the first year students commencing engineering each year at UniMAP. Before and after doing the experiments, the students will be given the survey (pre & post survey) to measure the level of experience they gained after attending the laboratory. We expect that the results will show if there is any difference in the level of experience among students after attending the laboratory experiments.

The typical experience survey instrument consists of a set of domain-related situations, each with between 5 and 20 response items. Each situation poses a problem for the participant to solve. Each response item describes a solution approach or action in words. Each participant rates the appropriateness of the alternative response items, typically on a 7-point Lickert scale. Recognized domain experts also take the survey instrument to establish a reference mean score and variance for every response item. On some items, the experts will agree closely with each other. On the others, the experts may differ significantly. The participant’s score is then calculated by finding the deviation between the participant’s score for each response item and the mean of the expert ratings. The deviation is compensated for by the variance between experts so that if the experts disagree on a particular response item, the participant’s deviation is less significant. A zero score, therefore, indicates perfect agreement with expert ratings.


77

Samples for the study involved engineering students who studied Introduction to Electrical and Electronics Engineering as novices (experiment group) and business students who did not study the subject, as novices (control group); lecturers, teaching engineers and experienced technicians as experts and all respondents were from UniMAP. However, for the pilot study, the participations involved undergraduate students (13 samples) as novices, postgraduate students (13 samples) as intermediates and experienced technicians (7 samples) as experts.

Methods of Developing the Survey Instrument

Phase 1: New method of assessing practical intelligence

Activities:

STEP 1: Preparation of tacit domain of hands-on laboratory experiments

The researchers analysed the contents of the experiment to differentiate between the explicit and implicit/tacit knowledge relevant to the experiment. From the tacit domain where practical intelligence would be acquired, behaviour of students was analysed.

STEP 2: In-depth observations and interviews on students’ behaviour in hands-on laboratory experiments

Designing the practical intelligence measurement instrument (or questionnaire) requires the researcher to spend time with students while performing the laboratory tasks. They carefully observed and described typical problem situations faced by the students and how they respond. The observation and interview were done in two cycles of laboratory experiments (over the course of 2 academic semesters). The students were also interviewed informally during the observation session to know what are in their mind to respond (by using a method of thinking-aloud technique). For example, Figure 5.1 illustrates how students reassembled a small engine in a mechanical engineering laboratory.

Figure 5.1: Assembling a spark plug into an engine


78

Some students assembled the spark plug correctly as shown on the left side of Figure 5.1. Others assembled the spark plug upside down as shown on the right. Later, of course, the engine would not start, and the students discovered their mistake eventually, usually after seeking help from the laboratory assistant. Here, the researcher observed the ways that students responded to the problem situations. They might be very ingenious responses, and other times might be quite inappropriate. The researcher took photographs to record these responses.

STEP 3: Design a novel practical intelligence instrument

A typical practical intelligence survey instrument consists of a set of domain-related situations where each with between 8 and 20 response items was administered. Each situation poses a problem for a participant to solve. Each response item describes a solution approach or action in words and pictures. Each participant rates the appropriateness of the alternative response items, typically on a 7-point Lickert scale. In this step, survey instrument was employed to describe a number of similar situations to the ones faced by the students in performing their laboratory tasks, problems or fault conditions in which practical intelligence were used.

Example of one of the test items that was designed:

“In one of the experiments, you read the following instructions: Mount the tuning capacitor and the plastic knob. Secure them using a small screw. To secure the tuning capacitor, you have to tighten the screw. Please rate the usefulness of each tool to turn the screw in the knob.”

The cross section drawing shows a screw tighten the plastic knob onto the tuning capacitor shaft (Figure 5.2). The colours and shapes of the components in the drawing resemble those in the laboratory equipment used by the students. The response items list different types of screw drivers, scissors, knives and several other inappropriate tools. Unlike previous survey instruments mentioned in the practical intelligence literature, most of the response items consist of small photographs or drawings to lessen the reliance on language comprehension. The researchers expected that it is not easy to comprehend the basic level of knowledge (or lack of it) faced by students, including knowledge of common technical terms.


79

Figure 5.2: Cross section drawing

Example of survey instrument was designed for the above situations with associated responses to rate the usefulness of each tool to turn the screw in the knob. There are no right or wrong responses, but only responses that are more or less appropriate in the given situation.


80

Figure 5.3: Example of situation and associated responses

STEP 4: Calibrate and established reference score

To calibrate the survey instrument in order to create reference data on the appropriateness or, otherwise, of each response item, we asked recognized domain experts (experienced technicians, teaching engineers and relevant lecturers) to perform the electronic survey created in STEP 3 with detailed discussion and explanation. This established a reference mean score and variance for every response item. On some items, the experts agreed closely with each other. On others, the experts differed significantly. The reference score is then calculated by finding the deviation between the experts’ score for each response item and the mean of the expert ratings. The deviation is compensated for by the variance between experts so that if the experts disagree on a particular response item, the participant’s deviation is less significant. A zero score, therefore, indicates perfect agreement with expert ratings.


81

Phase 2: To analyse the score of experience acquired

Activities:

STEP 5: Testing the survey instrument to undergraduates group

A group of 13 undergraduate students who registered and took the Fundamental of Electrical Circuit course was chosen as a novice group. They learnt the subject, performed the laboratory experiments and after completing the experiments, they were asked to participate in the electronic survey created in STEP 3.

STEP 6: Testing the survey instrument to postgraduates group

A group of 13 postgraduate students who did not perform the laboratory was chosen as an intermediate group. Without learning the subject and performing the laboratory experiments, they also performed the electronic survey created in STEP 3.

STEP 7: Application on the experience measurement instrument

There are two versions of instruments; pre-lab and post-lab. These instruments were tested on the novices and intermediate groups. The version of pre-lab was given before the laboratory exercise, while the post lab was given after the laboratory activity for all groups.

STEP 8: Analysis of experience gained between each group

The analysis was done to know the acquisition of experience between novices and intermediate groups for the pre and the post test.

STEP 9: Validity and reliability of the new method

For the validity and reliability of this new method in assessing practical intelligence, the analysis was done by following the procedure of validating the method using novices/experts approach.

STEP 10: Recommendations for enhancing assessment practices

A report of recommendations for enhancing assessment practices in engineering education to promote development of practical intelligence towards greater industry-readiness of engineering graduates was developed and proposed together with the research findings/reports.

Findings of the Pilot Version of Survey Instrument

In the pilot version, a comparison of experience between engineering undergraduate and postgraduate by referring to experts has been done. The online experience instrument consisting of two related engineering situations with associated responses was tested on 13 undergraduate of mechatronic engineering students (as novices) and 13 engineering postgraduate students (as intermediate) in April and May 2014, comparing with 7 electronics engineering experts (Figure 5.4). The response items were chosen such that only one provided the most appropriate practical response. Participants merely selected what they thought was the most appropriate response item.


82

Figure 5.4: Individual experience score

The results (Figure 5.5) demonstrated that experts mean score was 175, while that of postgraduate and undergraduate were 144 and 123, respectively.

Figure 5.5: Means of experience score


83

It is shown that if the reference of experts average equals 0, the difference to postgraduate average will be 31 (close to experts experience) compared to the undergraduate average that is 52; thus, the experience can be measured. Thus, the researchers are strongly confident that the level of experience of novices can be analysed and measured by referring to the experts’ score (expert average = 0).

Implication of the Pilot Findings

In this research, the researcher attempted to show the possibility of measuring experience, tacit knowledge and implicit knowledge that has not been assessed or measured in the past studies when evaluating different laboratory experiences for engineering students. It is possible that techniques for measuring experience that have emerged from attempts to improve selection in recruitment processes may provide a way to measure that elusive component of engineering laboratory experiences referred to by most people as “hands-on practical experience”.

This would provide a third means to evaluate engineering laboratory class experiences, beyond the established methods of comparing student performance in explicit assessment tasks (e.g. reports & tests) and measurement of student perceptions of their laboratory experience. This method of assessing experiences and skills can also be used as a job performance test where usually psychologist used psychology method to measure the job performance. For technical job which usually needs experience and skills to solve related technical problems, this method is appropriate to measure the job performance.

Similarly, this method will help human resource managers to practically choose appropriate candidates from short listed ones for some technical jobs. This test should be used as final components of test after writing test and interview stages. For example, a company has 5 vacancies, but 1000 application has been received. After writing and interviewing stage, 20 candidates are short listed for the 5 vacancies. How to choose the best 5 technical persons for the post? By using this test, the test will prove the level of technical experiences and skills that belong to the candidates. Furthermore, students feel comfortable and satisfy with the application of blended learning for their course.

Recommendation for Future Studies

We are currently in the process of designing a fully survey instrument to measure experience related to introductory electrical engineering laboratory exercises which was used to test a large sample of students between Jan and May 2015. Samples of this study involved engineering students who studied Introduction to Electrical and Electronics Engineering as novices (experiment group) and business students who did not study the subject, as novices (control group). Lecturers, teaching engineers and experienced technicians were selected as experts and all respondents are from UniMAP.


84

On the assumption that the larger scale study will confirm that our hypothesis is false, that there is a statistically significant difference in experience of students measured before and after exposure to the laboratory class experience, we proceeded to the confirmation stage of this study. We selected a sub-sample of survey respondents and invited them to participate in a practical fault diagnosis task on some of the equipment that they have used in their laboratory classes. If possible, we would select two sub-samples: a sample of students with high levels of experience as measured by our survey instrument and a sample of students with low levels of experience. From our pilot study, we know that there is a very large variation in student responses even after they have completed their laboratory experience. These selected students were observed performing a small number of troubleshooting tasks. We expect that this study will provide rich qualitative data which can be used to provide triangulation support for experience measurement through a survey instrument. We would expect that experience measured in the context of diagnosing simple faults in the circuits used for the laboratory experiments will be correlated with performance in real troubleshooting tasks on the same circuits. However, given that experiments on human behaviour are notoriously difficult to control, we will need to institute double blind testing procedures to remove as much experimenter bias as possible.

Furthermore, this study pretends to apply the method of assessment to program of Bachelor of Engineering Technology (B.Eng.Tech) in UniMAP and proposed the method to a few other universities who run B.Eng.Tech program. By introducing the concepts and methods, it is expected that the lecturers will emphasize the importance of acquiring experience during their study to be competitive workers for global market. By emphasizing this, the B.Eng.Tech students will value the value of implicit knowledge, tacit knowledge and experience, thus their mind can be developed towards critical and global thinking.

Students’ Feedback on the e-Learning Implemented

We have conducted a short survey to assess the satisfaction level of the students on their first experience with e-learning approaches. Based on the feedbacks, 89% of the respondents agree that e-learning approaches have enriched their learning experiences.


85

References

Abdel-Salam, T., Kauffman, P. J., & Crossman, G. (2010). Does the lack of hands-on experience in a remotely delivered laboratory course affect student learning? European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(6), 747-756.

Abdul Razak, S. (2004). Jobless graduates in Malaysia: Issues and critical review The New Straits Time, p. 32.

ABET. (2001). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs 2000-2001-Conventional Criteria.

ABET. (2003). Guidelines and application for provisional status in the Washington Accord. Retrived from http://www.washingtonaccord.org/wash_accord_trans.html, http://www.washingtonaccord.org/

ABET. (2008). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs 2007-2008 Baltimore, MD 21202: Engineering Accreditation Commission ABET, Inc.

Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelite’s, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Cianciolo, A. T., Matthew, C., Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Tacit knowledge, practical intelligence and expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 613-632). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., & Chassapis, C. (2004). Remote versus hands-on labs: A comparative study. In Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual (pp. F1G-17). IEEE..

Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., & Brodeur, D. R. (2007). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. In Engineering Education, (pp. 216-240). New York: Springer.

Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2008). The Role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1).

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2009). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.

Jimenez-Leube, F. J., Almendra, A., Gonzalez, C., & Sanz-Maudes, J. (2011). Networked implementation of an electrical measurement laboratory for first course engineering studies. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(4), 377-383.

Lindsay, E., & Good, M. (2010). Effects of laboratory access modes upon learning outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Education, 48(4), 619-631.

Lucena, J. C. (2006). Globalisation and organizational change: Engineers experiences and their implications for engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(3), 321- 338.

Ma, J., & Nickersen, J. V. (2009). Hands-On, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), Article 7.

Razali, Z. B., & Trevelyan, J. P. (2008a). Can practical intelligence from a laboratory experience be measured? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Engineering Education 2008 Annual Conference, Yepoon, Queensland.

Razali, Z. B., & Trevelyan, J. P. (2008b). Measuring tacit knowledge: The hidden dimension of laboratory classes and engineering practice. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES), Davos. http://www.engconfintl.org/8axabstracts.html


86

Razali, Z. B., & Trevelyan, J. P. (2009). Experience in laboratory and the ability to diagnose equipment faults. Paper presented at the 2nd Regional Conference on Engineering Education, Johor, Malaysia.

Sivakumar, S. C., Robertson, W., Artimy, M., & Aslam, N. (2005). A Web-basedremote interactive laboratory for Internetworking education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 586-598.

Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50(11), 912-927.

Straits Times. (2012). Courses with the most number of unemployed graduates in Malaysia,

Taylor, K., & Trevelyan, J. P. (2005). Australia’s telerobot on the Web. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Industrial Robotics, Singapore.

Trevelyan, J. P. (2010, June 20-22). A Framework for understanding engineering practice. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh.

Trevelyan, J. P. (2011). Technical coordination in engineering practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 191-204.

Trevelyan, J.P., & Razali, Z.B. (2012). What do students gain from laboratory experiences? Book Title: Internet accessible remote laboratories: Scalable e-learning tools for engineering and science disciplines. Publisher: engineering science reference (an imprint of IGI Global). Trevelyan, J. (2012). Evaluating telelabs: Remotely operated laboratory experiments. Perth: The University of Western Australia.

Trevelyan, J. (2014). Using on-line laboratories in mechatronics system teaching. Paper presented at the International Conference on Mechatronics System, Newcastle.

Chapter

6

iTeaching for uLearning: Interactive Teaching Tools for Ubiquitous Learning in Higher

EducationChuah Kee Man

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

Introduction

The shift of focus to learner-centred approaches in teaching and learning has intensified the increasing use of technological tools in the classrooms. Educators are no longer restricted to the use of traditional teaching resources or materials, but are showered with various technological advancements that enhance the learning experience. Such shift in technological development demands a change in the traditional pedagogy that used to be the epitome of teaching and learning. Hence, interactive teaching (iTeaching) methods are regarded as the much-needed boost for 21st century learning environments in which learners are given more autonomy in their learning process.

Although some researchers (Sokoloff & Thornton, 1997; Van Dijk, Van Der Berg & Van Keulen, 2001) noted that interactive teaching methods are not new, what makes them even more effective is the fact that there are more technological tools to assist the implementation of the methods in the classrooms. Interactive teaching methods like questioning strategies and games in the classroom can be enhanced with the use of suitable tools. This covers hardware supports such as remote clickers and interactive whiteboard (Zevenbergen & Lerman, 2008), as well as various online tools, which have been rapidly included in the teaching and learning activities of many classrooms particularly in higher education. For instance, Lasry, Dugdale and Charles (2014) reported the successful use of flipped classroom concept when they

Chapter

6


90

integrated the Just-in-Time-Teaching (JiTT) approach in which their students are assigned specific pre-class activities through the use of various tools available in their course management system. The online discussions also allow the learners to be more active in sharing their thoughts. Nonetheless, the success of interactive tools largely depends on learners’ acceptance and continuing usage of these technologies (Limayem & Cheung, 2008).

Ubiquitous Learning

Ubiquitous Learning (uLearning) may not be a novel concept but the idea of making learning happening anytime, anywhere is enhanced through the advances in computing technology. However, just because the learning contents are freely available instantly, it does not mean learning is happening effectively. Ogata and Yano (2004) summarised the main characteristics of uLearning by covering aspects of permanency, accessibility, immediacy and interactivity. Permanency refers to how learners would not lose their progress in learning unless it is deleted on purpose. Accessibility covers the ability for learners to have access to their learning content from anywhere based on their on-demand requests, providing a conducive online environment for self-directed learning. Immediacy, on the other hand, refers to the instant access to the information, allowing learners to solve problems quickly. As for interactivity, learners can interact with instructors and their peers through various communication channels. Hence, uLearning requires these four characteristics in order to provide learners with effective learning opportunities. Cui and Bull (2005) suggested the incorporation of mobile technology in maximising the potential of uLearning. The inclusion of context-aware features in such technology also permits learners to learn according to their level without the feeling of left out.

Problem Statement

Previous studies have highlighted the benefits of interactive teaching tools and methods in improving students’ learning attainment. These tools were studied based on their usage within classroom. Studies pertaining to the benefits of the tools in enhancing ubiquitous learning (learning on demand) are still rather limited. In fact, most of the uLearning tools are studied based on learners’ usage in isolation instead of being integrated as part of teaching activities especially in blended mode. This study focuses on the use of uLearning tools within a blended learning environment that emphasizes on the foundations of connectivism (Siemens, 2005) and aims to investigate students’ overall perceptions of their uLearning experience.

Theoretical Foundation

The theoretical foundation of the study is illustrated in Figure 6.1. It shows how interactive teaching tools are integrated within the collaborative e-learning platform, which is used in blended mode.


91

Figure 6.1: Theoretical Foundation based on Connectivism

Based on the theory of connectivism, knowledge is disseminated across an information network through various digital formats and learning and knowledge are supposed to be the outcome of diversity of opinions (Siemens, 2008). According to Siemens (2008), learning transpires through the use of both cognitive and affective domains, as these two domains contribute to the learning process. Through the collaborative e-learning platform used in this study, learners would be able to engage in healthy discussion and build a community of learning through various activities conducted using interactive teaching tools.

Research Objectives

This study aims to address the following objectives:

1) To find out the roles of iTeaching tools in enhancing ubiquitous Learning.2) To investigate students’ perception on the affordances of iTeaching tools.

Methodology

To address the objectives, in this study, a case study research design was employed. As mentioned by Creswell (1994), a case study focuses on the exploration of a single entity or phenomenon by a researcher. The researcher chose this research design as it examines a phenomenon in its natural setting and its findings are interpreted in terms of the meanings people bring to them. In this case, it focused on learning environments in higher education involving undergraduates. A total of 80 participants from two separate English remedial classes (40 each) participated in this study and they were taught by the researcher. They were chosen mainly because the inclusion of iTeaching tools in the teaching and learning activities was said to be able to engage them to learn the English language more effectively. In addition, the face-to-face contact hours


92

for the classes were only two hours per week, which prompted the researcher to extend the learning environment to the online platform. All 80 participants possessed a mobile device and had access to the Internet regularly.

Data Collection Procedures

For the purpose of the study, several iTeaching tools were incorporated in the teaching and learning activities in the classroom for a period of four weeks (e.g. Padlet, BlendSpace & Viddy). The tasks given had to be completed outside the classroom hours. These tasks were also related to the teaching content with the aim of extending the students’ understanding as well as giving them more opportunities to practice. The students were told to complete the tasks anytime and anywhere they wished within a predetermined duration. A simple survey questionnaire (4-point Likert scale) was given after the last task. The students were also required to write a reflection based on their overall experience using the tools. Some of the activities using iTeaching tools are shown in the following section.

Figure 6.2: Video log activity


93

Figure 6.2 shows an example of video log activity in which the students had to record their activities using their mobile device and share it on YouTube. The purpose of this activity was to allow the learners to use the English language in a natural context (i.e. when going out with family) instead of focusing on classroom interactions.

Figure 6.3: Discussion via Padlet

Figure 6.3 illustrates the use of Padlet as part of the discussion activities that were conducted outside of the classroom hours. Padlet was chosen mainly due to its user-friendliness and loading speed.

Findings and Discussion

The data obtained from the questionnaire was tabulated accordingly and analysed using descriptive statistics. In particular, mean score was used to indicate the participants’ perception on their overall uLearning experience based on the given items. The mean score higher than 3.0 is considered as high while below that is considered as low. Table 6.1 show the overall mean scores for the items used in the questionnaire.


94

Table 6.1: Mean scores of questionnaire items

Items Mean

Do the learning tools help you understand the course content? 3.45

Do the learning tools enable you to practice language skills? 3.62

Do the learning tools help you gain useful knowledge in a real context? 3.31

Do the learning tools help you solve the assigned problem/task? 3.25

Do the learning tools help you review the course materials at any time and place? 3.75

Do the learning tools allow you to collaborate with your friends easily? 3.50

Do the learning tools increase your interest in learning the course content? 3.87

Do the learning tools provide immediate feedback? 2.37

Do the learning tools encourage you to learn more than what is taught in class? 3.37

Do the learning tools contain some forms of tests/evaluation? 2.62

Do the learning tools help you explore a topic further? 3.50

Do the learning tools allow you to communicate with your peers easily? 3.12

In general, the participants perceived the use of iTeaching tools as part of the activities positively which were beneficial to them. They rated highly on all items except for two items, namely on getting immediate feedback (mean=2.37) and also the use of the tools for evaluation or tests (mean=2.62). Regarding the first concern, it has to be admitted that the tools did not provide immediate feedback as most of the tasks given were done in asynchronous mode. Participants were given time to reflect before they actually provided the response. For example, the discussion conducted on Padlet was not really instantaneous in nature although some participants did set a “meeting time” to access the Padlet wall and engage in discussion. Also, discussion via such platforms does not promote sense of community unlike in threaded discussion (forum). Lea and Spears (1992) point out that the sense of being part of a community in the online environment is crucial to inject some forms of positive attitude among the learners in maintaining healthy discussion. In addition, since the participants met each other face-to-face weekly, they do not see the purpose of getting immediate feedback online (Rovai, 2002), hence giving the item a low score.

On their perception with regards to the lack of evaluation or assessment component in the tools, it is undeniable that the tools were not used for this purpose at all by the researcher. Despite the fact that there were opportunities given for peer- and self-assessment via the activities using the interactive tools, the participants were largely ignorant about it. However, the participants were of the consensus that the tools allowed them to review the course content easily (mean=3.75). Most importantly, the interactive teaching tools captured their interest to learn more about the course content (mean=3.87).

Interestingly, two items that yielded rather lower than expected mean scores are Do the learning tools help you solve the assigned problem/task? (Mean=3.25) and Do the learning tools allow you to communicate with your peers easily? (Mean=3.12). The researcher has expected the students to perceive the tools as a good way to solve problem or complete the task; however, many of them perceived otherwise. This could


95

be due to the fact that in language learning the problems may not be as apparent as in other areas such as mathematics and science subjects. As for the communication, the learners may not feel the need to communicate virtually since they are meeting each other every week in class.

Nevertheless, as shown in Table 6.1, the overall perception of the students on the use of the iTeaching tools for uLearning is very encouraging. They were able to utilise the tools in enhancing their understanding of what was taught in class. The researcher also noted that the students were more active in class since the activities conducted using iTeaching tools have created a learning environment that was more pleasurable to them. The fear of “doing mistakes” was also reduced.

Participants’ Reflections

Apart from completing the simple survey, the participants were told to write a short reflection from their experience of using the iTeaching tools for uLearning. Their overall exposure to the tools created a sense of excitement among them while encouraging them to learn the course content in a more engaging manner. Some of the emerging themes from their reflections are discussed.

1) Ubiquitous knowledge access and sharingThe students believed that the tools have widened their opportunities to gain access to knowledge (course content) ubiquitously without having to depend on what is taught in the classroom. Since all students in this case study owned a mobile device, they felt that the tools provided them suitable platforms to access only content that matters without distractions.

2) Authentic context-awarenessThe activities designed using the iTeaching tools were also very authentic and created good awareness on the contextualised usage of the needed skills. In this case, the participants were able to practise their language skills in real-life situations and not solely depend on what was done in class. The video log (vlog) activity, for example, has managed to increase their use of English outside the classroom.

3) Generate Interest on contentsAnother important theme emerged from the reflection is the role of the iTeaching tools in generating interest on the course contents. The students were all unanimous in their view on how the tools have captured their attention in learning the contents. They noted that the use of iTeaching tools made learning “fun and engaging”.

4) Seamless collaborationBesides learning the content, the iTeaching tools used in this study promoted seamless collaboration without having to deal with complicated technicalities. All those (Web 2.0 in nature) were easy to learn and the interface was very user-friendly. This is crucial since complexity in the tools used may affect learners’ participations in the activities.


96

Implications of the Study

Although this study involved a small sample size, it has shed significant light on the use of iTeaching tools for uLearning. Specifically, it has revealed four key implications. The first implication is on the proper integration of tools with the platform as well as teaching and learning activities. Each chosen tool must be reviewed and well-integrated with the intended usage so that the students would not be confused.

Secondly, the instructor has to establish relevance for the activities conducted. The context for the use of each tool has to be clearly explained to the students and not merely using it for the sake of novelty. Students must also be able to grap the purpose of using the tool to complete the activities given. This, in turn, would encourage greater participations. Thirdly, it is also pivotal for the instructor to define clear expectation for the students’ participations. The instructor has to encourage the students to participate by outlining what they are expected to do. Apart from that, rules can also be given so that they would not be spending time doing unnecessary things. For example, responding to the Padlet discussion at least once a day or no “SMS language” allowed in the discussion.

Lastly, the instructor should also spend time on acknowledging the contributions of the students in all activities. This can be done by using students’ responses in the activity or tools during class hours to motivate them. At least, they realise that the instructor is paying attention to what they are doing online. This would also promote them to utilise the tools beyond the confinement of the course. The “transfer” of such skills to other courses can be of great benefits to the learners.

Conclusion and the Way forward

All in all, the students were very positive about the use of iTeaching tools, especially in promoting ubiquitous Learning. This study, despite its exploratory nature, has showcased how iTeaching tools can increase students’ motivation in learning the course content without having to depend on what is going on in the classrooms. The face-to-face contact hours can be used for more meaningful learning activities rather than spending time “lecturing”, which can be substituted by using iTeaching tools. It is imperative to note that the successful usage of iTeaching tools also lies upon the instructor’s ability to integrate them well into their pedagogy. The tools would not be able to do wonder if the instructor is not well-versed in using them for various teaching and learning activities.

To increase the scope of this study, future research can embark on a quasi-experimental approach by comparing two groups of students (one using iTeaching tools, while the other does not). This can perhaps yield better results in terms of the impact of the tools on the learners. Also, more tools can be explored as part of the course activities besides promoting the use of the tools for assessment purposes.


97

References

Cui, Y., & Bull, S. (2005). Context and learner modelling for the mobile foreign language learner. System, 33(2),353-367.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantity approaches. California: Sage Publication Ltd.

Lasry, N., Dugdale, M., & Charles, E. (2014). Just in time to flip your classroom. The Physics Teacher, 52(1), 34-37.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321–341.

Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2008). Understanding information systems continuance: The case of internet-based learning technologies. Information & Management, 45, 227–232.

Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-16.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network creation. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm.

Siemens, G. (2008). Connectivism: A learning theory for today’s learner, Website. http://www.connectivism.ca/about.html.

Sokoloff, D., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. The Physics Teacher, 35, 340-347.

Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2004). Context-aware support for computer-supported ubiquitous learning. In Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2004. Proceedings. The 2nd IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 27-34). IEEE.

Van Dijk, L. A., Van Der Berg, G. C., & Van Keulen, H. (2001). Interactive lectures in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15-28.

Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2008). Learning environments using interactive whiteboards: New learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies?. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 108-126.

Chapter

7

Assessing HOTS in e-Learning among University Students in Malaysia

Norasiken Bakar, Nor Azlina Alias, Suhaila Zainudin, Wan Zuhainis Saad & Mazura Mastura Muhammad

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia & Universiti Perguruan Sultan Idris

Introduction

Information Technology or IT-enabled teaching and learning systems have been widely used in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) worldwide. This paper describes and assesses whether the current e-learning environment used by the Malaysian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) helps foster the Higher-Order Thinking Skills or HOTS amongst the undergraduates.

What are HOTS? Referring to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, HOTS are skills at the top end of the taxonomy such as Creating, Evaluating and Analyzing.

A recent paper concluded that the use of online technology can help foster the lower thinking skills amongst Afghan students (Mohammad & Hafizoah, 2014). The lower thinking skills are Remembering, Understanding and Applying. However, can the same technology be used to encourage students to go beyond the basic skills and achieve HOTS as well? This leads us to the research question for this paper; Does available e-learning technologies and tools foster higher order thinking skills amongst HEIs students? To date, we have no report on any research with the focus on the effectiveness of e-learning tools experiences for HOTS among HEIs. The research question leads to two main objectives for this paper; the first objective is to assess

Chapter

7


102

the perception of the level of e-learning usage amongst HEIs students and the second objective is to determine the incorporation of HOTS within e-learning activities.

The rest of this paper will review the research gap and the research methodology that was followed. The findings will be duly discussed and analyzed. A section on implications, conclusions and implications will further discuss the future actions based on our findings.

Research Gap

There are various studies that have been conducted on e-learning, such as the studies by Govindasamy (2002), Garrison and Kanuka (2004), Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005) and Selim (2007). It is interesting to see that these studies focus on the use of e-learning as an effective and efficient alternative to learning for school and university students as well as employees of international companies. None of these studies; however, have actually looked into the depth of the online learning experiences in facilitating higher order thinking skills (henceforth, HOTS).

For example, the study conducted by Zhang (2005) focuses on assessing the effectiveness of interactive e-learning environment. The study aims to determine whether an interactive multimedia-based e-learning environment can maximise students’ learning abilities and students’ level of satisfaction as compared to traditional classrooms. For this purpose, two separate lab experiments were employed and three treatments were implemented in each experiment. 155 undergraduates participated in these experiments, you can refer to the students’ participation in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Students’ participation

Groups Group Size Lecture Topic

Experiment 1

Fully Interactive LBA 17

Relational AlgebraLess Interactive LBA 17

Traditional Classroom 17

Experiment 2

Fully Interactive LBA 35Internet Search EngineLess Interactive LBA 35

Traditional Classroom 34

Note: LBA = Learning By Asking

The study reveals that multimedia-based e-learning environment offers more learner-content interaction, learning performance and learner satisfaction as compared to the traditional classroom. Additionally, most participants commented that multimedia-based e-learning classrooms are more flexible and interactive. This study proves that e-learning environment can create effective and meaningful learning experiences to students.

Wu, Tennyson and Hsia (2010) also examine student learning satisfaction in a blended e-learning system (henceforth, BELS). Blended e-learning is defined as


103

instructional system that combines multiple delivery learning methods, including face-to-face classroom and asynchronous and/or online learning. The aim of BELS is to maximise the best advantage of face-to-face and online education. Employing cross sectional survey method, the study endeavours to examine the primary determinants affecting student learning satisfaction in a BELS environment. In a related study, 518 paper-based and online questionnaires were distributed to university students in Taiwan. However, only 212 participants responded to the survey which were then included in the study. The results reveal that computer efficacy, performance expectations, system functionality, content feature, interaction and learning climate were the primary determinants of student learning satisfaction. The study shows that these determinants have significant effects on learning climate of the students. Their findings facilitate the planning and implementation of a blended e-learning system which can enhance student learning satisfaction.

The study by Ong and Lai (2006) aims to explore the effects of gender differences on computer efficacy, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and behavioural intention to use e-learning. This research is pertinent to better understand how gender influences learners’ attitudes towards e-learning. The data was collected from 67 female and 89 male employees of six international companies which are located at the Hsin-Chu Science-based Industrial Park, Taiwan as each company had implemented their own e-learning and each of the participants had experiences of utilising it. The findings show that men’s rating of perceptions with respect to computer efficacy, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and behavioural intention to use e-learning are all higher than women’s. Moreover, the study also reveals that perceptions of computer efficacy and perceived ease of use were more salient to women. More importantly, this study clearly proves the potential that e-learning plays in equipping employees with the skills that they need to succeed in the knowledge-based economy and is regarded as a mission critical activity for organisations.

Another investigation conducted on the perceptions of users is the study conducted by Keller and Cernerud (2002). The study was conducted with the aim of examining the perceptions of University students on e-learning. Three specific aims were underlined; first, to explore the general attitudes of the students to e-learning; second, to analyse these attitudes in relation with students’ background (i.e. gender, age, learning styles, etc.) and finally, to explore the advantages and disadvantages experienced by students when using e-learning. A set of questionnaire consisting of close and open-ended questions were distributed to 150 students of who had at least two years of experience utilising e-learning on campus of Jonkoping University in Sweden. The study shows that students are the School of Health Sciences (SH) were more positive than students at the School of Engineering (SE) despite their age and gender. In other words, differences in implementation strategy of the Schools influence students’ perception. Overall, the students’ perceptions of e-learning in university education was discouraging as more than two thirds of the students disagreed totally that Web platform had facilitated their studies and improved their communication with other students and lecturers. They also stated that the use of


104

Web platform did not improve the pedagogic value of the courses nor does it improve their possibilities of solving problem in connection with the courses.

Based on the review above, we could conclude that despite the numerous studies conducted on e-learning, the primary focus is merely on the effectiveness and the perceptions of using e-learning environment. None of these studies; however, have actually looked into the depth of the online learning experiences in facilitating higher order thinking skills (henceforth, HOTS). Hence, the current study aims to assess the higher-order thinking in e-learning environment among HEIs students.

Research Methodology

In order to achieve the targeted objectives stated in this study, the research methodology is framed into four steps. First, the research approach was defined as a quantitative research where the data collected used a structured techniques with a large number of randomly selected respondents. The method of data analysis refers to the systematic empirical investigation of higher order thinking skills phenomenon via statistical and mathematical techniques.

The second step is the research design. A Web survey was conducted to only collect the data on the higher order thinking skills among the students. Data collected were mainly on the e-learning activities, some demographic data among the HEIs students and data such as the frequency of e-learning usage. Additional questions included in the questionnaire were about the effort in applying the higher order thinking skills in teaching and learning amongst the universities students. The third step of the research is the instrument used to conduct this study. As the research was previously set as a quantitative research, online questionnaire was used as the main data collection instrument. A set of questionnaires was prepared and uploaded on Google Doc and distributed for about two months among the five universities from April to the end of May 2014.

The last step is the results analysis. All results obtained from those universities were compiled. Responses from the Web-based survey then were transferred to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using standard functions. The analysis was done by preparing the bar and pie charts and comparing the results obtained from those different universities.

Generally for this research, the features in the research process include:

a) Data collection – surveysb) Survey questions covered aspects such as:

i. Demographic (IPT, Field of Study, Level of Study & Personal Computer Devices)

ii. Frequency of e-Learning Usage (Device, e-Learning tools, Usage Pattern & Tools’ Purpose).

iii. E-Learning activities (Mapping the Bloom’s Taxonomy to e-Learning activities)

c) Analysis


105

From the Web survey that has been conducted, a total of 255 students from Social Science and Science or Technology disciplines from 5 HEIs took part in this study. The HEIs that were formally involved in this study were UMP, UKM, UPM, UPSI and UTeM from various field of study such as the technical science or engineering and social science. The levels of study of respondents are varying from students in Year 1 to Year 4.

Findings and Discussions

In this section, we will explain the findings and discussions about IT facility available to students, student e-Learning-related activity and Higher-order Thinking from the perspective of 255 students from UKM, UMP, UPM, UPSI and UTeM.

IT Facilities Available to Students

To facilitate students in their studies, universities have provided various types of IT facilities for their students. For instance, most universities have provided a wireless internet connection for their students to access the internet no matter where there are within the area of the campus. This allow students to search for information and even to conduct a study group among themselves at a place that they feel comfortable with and not just in the library. Apart from that, students are also able to access the library’s server at the comfort of their home if they want to search for past years’ examination question papers. This is also one of the facilities that the universities consider as vital for the students. To assist the students in their studies, various kinds of laboratories with the latest technology are available for the students to use. These laboratories have been equipped with the latest software and hardware that the universities think is vital and appropriate for their students to use. Interactive Media students, for example, are able to use the recording studio available in their universities to assists them in their assignments or projects.

Student e-Learning-related Activities

There are few e-Learning related activities that are quite popular among students. One of them is discussion in a forum either in the Learning Management System (LMS) of their universities or in other forum available on the internet. Some may not recognize it but e-mail is also a part of the e-learning activities. E-mail is very popular especially for university students as it is their primary communication tools between their peers and also their lecturers. Using Web 2.0 such as social media site, search engines are also one of the example of e-learning activities. Web 2.0 is widely used especially to find information that may not be available in the books or in their lectures notes. By using this, students are able to gather as much information from wider perspectives and not just from their lecturers in which they can share it back with others during discussion. Some lecturers in certain universities have been conducting online quizzes and assessment for their students. This is also an example on an e-learning activity without even knowing that they are actually implementing e-learning in their learning process.


106

Higher-order Thinking

In this section, I will explain the results of the HOTS level skills for the four universities such as Creating (C6), Evaluating (C5), Analyzing (C4), Applying (C3), Understanding (C2) and Remembering (C1) as shown from the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in Figure 7.1.

Higher-order Thinking in E-learning among UMP Students

UMP was established as a public technical university by the Malaysian government on 16 February 2002. UMP was set up as a technical university specializing in engineering and technology. In what follows, the data that was obtained from the students of UMP by ten (10) e-learning activities have been identified according to Bloom’s Taxonomy levels, namely:

a) Discussion Board of Forum

Refering to Figure 7.2, Discussion Board of Forum shows that the highest percentage is 14, this means that 14% of the UMP students have been using Level C2 of understanding, followed by 12% using Level C4 of analyzing. This shows that during the discussion via forums in the UMP Learning Management System (LMS), students are able to understand thus analyzing the answer to give and also the answers provided by other students during the activity.

Figure 7.2: Discussion Board of Forum


107

b) Quiz or Assessment Online

As seen from Figure 7.3, Quiz or Assessment Online shows that 21% of the UMP students have been using Level C3 of applying, followed by 13% using Level C5 of evaluating. This shows that students are able to apply and evaluate the correct answer when the online quiz or assessment is administered.

Figure 7.3: Quiz or Assessment Online

c) Web 2.0 (Facebook, Blog, Wiki)

Refering to Figure 7.4, Web 2.0 (Facebook, Blog & Wiki) represents that the highest percentage is 12, meaning that 12% of the UMP students have been using Level C6 of Creating followed by 11% using Level C3 of Applying. This shows that students who use the Web 2.0 activities such as Facebook, Blog or Wiki are able to create new idea and information that they gained from using Web 2.0. Besides that, it also allows them to apply the information and knowledge obtained from using Web 2.0.


108

Figure 7.4: Web 2.0 (Facebook, Blog, Wiki)

d) e-Portfolio

Referring to Figure 7.5, e-Portfolio shows that 12% of the UMP students have been using Level C6 of Creating followed by 10% using Level C4 of Analyzing. This indicates that the e-Portfolio activities enables the students to come up with new ideas that can generate their interest and increase their understanding. It also exhibits that students can use, implement, compare, organize, deconstruct and find their ideas to develop e-Portfolio.

Figure 7.5: e-Portfolio


109

e) e-Mail

As seen from Figure 7.6, data analysis about e-mail shows that 22% of the UMP students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 9% using Level C4 of Analyzing. This indicates that using e-mail allows the students to apply the information and at the same time analyze the given information that seems appropriate for them to use.

Figure 7.6: e-Mail

f) Brainstorming

Referring to Figure 7.7, data analysis concerning Brainstorming shows that 15%, the highest percentage, of the UMP students have been using Level C2 of Understanding followed by 13% using Level C4 of Analyzing. This shows that during the Brainstorming activities the students can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate the answers.


110

Figure 7.7: Brainstorming

g) Online Presentation

Referring to Figure 7.8, data analysis about Online Presentation represents that 13%, as the highest percentage, of the UMP students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 12% using Level C2 of Understanding. This shows that during the Online Presentation activities, the students of UMP can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate their performance.

Figure 7.8: Online Presentation


111

h) Peer Review

As seen from Figure 7.9, data on Peer Review shows that 15%, as the highest percentage, of the UMP students have been using Level C4 of Analyzing followed by 11% using Level C1 of Remembering. This shows that students are able to analyze the information as well as are able to recognize, list, describe, identify, retrieve, name, locate and find the information.

Figure 7.9: Peer Review

i) Group Publishing

Referring to Figure 7.10, data analysis concerning Group Publishing shows that the highest percentage is 16%. This means that 16% of the UMP students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 12% using Level C2 of Understanding. This indicates that through group publishing activities students can use, implement, check, experiment, test, detect and monitor their information. Beside that, they can interpret, summarize, infer, paraphrase, classify, compare, explain and exemplify.


112

Figure 7.10: Group Publishing

j) SCL Through Online

As seen from Figure 7.11, data on SCL Through Online represents that 17%, the highest percentage, of the UMP students have been using Level C2 of Understanding followed by 11% using Level C3 Remembering. This indicates that from SCL activities, the students are able to interpret, summarize, infer, paraphrase, classify, compare, explain and exemplify.

Figure 7.11: SCL Through Online


113

Higher-order thinking in e-Learning among UKM Students

UKM is a public university located in Bangi, Selangor. UKM is one of the five research universities in the country. In the following section, the data that was obtained from the students of UKM by ten (10) e-Learning activities have been identified according to Bloom’s Taxonomy levels, namely:


As Figure 7.12 reveals, data on Discussion Board of Forum shows that 17%, as the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C2 of Understanding followed by 10% using Level C3 of Applying. This exhibits that during the discussion via forums in the UKM Learning Management System (LMS), students are able to understand thus applying the answer to be given and also the answers given by other students during the activity.



As seen from Figure 7.13, data concerning Quiz or Assessment Online shows that 10%, the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C2 of Understanding followed by 5% using Level C3 of Applying. This shows that students are able to interpret and explain the answers during online quizzes.


114



Refering to Figure 7.14, data on Web 2.0 (Facebook, Blog, Wiki) shows that 11%, as the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C3 of Applying and followed by 8% using Level C4 of Analyzing. This shows that when students use the Web 2.0 activities such as Facebook, blog or wiki, they can do implementing, sharing, uploading, and hacking. Besides that, it shows that students are able to analyze the data obtained from using such Websites.



115

d) e-Portfolio

Referring to Figure 7.15, data analysis on e-Portfolio shows that 20%, as the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 11% using Level C4 of Analyzing. This indicates that the e-Portfolio activities enables the students to use, implement, compare, organize, deconstruct and finetune their ideas to develop e-Portfolio.


e) e-Mail

As seen from Figure 7.16, data on e-mail shows that 15%, ah the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using both Level C2 of Analyzing and Level C3 of Applying followed by 9% using Level C5 of Evaluating and Level C6 of Creating. This indicates that as a result of using e-mail students are able to analyze and apply the information and at the same time evaluate the information to create information that seems appropriate for them to use.


116

Figure 7.16: e-Mail

f) Brainstorming

Referring to Figure 7.17, data analysis on Brainstorming shows that 15%, as the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C4 of Analyzing followed by 10% using Level C6 of Creating. This shows that during the brainstorming activities, the students can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate the answer.



117


Referring to Figure 7.18, data on Online Presentation represents that 16%, as the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 14% using Level C6 of Creating. This shows that during the online presentation activities, the students of UKM can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate their performance.


h) Peer Review

As seen from Figure 7.19, data on Peer Review shows that 16%, as the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C4 of Analyzing followed by 10% using Level C5 of Evaluating. This shows that students are able to analyze and evaluate the information and answer during peer review.


118


i) Group Publishing

Referring to Figure 7.20, data analysis concerning Group Publishing shows that 24%, as the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 11% using Level C6 of Creating. This indicates that through group publishing activities, students can use, implement, check, experiment, test, detect and monitor their information. Besides that, they can design, construct, plan, produce and publish their information with this activity.



119


As seen from Figure 7.21, data analysis on SCL Through Online discloses that 15%, as the highest percentage, of the UKM students have been using Level C2 of Understanding followed by 11% using Level C3 Applying. This indicates that by using SCL activities, the students can use, implement, compare, organize, check, and monitor their information.


Higher-order Thinking in e-Learning among UPSI Students

UPSI is a public university which plays an important part in the history of our nation’s education. This institution grows in stages from a college to renowned university. In what follows, the data that was obtained from the students of UPSI by ten (10) e-Learning activities have been identified according to Bloom’s Taxonomy levels, namely:


Referring to Figure 7.22, data on Discussion Board of Forum shows that 10%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C5 of Evaluating followed by 8% using Level C2 of Understanding. This shows that during the discussion via forums in the UPSI Learning Management System (LMS), students are able to create hypothesis, critique, experiment with the information as well as test the information. Students are also able to interpret, summarize and compare the information.


120



As seen from Figure 7.23, data analysis on Quiz or Assessment Online represents that 8%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 7% using Level C5 of Evaluating. This shows that students are able to implement and critique or comment on the answers during online quizzes.



121


Referring Figure 7.24, data analysis on Web 2.0 (Facebook, Blog, Wiki) shows that 10%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 6% using Level C6 of Creating. This shows that when students use the Web 2.0 activities such as Facebook, blog or wiki, they can compare, organize as well as deconstruct the idea. Besides that, it shows that students are able to construct or design based on the information gained from using such Websites.


d) e-Portfolio

Referring to Figure 7.25, data analysis on e-Portfolio exhibits that 10%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C3 of Applying and level C6 of Creating, followed by 4% using Level C2 of Understanding and Level C4 of Analyzing. This indicates that with e-Portfolio activities, students are able to design, plan, construct, produce, implement, use and execute the idea.


122


e) e-Mail

Referring to Figure 7.26, data analysis on e-Mail shows that 10%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C2 of Analyzing followed by 9% using Level C3 of Applying. This indicates that using e-Mail allows students to analyze and apply the information and at the same time evaluate the information to create information that seems appropriate to use.

Figure 7.26: e-Mail


123

f) Brainstorming

Referring to Figure 7.27, data analysis on Brainstorming represents that 11%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C4 of Analyzing followed by 6% using Level C2 of Understanding. This shows that during the brainstorming activities, the students can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate the answer.



As seen from Figure 7.28, data analysis on Online Presentation shows that 8%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C2 of Understanding followed by 7% using Level C4 of Analysing. This shows that during the online presentation activities, the students of UPSI can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate their performance.



124

h) Peer Review

As it can be seen from Figure 7.29, data analysis concerning Peer Review shows that 15%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C5 of Evaluating followed by 7% using Level C4 of Analyzing. This shows that students are able to analyze and evaluate the information and answers during peer review.


i) Group Publishing

Referring to Figure 7.30, data analysis on Group Publishing represents that 12%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C6 of Creating followed by 7% using Level C3 of Applying. This indicates that through group publishing activities, students can design, construct and invent new idea based on the information obtained. Students are also able to implement and execute the information gained from the activity.



125


As seen from Figure 7.31, data analysis on SCL Through Online shows that 7%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using both Level C5 of Evaluating and Level C6 of Creating. It is then followed by 6% using Level C2 Understanding and Level C3 Applying. This indicates that by using SCL activities, the students can construct, produce devise and critique as well as test the information.


Higher-order Thinking in e-Learning among UPM Students

UPM is a recognized by the independent government assessments as one of Malaysia’s leading research universities. Founded in 1931 as the School of Agriculture, the University today combines impressive modern facilities and a dynamic approach to teaching and research. In the following section, the data that was obtained from the students of UPM by ten (10) e-Learning activities have been identified according to Bloom’s Taxonomy levels, namely:


Referring to Figure 7.32, data anlysis on Discussion Board of Forum shows that 14%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 13% using Level C2 of Understanding and Level C5 of Evaluating. This shows that during the discussion via forums in the UPM Learning Management System (LMS), students are able to implement, carry out experiment and apply the information. Students are also able to create hypothesis, critique, experiment with the information as well as test the information.


126



As it can be seen from Figure 7.33, data analysis on Quiz or Assessment Online represents that 18%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 14% using Level C2 of Understanding. This shows that students are able to implement and critique or comment on the answers during online quizzes.



127


Referring to Figure 7.34, data analysis on Web 2.0 (Facebook, Blog, Wiki) shows that 20%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 16% using Level C6 of Creating. This shows that when students use the Web 2.0 activities such as Facebook, blog or wiki, so they can compare, organize as well as deconstruct the idea. Besides that, it shows that students are able to construct or design based on the information gained from using such Websites.


d) e-Portfolio

Refering to Figure 7.35, data analysis on e-Portfolio discloses that 21%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C3 of Applying and level C6 of Creating, followed by 7% using Level C2 of Understanding and Level C4 of Analyzing. This indicates that by using e-Portfolio activities, students are able to design, plan, construct, produce, implement, use and execute the idea.


128


e) e-Mail

As seen from Figure 7.36, data on e-Mail shows that 27%, as the highest percentage, of the UPSI students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 9% using Level C6 of Creating. This indicates that using e-Mail enables students to implement and execute the information and at the same time design, construct and create new idea.

Figure 7.36: e-Mail


129

f) Brainstorming

Refering to Figure 7.37, data analysis concerning Brainstorming represents that 16%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C6 of Creating followed by 14% using Level C4 of Analyzing. This shows that during the brainstorming activities, the students can design, construct and invent new information from the answer.



Referring to Figure 7.38, data analysis on Online Presentation shows that 26%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 18% using Level C6 of Creating. This shows that during the online presentation activities, the students of UPM can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate their performance.



130

h) Peer Review

As seen from Figure 7.39, data on Peer Review delineates that 21%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 15% using Level C5 of Evaluating. This shows that students are able to apply and evaluate the information and answers during peer review.


i) Group Publishing

Referring to Figure 7.40, data analysis on Group Publishing shows that 25%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 10% using Level C6 of Creating. This indicates that in group publishing activities students can design, construct and create new idea based on the information obtained. Students are also able to implement and execute the information gained.



131


Referring to Figure 7.41, data analysis on SCL Through Online reveals that 23%, as the highest percentage, of the UPM students have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 10% using Level C5 Evaluating. This indicates that by using SCL activities, the students can implement, carry out testing and execute the information.


Higher-Order Thinking in e-Learning among UTeM Students

UTeM is the first technical university in Malaysia. Most faculties at UTeM are on set-up to focus on domains such as Engineering, Information Technology and Business. In what follows, the data that was obtained from the students of UTeM by ten (10) e-Learning activities have been identified according to Bloom’s Taxonomy levels, namely:


Referring to Figure 7.42, data analysis on Discussion Board of Forum shows that 37%, as the highest percentage, of the students’ UTeM have been using Level C4 of Analyzing followed by 33% using Level C2 of Understanding. This shows that during the discussion via forums in the Learning Management System (LMS), the students of UTeM can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate the answer to be given and also the answers given by other students during the activity.


132



As it can be seen from Figure 7.43, data analysis concerning Quiz or Assessment Online shows that 33%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C2 of Understanding followed by 30% using Level C3 of Applying. This shows that students are able to interpret and explain the answers during online quizzes.



133


Referring to Figure 7.44, data analysis on Web 2.0 (Facebook, Blog, Wiki) represents that 30%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 24% using Level C6 of Creating. This shows that when students use the Web 2.0 activities such as Facebook, blog or wiki, they can do implementing, sharing, uploading and hacking. Besides that, students can design, construct, plan, produce and publish their information with this activities.

Figure 7.44: Web 2.0 (Facebook, Blog & Wiki)

d) e-Portfolio

As seen from Figure 7.45, data analysis regarding e-Portfolio shows that 30%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 22% using Level C4 of Analyzing. This indicates that the e-Portfolio activities enable students to use, implement, compare, organize, deconstruct and finetune their ideas to develop e-Portfolio.


134


e) e-Mail

Referring to Figure 7.46, data analysis on e-Mail discloses that 39%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 22% using Level C2 Analyzing and C5 of Evaluating. This indicates that the e-Mail activities enable students to use, implement, check, experiment, test, detect and monitor their information.

Figure 7.46: e-Mail


135

f) Brainstorming

Referring to Figure 7.47, data analysis on Brainstorming shows that 39%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C4 of Analyzing followed by 20% using Level C2 of Understanding. This shows that during the brainstorming activities, the students of UTeM can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate the answer.



Referring to Figure 7.48, data analysis on Online Presentation reveals that 39%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C4 of Analyzing followed by 20% using Level C2 of Understanding. This shows that during the online presentation activities, the students of UTeM can interpret, summarize, explain, compare, organize and integrate their performance.



136

h) Peer Review

As it can be seen from Figure 7.49, data analysis on Peer Review shows that 33%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C3 of Applying followed by 30% using Level C2 of Understanding. This shows that students are able to interpret and explain the answers during peer review.


i) Group Publishing

Referring to Figure 7.50, data analysis on Group Publishing shows that 24%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C3 of Applying and C6 of Creating followed by 22% using Level C2. This indicates that the group publishing activities allow the students to use, implement, check, experiment, test, detect and monitor their information. Besides that, students can design, construct, plan, produce and publish their information with this activities.



137

) SCL Through Online

Referring to Figure 7.51, data analysis on SCL Through Online shows that 22%, as the highest percentage, of the students of UTeM have been using Level C5 of Evaluating followed by 20% using Level C3 Applying and C4 Analyzing. This indicates that the SCL activities enable the students to use, implement, compare, organize, check, and monitor their information.

Figure 7.51: SCL Trough Online

Implications and Recommendations

The study describes the level of cognitive learning in Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS) from the perspectives of 255 students from UKM, UMP, UPM, UPSI and UTeM. Based on the discussion of the above mentioned findings, there are several implications that can be addressed by HEIs and lecturers. The major implication is that e-Learning activities must be well-planned to take into account the demands of e-Learning to improve HOTS.

The HOTS for all five universities are still at a low level i.e. C3. Instructors should design activities that trigger and promote HOTS specifically for C4 and above. Instructors need training on best practises of e-Learning tools that promote HOTS. Web 2.0, e-portfolio, Brainstorming, group publishing are the most common activities among the students that contribute to the development of HOTS at C6 level (Creation) based on their perspective.

Active learning is one of the strategies to address the students’ needs and to ensure appropriate instructional design support for achieving HOTS. Blended learning and flipped classroom is appropriate environment for active learning to enhance students’ engagement. Educators and learners can co-create and organize the syllabus. Students have to take charge of their own learning. When applying technology to learning, certain activities can be utilized to bring about greater effect. We need to make it


138

interactive. Students need to connect, communicate, collaborate, think critically to achieve higher order thinking skills.

References

Garrison, D. R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 7(1), 95-105.

Garrison, D. R. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.

Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-learning pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education, 4(3–4), 287–299.

Keller, C., & Cernerud, L. (2002). Students’ perceptions of e-learning in university education. Journal of Educational Media, 27(1 – 2), 55 – 67.

Mohammad Basir Bakhtyari & Hafizoah Kassim. (2014). Effects of online tools utilization on thinking skills: Afghanistan students’ perceptions, Research Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(6), 9-14.

Ong, C. & Lai, J. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions relationship among dominants of e- learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior. 22(1), 816-829.

Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computer and Education 49(1), 396-413

Wu J., Tennyson, R.D., & Hsia, T. (2010). A Study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computer & Education 55(1), 155-164.

Zhang, D. (2005). Interactive multimedia-based e-learning: A study of effectiveness. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 149-162.

Chapter

8

Analysis of Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’

Behavioural Intention to Use Web-based Interactive Learning Tools

Azizul Yadi YaakopUniversiti Malaysia Terengganu

Introduction

The use of the Internet for teaching and learning, particularly Web 2.0 edutools, has received increasing attention over the recent years. There are a few push factors which have made the role of Web-based interactive learning indispensable. Among others, this trend is related to the increase in advanced information technology and internet bandwidth supported by a proper well-planned and conducive e-learning environment. Mitra and Steffensmeier (2000) found that there was a positive correlation between students’ attitudes toward computer in general and a computer-enriched learning environment. Other push factors that may shape this trend include students’ demographic factors, educational delivery market and innovation technology itself (Concannon, Flynn & Campbell, 2005).

In Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), one of its missions is to produce graduates who are sensitive to the idea of management and responsive to change and are role models to the students and community. Among a few approaches to materialize this mission is integrating interactive learning experience. Today, lecturers are seen to have a growing interest in integrating Internet-based technologies into their classroom together with the conventional way as part of the learning environment. However,

Chapter

8


142

there are barriers to the integration of technology into higher education, such as technology infrastructure, faculty effort, technology satisfaction and graduates competency (Surry, Ensminger & Haab, 2005). This will lead to frustration amongst lecturers and students in Web-based learning. Prior to the identification of the problems encountered by UMT in implementing effective Web-based interactive learning, a preliminary exploratory study is deemed necessary to understand students’ acceptance and adoption to this new approach.

Literature Review

The use of Web-based interactive learning is not only to provide an alternative platform for teaching and learning, but also, most importantly, to improve learning experience and effectiveness. McArthur, Parker and Giersch (2003) believe that the use of online functions can enhance traditional teacher-centered courses. Some studies even showed that students in e-learning outperformed those in traditional classes (Kenkonen-Moneta & Moneta, 2002). Nanayakkara (2007) argued that release time, the ease of use, perceived usefulness, training and support and reliability are the five most essential factors for e-learning systems. Though Web-based learning is increasingly common in tertiary education, Smith and Rupp (2004) and Hill (2000) suggested that new users who first received Web-based instruction might have the need for more initial training and more feedback. It must be mentioned that technology used in the classroom sometime was unrelated or even became a barrier to a course (Kingsley, 2007). Although it is obvious that the trend of using Web-based interactive learning tools is on the rise, yet little research has been conducted to verify students’ adoption and acceptance towards this technology, especially in Malaysia. Yi and Hwang (2003) argued that identifying the critical factors related to user acceptance of technology continues to be an important issue considering the growing reliance on information systems and increasing rapidity of the introduction of new technologies into learning environment.

Application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) would seem to be favourably suitable to indicate the understanding of the conceptual issues related to the use Web-based interactive learning tools. Use of the TAM is predicated on individuals having control over whether or not they use the tools (Pearlson & Saunders, 2006). TAM presumes that behavioral intention is formed as a result of conscious decision-making processes (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). The factors widely accepted and used in the model are namely, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), attitudes towards usage (ATU)(Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000; Davis, 1989). Other dimensions commonly used includes perceived Website quality (PWC), computer self-efficacy and attitudes towards Web-based interactive learning (AT), the user’s skills and capabilities and the user’s beliefs and attitude towards the tools (Davis, 1989; Gao, 2005; Ma & Liu, 2005; McKinnon & Igonor, 2008). The behavioural intention to use (BIU) is an important factor that determines whether users will actually utilise the tools.

Analysis of Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’ Behavioural Intention

143

Some questions that need to be answered by the end of the study, inter alia,:

1) Can Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) be used as an integrated theoretical model to explain students’ intention to use Web-based interactive learning tools?

2) What are the main constructs that influence students’ intention to use Web-based interactive learning tools?

3) What is the order of importance of these constructs?4) How can these findings benefit the educators?

Research Model and Hypotheses

This study proposed an integrated theoretical framework of students’ Web-based interactive learning tools acceptance and intention to use based mainly on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The objectives of the study were to analyze the relationship of students’ intention to use Web-based interactive tools with selected constructs such as perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and attitude toward the usage (ATU) that would provide faculties and lecturers with implications for better implementation of Web-based interactive learning. The definitions of the constructs are presented in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Construct Definitions

NO. CONSTRUCT DEFINITION

1. Perceived usefulness (PU) The degree to which an individual believes that using Web-based interactive learning tools would enhance his or her performance in the course

2. Perceived ease of use (PEOU) The degree to which an individual believes that using the system would be free of cognitive effort

3. Attitude toward usage (ATU) The evaluative effect of positive or negative feeling of individuals in performing a particular behaviour

4. Behavioural intention to use (BIU)

Individual’s intention to use Web-based interactive tools.

Source: Shroff, Deneen& Ng (2011); Ajzen and Fishbein (2000)

TAM suggests that actual usage of the system is determined by the users’ behavioural intention to use the system, determined by users’ attitude towards using the system and their perceived usefulness and ease of use of the system (Davis, et al., 1989). Based on the underlying assumptions suggested by TAM, this study tested the following hypotheses:

H1: Perceived usefulness (PU) is a significant predictor of behavioral intention to use (BIU)

H2: Perceived ease of use (PEOU) is a significant predictor of behavioral intention to use (BIU)


144

H3: Attitude towards usage (ATU) is a significant predictor of behavioral intention to use (BIU)

H4: Attitude towards usage (ATU) is a mediator in the relationship between PU, PEOU and BIU

Figure 8.1: A conceptual framework of behavioural intention to use Web–based interactive learning tools

As seen in Figure 8.1, this conceptual framework is incorporating perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and attitude towards usage (ATU) as the observed factors for behavioural intention to use (BIU).


This study used purposive sampling method because the scope is limited to students who attended Marketing Communication and Tourism Marketing courses during semester 2, session 2103/2014 in Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT). During the semester, these two courses employed interactive lectures via Web 2.0 edutools like blendspace.com, voicethread.com and padlet.com. A total of 174 (N=174) undergraduate students constituted a sufficient pool of available subjects, who fit well within the context and purpose of this study. All students participated in the survey. The courses ran from February until May 2013 over a period of approximately 14 weeks.

This study is a quantitative study. A set of questionnaire which consisted of two sections was distributed at the end of week 14. Section 1 aimed to gather the socio-demographic background of each respondent. There were seven questions regarding the socio-demographic profiles of respondents such as gender, bachelor programme and respondents’ level of knowledge and experience with Web-based interactive lecture. Meanwhile, Section 2 of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to variables measuring TAM. Data collected was coded and recorded in SPSS for descriptive statistical analyses. In order to test the hypotheses, post-hoc analysis was carried out via hierarchical multiple regression.


145

Findings

Descriptive statistics

The respondents’ demographic characteristics are presented in Table 8.2. The descriptive statistics of the four constructs are shown in Table 8.3. All means are above the midpoint of 3.00. The standard deviations range from 0.78 to 0.90 indicating a narrow spread around the mean.

Table 8.2: Demographic characteristics (N=174)

Item Responses

Have you used Web-based Interactive tool before taking this class?

Never Once 2 – 3 times More than 3 times

51% 36% 11% 2%

What is your self-assessment about using Web-based Interactive tools?

Low experience

Moderate experience High experience

48% 43% 9%After working with the Web-based Interactive tools in this class, how experienced would you judge yourself to be?

Low experience

Moderate experience High experience

24% 68% 8%

With regard to technology in general, how would you describe yourself?

Novice user Intermediate user Advanced user

17 69 14

GenderMale Female

21 79

What is your bachelor programme?

SMP (Pemasaran) SMP (Pelancongan)

44 56

Table 8.3: Summary of means and standard deviations (N=174)

Constructs Questions Mean STD. DEV

Perceived usefulness (PU) Q4 3.28 0.84

Q8 3.37 0.85

Q10 3.33 0.79

Q15 3.58 0.79

Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Q2 3.47 0.80

Q6 3.34 0.88

Q9 3.24 0.77

Q11 3.53 0.84

Q17 3.47 0.80


146

Attitude towards usage (ATU) Q3 3.60 0.85

Q7 3.67 0.83

Q12 3.60 0.83

Q16 3.59 0.85

Behavioural intention to use (BIU) Q1 3.20 0.78

Q5 3.25 0.88

Q13 3.53 0.90

Q14 3.52 0.85

Hypothesis Testing: Post-hoc Analysis

In general, a mediation relationship is proposed because it demonstrates a causal chain that takes place among events (variables). This sequential effect describes how and why such association occurs. In this particular study, the main concern is directed to the mediating mechanism involved in the relationship between antecedents of attitudes towards usage (ATU), i.e. perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and behavioural intention to use (BIU). This description of mediation is consistent with the guidelines of mediator effect as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986).

In TAM, PU and PEOU are considered cognitive factors, whereas ATU has been identified as a factor that guides future behaviour or the cause of intention that ultimately leads to a particular behaviour, in this instance, (BIU). In order to substantiate the theory, a post-hoc analysis was performed to understand the relationship between PU, PEOU, ATU and the dependent variable, BIU. A test for mediation using hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test the mediating role of ATU in the relationship between its antecedents and BIU.

Baron and Kenny (1986) have set three prerequisite equations prior to establishing the mediational model: firstly, the independent variables must have significant associations with the dependent variable in the first equation; secondly, the independent variables must have significant associations with the mediator in the second equation; and, finally, the mediator must affect the dependent variable in the third equation. Perfect mediation is established if the independent variables have no significant associations when the mediator is controlled (in the third equation). If the independent variables still have significant associations to a reduced level in the third equation, a partial mediation is formed.

Table 8.4 presents the three set of regression analyses performed to establish the role of ATU as a mediator in the relationship between its antecedents (i.e. PU & PEOU) and BIU (dependent variable) as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). Prior to the analysis, preliminary tests were carried out to confirm that the assumption of multicollinearity is not violated.

In Model 1, the regression analysis found significant associations between PU, PEOU and BIU (R2= 0.638, F(2, 171) = 150.556, p = 0.00). Both perceived usefulness


147

and perceived ease of use were significant (PU, beta = 0.569; PEOU, beta = 0.272). Another regression analysis was performed to examine the association between the independent variables and the mediator (Model 2). In this model, the independent variables also indicated a significant effect on the mediator (R2= 0.676, F(2, 171) = 178.620, p = 0.00). A final regression analysis was performed by regressing all independent variables and the mediator on the dependent variable (Model 3). In this model, the mediator (ATU) was significant (beta = 0.246, p = 0.00). Due to the reduced effect of the independent variables in Model 3, these results establish a perfect mediation of ATU in the relationship between PEOU and BIU (see Figure 8.2). However, PU still had an effect on BIUwhen the mediator was controlled, thus supporting a partial mediating role of APrint in the relationship between the two variables.

Table 8.4: Regression testing the mediating effect of ATU on the relationship between PU and PEOU and BIU

MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3

Dependent variable

BIU ATU BIU

Independent /Mediating

variables

Beta t-value Beta t-value Beta t-value

PU 0.569** 7.798 0.339** 4.916 0.485** 6.385

PEOU 0.272** 3.372 0.531** 7.702 0.141 1.713

ATU 0.246** 3.122

Constant 0.942 1.923 0.942

Multiple R 0.799 0.822 0.811

R2 0.638 0.676 0.651

F test statistic/significance

F(2,171)=150.556p=0.00

F(2,171)=178.620p=0.00

F(3,170)=108.756p=0.00

** significant at the p < 0.001


148

Figure 8.2: Relationship between PU, PEOU, ATUand BIU

From the above hierarchical multiple regression, Table 8.5 shows the result of the hypotheses tests.

Table 8.5: Hypotheses testing results

Hypothesis Path Results

H1 PU à BIU Supported

H2 PEOU àBIU Supported

H3 ATU à BIU Supported

H4 PEOU, OPU à ATU àBIU Supported

Discussion and Conclusion

In general, the findings suggest that TAM can be applied legitimately in the context of determining students’ behavioral intention to use Web-based interactive learning tools. All hypotheses were supported. A closer look at the constructs proved a full mediating role of attitude towards usage (ATU) between perceived ease of use (PEOU) and behavioural intention to use (BIU). Perceived usefulness (PU); however, was partially mediated by ATU.

Although PEOU had a significant effect on ATU which led to a significant effect on BIU, PU remained the main construct that influences students’ behavioural intention to use Web based interactive tools. The significant PEOU-ATU-BIU relationship is consistent with prior research (Davis, 1989; Hu et al., 1999; Shroff et al., 2011); which explains why students may have intention to use the system when they perceive it as easy to use.

Knowing that students have already perceived the usefulness of the system and the fact that the perception leads to favourable intention to use it, it becomes apparent and easier for educators to encourage and promote more interactive lectures via Web-based learning tools. The challenge now is to educate them on how easy it is to utilise the tools and the technology. When selecting a Web 2.0 edutool for adoption, it is necessary for the administrator and faculty members to master the benefits and features so that shared knowledge can easily be imparted to the students. Increased


149

understanding facilitates favourable ease of use perception, which in turn motivates the intention to use.

References

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 1-33). John Wiley & Sons.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(16), 1173-1182.

Concannon, F., Flynn A., & Campbell. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 501–512.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

Davis, F. D. Bagozzi, R. P., &Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.

Gao, Y. (2005). Applying the technology acceptance model (TAM) to educational hypermedia: A field study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 237-247.

Hill, J. R. (2000). Web-Based bnstruction: Prospects and challenges. Educational Media And Technology Yearbook, 25, 141-155.

Kekkonen-moneta, S., & Moneta, G. B. (2002). E-learning in Hong Kong: Comparing learning outcomes in online multimedia and lecture versions of an introductory computing course. British Journal of EducationalTechnology.33(4), 423-433.

Kingsley, K. V. (2007). Empower diverse learners with educational technology and digital media. Intervention inSchool and Clinic, 43(1), 52-56.

Ma, Q. & Liu, L. (2005). The role of internet self-efficacy in the acceptance of Web-based electronic medical records. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 17(1), 38-57.

McArthur, D., Parker, A., & Giersch, S. (2003). Why plan for e-learning? Strategic issues for institutions and faculty in higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 31(4), 20-28.

McKinnon, K. & Igonor, A. (2008). Explaining elearning perceptions using the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior. In C. Bonk et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. http://www.editlib.org/p/30092

Mitra, A., & Steffensmeier, T. (2000). Changes in student attitudes and student computer use in a computer-enriched environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 417-433.

Nanayakkara, C. (2007). A model of user acceptance of learning management systems: A study within tertiary institutions in New Zealand, Educause Australasia 2007, available at http://www.caudit.edu.au/educauseaustralasia07/authors_papers/Nanayakkara-361.pdf.

Pearlson, K. E., & Saunders, C. S. (2006). Managing & using information systems: A strategic approach. John Wiley & Sons.

Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C. & Ng, E. M. W. (2011). Analysis of the technology model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600-618.


150

Smith, T., Rupp, F. (2004). Innovation in open & distance learning. Kogan Page London.

Surry, D. W., Ensminger, D. C., & Haab, M. (2005). A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 327–329.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis F. D. & Davis, G. B. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.

Yi, M., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 431–449.

Chapter

9

Use of Google Scholar-Informed Pattern Hunting (GSIPH) for Enhancing Writing

Ebrahim Panah, Mohamed Amin Embi & Melor Md YunusUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Introduction

It is widely accepted that patterns are prevalent in all aspects of life and there is no exception for language. Scholars accept that pattern encompasses phrases, collocations (lexical and grammatical), colligations and every combination of multi-words (Romer, 2009; Wood, 1981). Studies have reported that patterns constitute over 50% of written and spoken languages (Erman & Warren, 2000). Given the importance of patterns in language teaching and learning, teachers have been seeking for proper ways to teach their students natural patterns. It is argued that even teachers themselves find it a challenging issue to use natural and appropriate patterns and they mostly rely on their intuitions (Liu & Jian, 2009) or consult dictionaries (Wu, 2010). In either case, challenges face the teacher and learners. For example, teachers’ intuitions, as non-native speakers of English, are not always reliable and also dictionaries cannot cover a wide range of natural patterns the students need to learn.

Hence, based on the above-mentioned issues, some scholars have introduced language corpus as a solution. A pioneer researcher who took initiative in this field and first introduced classroom concordancing and subsequently termed using language corpus as Data Driven Learning (DDL) was John Tim (1991). Following Tims’ DDL, many researchers have conducted studies in this area and come up with promising results (Boulton, 2012; Gilmore, 2009). Some researchers have introduced corpora like British National Corpus (BNC), Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), etc. for language learning (Cheng, 2011; Leech, 1992). Some scholars have introduced them

Chapter

9


154

as research tool for language learning through DDL and discovery learning (Granger, Hung & Petch-Tyson, 2002), while others have introduced them as reference tool for solving language learners’ problems specifically in terms of patterns in writing (Kennedy & Melice, 2010; Yoon, 2005, 2008; Yoon, 2014). Kennedy and Mecile (2010) have researched corpora for pattern hunting. Pattern-hunting tends to encourage novice and apprentice writers to explore grammatical and lexical patterns that they might otherwise be unaware of, or misuse, or even avoid.

Nevertheless, while many scholars have highlighted the importance of online corpora as reference tools for solving language problems, as highlighted by Sha (2010), such corpora have some deficiencies and constrictions, for example:

- They are not capable of providing as many authentic usages and expressions as needed;

- They are not simple to use; the user has to learn complicated query syntax;

- They cannot guarantee a high search speed;

- They cannot be simultaneously used by thousands of students;

- They require no registration or client installation;

- They are not cost-effective in the long run.

To address these problems, some scholars have introduced Web as corpus and Google as concordancer (Conroy, 2010; Geluso, 2013; Panah, Yunus & Embi, 2013; Sha, 2010; Shei, 2008). Shei (2008, p.70) argues, “Google can offer solutions to many of the research questions in phraseology which even a billion-word corpus can hardly handle”. Thus, Google can keep abreast of a wide range of natural language patterns invaluable to language learning. Second, its user-friendly interface and high-speed search are appreciated by numerous users (Conroy, 2010; Sha, 2010). Third, Google has the power of offering correct spelling, a characteristics which is of paramount importance, but most of other concordancers lack. Fourth, the retrieved word or pattern is in bold type and easy to check up on (vs. BNC). Also, if the hits are more than 1000, Google will only exhibit the first 1000 (Sha, 2010).

However, using Google as a concordancer would not be without limitations. Briefly speaking, Web content, by nature, is enormously heterogeneous and there is a mishmash of different genres, registers and linguistic varieties, which can pose a challenge for learners who wish to use it as a supporting reference tool for their academic writing (Wu et al., 2009). Furthermore, the Web contains a large number of lexical and grammatical errors made by both L1 and L2 speakers of the target language (Yoon 2014). Google Scholar (GS) search engine that is more specialized is utilized to address, if not all, these weaknesses. First, as GS searches only a database pertinent to scholarly literature, it can be used when the user intends to confine his/her queries to academic registers, presumed to contain much fewer lexical and grammatical errors compared to language data extracted from the entire Web may have (Yoon, 2014). Second, it is accepted that GS text is mostly produced by native speakers or professionals adding to the validity of data obtained by this tool (Berizna,

Use of Google Scholar-Informed Pattern Hunting (GSIPH)for Enhancing Writing

155

2012). Therefore, language learners can use GS as a reference tool to solve their writing problems by using Google Scholar Informed Pattern Hunting (GSIPH) tool.

Problem Statement

While literature evidences that Google Scholar can have an important role in providing second language writers with immediate support for extracting natural patterns lexically and grammatically accurate and natural in their writing (Berizna, 2012), as discussed earlier, little research has been undertaken to give a comprehensive picture of how second language writers autonomously employ Web as corpus and Google Scholar as a concordancer for referencing purposes while producing authentic academic writing. Most past studies have used classroom tasks to see how students improve their writing through corpus consultation (Geluso, 2013; Gilmore, 2008; O’Sullivan & Chambers, 2006), while very few studies have looked into corpora as a reference tools for addressing writing problem through hunting and eliciting natural patterns (Kennedy & Miceli, 2010; Yoon, 2008).

To sum up, majority of past studies have examined corpora as a research tool for language learning with the focus on classroom tasks, while data on the use of Web as corpus and Google Scholar as a matching concordancer for referencing purposes through GSIPH tool is absent in the literature.

Research Objectives

The objective of this study was to explore how Malaysian pre-service trainee teachers (PTTs) use Google Scholar to extract and elicit natural patterns including collocations (lexical and grammatical), phrases, etc. through Google Scholar Informed Pattern Hunting (GSIPH) tool for compensatory purpose (to cover their lack of knowledge or temporary memory lapse in terms of natural patterns) while producing authentic writing project for the course.

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative study to explore how Malaysian pre-service trainee teachers (PTTs) use Google Scholar to extract natural patterns from Web to solve their authentic writing problems in terms of patterns. Open-ended questions, semi-structured interview and document analysis were used to obtain data. Seventeen PTTs answered open-ended questions, while 5 and 6 student teachers participated in the pre- and post-training interview respectively. To analyze the obtained data from open-ended questions and interview, thematic analysis was used, while the data from document produced by PTTs was analyzed using frequency. Prior to training the PTTs in GSIPH, they were interviewed to explore their familiarity with and use of corpus tools and Google Scholar for language learning and writing improvement.


156

Findings and Discussion

Respondents’ Demographics

The respondents are made up of 17 PTTs studying at UKM second semester year 2013-2014. Table 9.1 illustrates some basic demographic data about them. As the Table shows, 17 PTTs taking the TESL writing course answered the research questions. The actual and workable return rate of questionnaire was 95%. The majority of respondents were females (15 females and 2 males). All of the respondents comprised TESL PTTs who aged 22. They were third year TESL PTTs.

Table 9.1 Respondent’s demographic information

No Age Group

Gender Education Year Ethnic Group Web Literacy in TESL

program

Status

1 22 Male Third year Malay 1 PTT

2 22 Female Third year Malay 4 + PTT

3 22 Female Third year Malay 2 PTT




7 22 Female Third year Chinese 4 + PTT










17 22 Male Third year Malay 4 + PTT


157

Pre-training Finding

The finding of pre-training study revealed that none of the PTTs were familiar with corpus tools and Google Scholar (GS) as a reference tool for language learning, solving writing problem or writing improvement. The study reported that only four respondents used GS for extracting articles, while two of them were even unaware of the existence of GS.

As Table 9.1 shows, only 2 out of 17 (11.78%) PTTs used GS prior to this course; however, their use was only limited to finding journals and articles. In fact, none of them had used GS tools (GSIPH & GSIPD) for the purpose of language learning or writing improvement; even they had no knowledge about them. This is because GS was unfamiliar and new for them, as four of them admitted that prior to the course they even were not familiar with Google Scholar. ROQ 4 _1 acknowledged “I have never heard about Google Scholar”. Similarly, ROQ 5_2 confirms “Before I took this class, Google scholar has never come across my mind and I don’t even know its existence”. Correspondingly, ROQ 7_1 approved “actually, [I] do not know the Web corpus accessible by Google Scholar”. Lastly, ROQ 10_1 accepted “I was unaware that Google Scholar exists”. Based on the excerpts above, 4 out of 17 PTTs even were not aware of the existence of GS. This is because they have not been introduced to new academic search engines like GS. Correspondingly, the interview findings support the data obtained from the open-ended questions. Regarding their use of GSIPH prior to this course, ROI 3_1 states that: “I have never heard about Google Scholar before, but I am an active user of Google”. ROI 4 _1 acknowledged: “I just search Web by using Google”. This discloses that GS is even a new phenomenon for some of them.

Past study on Malaysian PTTs’ use of search engines has shown that they have problem in using search engines for searching articles (Teck-Chai, 2010). It was recommended that they should be trained in searching for both research content and language form. Likewise, Margaryan, Littlejohn and Vojt (2011) investigated university students’ use of search engines including GS and digital technologies and found out that 2 out of 8 interviewees had never heard of GS. So, in the present study, training was needed to introduce PTTs to new language learning and writing improvement tool. Regarding the importance of training, Stapleton and Radia (2010:177) suggested: “it appears that while corpus tools can bring clear advantages to the composing of some L2 students, both training and motivation to take extra steps to use them are necessary”. Thus, this course and the training in GSIPH tool offered can be important for two reasons: first, the PTTs were introduced to GSIPH tool useful for language learning in general and solving academic writing problems (in terms of pattern) in particular. Second, some of them were introduced to a powerful search engine capable of extracting a wide range of articles from the year 1700-today (Brezina, 2012). This can be exciting as some respondents were not familiar with GS even as a search engine. Table 9.2 presents a comparison of use of GSIPH pre and post-training.


158

Table 9.2 The comparison of GSIPH tool use pre and post training

No.GSIPH Use Purpose

Pre-training

Post-training Pre-training Post-training

R1 × √ × Collocation


R3 × √ × Collocation, vocabulary


R5 × √ × Collocation: phrasal verb

R6 × √ × Collocation: Noun phrase

R7 √ √ Finding journal Collocation, phrasal verb

R8 √ √ Finding journal Collocation

R9 × √ × passive


R11 × √ × Collocation: Noun phrase

R12 × √ × Collocation: Phrasal verb






Frequency 2 17 2

Total 2 17 2

As Table 9.2 illustrates, after training, all of PTTs have used GSIPH tool. They have used this tool to hunt and elict natural patterns including collocations, phrasal verb, noun phrase and vocabulary. Collocations (lexical and grammatical) constitute the most extracted kinds of patterns. It should be mentioned that collocation includes lexical collocation (a combination of parts of speech together) and grammatical collocation (a combination of parts of speech with prepositions).

Post-training Evaluation of GSIPH by PTTs

In this section, TESL PTTs view of the effectiveness of GSIPH tool for compensatory purpose in regard to language problem solving and writing improvement is discussed. The data obtained from the document analysis is also presented. Then, the use of this tool for improvements in terms of different patterns (as sub-themes of writing improvement) is elaborated on. Figure 9.1 illustrates the codes and the theme compensation.


159

Figure 9.1: The Codes and the Theme Compensation

Findings of Open-ended Questions

Data analysis reveals that PTTs have used GSIPH for compensatory purpose to cover their limitation, memory lapse or lack of knowledge of patterns. In doing so, the respondents’ remarks demonstrate that they have used this tool for different purposes. ROQ1_2 declares that she has used GSIPH “to find the natural pattern”. This portraits PTTs’ concern about the naturalness of the patterns they use in their writing. It is argued that ESL learners as non-native speakers of English may produce patterns in their writing which are affected by their first language and the word combination that they produce may not collocate together (Mull, 2013).

Correspondingly, some respondents have mentioned that they used this tool to elicit a wide range of patterns used by scholars and expert writers. This adds to the significance of appropriate and natural patterns to PTTs. This is well expressed in ROQ2_2 statement: “different types of sentence/structure patterns that are widely used by scholars”. They also state that they extracted appropriate and useful patterns for their writing improvement. This is reflected in ROQ4_2 and ROQ12_2 remarks respectively: ROQ4_2 asserts that she utilized GSIPH “for finding the useful pattern to use in writing”. Accordingly, ROQ12_2 sums up: “because it helps me in fining the most appropriate phrase”.

Data shows that PTTs have used GSIPH for compensatory purpose which is sub-themed to lexical and grammatical collocations. ROQ12_2 acknowledges that she has elicited some patterns using GSIPH: “verb patterns, phrasal verbs, and adjective usage.” ROQ13_2 exemplifies some of her experiences with GSIPH as “phrasal verbs, verb patterns”. In addition to patterns, some have used this tool to elicit new vocabulary


160

for writing project. This discloses that to enrich their writing, they may use GSIPH as a supplement to dictionaries for finding new words. ROQ5_2 agrees he has appreciated the use of numerous patterns offered by GS useful during writing her course project. She explains: “the GSIPH helps me enhance my ESL writing by providing paramount example of phrases, new words, etc. that is purposeful in my assignments”. ROQ8_2 claims: “I used GSIPH, because I like to learn new words”. This finding reveals that GS can be used as a supplement to dictionaries for learning new words and this essentially frees learner from depending on dictionary. While dictionaries help learners learn the meaning of new words, they cannot elicit different patterns of words offered by GS.

Overall, based on the data from the open-ended questionnaire, the PTTs have used GSIPH for compensatory purpose by eliciting lexical collocation, grammatical collocation and new words valuable for enriching their writing.

Findings of Interview

As discussed in the previous section, the PTTs have used GSIPH for compensatory purposes while they mostly elicited lexical and grammatical collocations along with new words for writing improvement. The interview finding also corroborates the finding of questionnaire. Due to the importance of producing essays and assignments which are natural and accurate in terms of patterns, students find it a challenge to find reliable resource. On one hand, the university lecturers and staff take it for granted and normally do not attend to the issue of proofreading and editing. On the other hand, the students, even at advanced level, feel like that due to memory lapse or lack of knowledge need to find a comprehensive and representative resource. This is where GSIPH can help them solve their problems. Respectively, an interview respondent declared that she employed this tool to improve her writing by eliciting correct words and patterns. ROI4_2 says: “Finding correct word and pattern in my writing. Improving my writing, finding proper word. Helping me like 24 hour teacher”. She also considers it as a 24 hour teacher. It shows that they can use these tools anywhere and anytime. ROI5_2 reaffirms: “it improves the quality of my writing. It is nice and time saving. You can use it anytime when connect[ing] the internet”. Based on the excerpt, it is revealed that ROI5_2 also uses GSIPH tool to improve her writing. She also mentions that it is time saving and always available. This is consistent with the study by Mull (2013) as he reported that her students were positive about the availability of corpora for language learning despite technical issues.

Congruently, two other respondents emphasized the importance of GSIPH for improving their writing while accomplishing their course project. On the same note, ROI2_2 claims: [It] helps me correct my problems in essay and assignments. Sometimes I find it exciting”. ROI6_2 sums up: “pattern hunting is useful for writing”. According to these excerpts, these student teachers confirm that they use GSIPH tool to address the writing problems in essay and assignment. Alharbi (2012:96) reported: “Learners showed evidence not only in terms of improved textual performance, but also in increased awareness of problem-solving processes, and grammatical, lexical, and lexico-grammatical challenges” (96).


161

Confidence and curiosity are two factors which encourage ROI3_2 to use GS tools. When learner trusts the resource and treats it as valid referencing tool, s/he can build confidence, and consequently would use it with excitement and curiosity. As GSIPH offers huge natural data, this can arouse learner’s curiosity to elicit different types of patterns useful for problem solving and writing improvement. This is well expressed in ROI3_2 remarks as she agrees: “[it] gives me confidence. It reveals my curiosity and increases my interest in pattern hunting”. It is interesting to find that PTTs not only consider it as a contribution, but also perceive it as exciting activity vs. taxation (Acar et al. 2011; Chang 2010; Yoon 2014). ROI6_2 claims: “it helps do my university work and I get a lot of confidence of using Google scholar. And actually, helps me how to develop my vocabulary too,” Based on this excerpt, respondent 6 also confirms that GS helps him improve his writing in terms of vocabulary. This was also mentioned in students answer to open-ended questions on the questionnaire.

To sum up, the data obtained from focus group interview also revealed that PTTs have used GSIPH for compensation of lack of knowledge of natural patterns valuable for writing improvement.

Document Analysis: Sample of GSIPH

In this section, the patterns (comprising the sub-themes) which have been hunted as a result of GS consultation through the use of GSIPH tools are presented. As Table 9.3 demonstrates, to solve writing problems in terms of patterns, PTTs have exploited GSIPH for compensatory purpose. Accordingly, they have performed search query of elicitation. In doing so, they have attempted to use GSIPH for extracting different natural patterns including lexical collocations and grammatical collocations. Collocations in this research include both lexical (i.e., combinations among nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) and grammatical (i.e., verbs, adjectives, adverbs or nouns combined with a preposition or a grammatical structure) collocations, which follows the categorization presented by Benson, Benson and Ilson (1986).


162

Table 9. 3 A List of patterns and collocations hunted by TESL PTTs

Subthemes Sub-subthemes Examples Frequency

Lexical collocation

Verb+ noun(s): reviews the research 25

Verb +noun +noun enliven their classroom 7

Verb +adjective +noun(s) yielded conflicting results 6

Verb +adverb keep abreast of, differ markedly

20

Adverb +verb clearly demonstrated 15

Adverb +adjective almost immediate 22

Noun +noun technology use 18

Noun +be +present participle

the time is spent on 8

Noun +be +past participle technology has been used 7

Noun +of +noun the risk of oversimplification 20

Adjective +noun(s) life-long learning 30

Adjective + noun +noun varying level of performance 14

Adjective + adjective +noun(s)

recent technological advances

15

Verb +adjective looks good 20

Verb (incl. phrasal) +adjective take up more 8

Verb +to verb begin to study 15

Grammatical collocation

Verb + preposition apply to 40

Verb +preposition +noun(s) interviewed with students 29

Noun +preposition the risk of 30

Adjective + preposition accessible to, similar to 15

Total 364

As Table 9.3 shows, the PTTs have used GSIPH tool to extract different patterns such as lexical collocations (Verb+ noun(s) with frequency of (25), Verb +noun +noun (7), Verb +adjective +noun (6), Verb +adverb (20), Noun +noun (18), Noun +be +present participle (8), Noun +be +past participle (7), Noun +of +noun (20), Adjective +noun(s) (30), Adjective + noun +noun (14), Adjective +adjective +noun(s) (15), Verb +adjective (20), Verb (incl. phrasal) +adjective (8), Adverb +verb (15), Adverb +adjective (22) Verb +to verb (15)) and grammatical collocations ( Verb + preposition (40), Verb + preposition +noun (29), Adjective + preposition (15), Noun +preposition (30)) in the process of accomplishing their writing course project. Table 9.3 shows that the learners have elicited a wide array of both lexical and grammatical collocations with verb+ preposition comprising the most frequently elicted pattern, while verb + adjective + noun constitutes the pattern with least frequency. So, the total number of the patterns is 364. Noteworthy is that, here, the frequency is the rough estimation of patterns from some samples. This has been presented to show the priority in terms of the patterns


163

extracted, whereas concerning the exact number of patterns hunted by PTTs, the figure cannot represent the real number of the elicited patterns extracted by PTTs while completing their whole course project.

In a nutshell, as the data shows, PTTs have extracted different kinds of patterns for compensatory purposes. It was also shown that they have prominently retrieved different kinds of collocations (lexical and grammatical).

Lexical collocations

As the data shows, the PTTs have elicited a wide array of lexical collocations to solve their writing problems for compensatory purpose. As previous studies conducted globally (Molavi et al., 2014) and in Malaysia (Hong et al., 2011) reported, lexical collocation (such as verb+ noun; adjective+ noun, etc.) is a big challenge for language learner. This is where GSIPH can be a great boon to solve this problem. Molavi et al. (2014) also found that adjective + noun were also problematic. Using GSIPH, learners can discover the frequency of a particular word and find out what other words tend to collocate with it. Molavi et al., (2014) maintained that improving learners’ collocational knowledge just by focusing on textbooks is impossible and application of supplementary materials such as concordancers to compensate for textbooks deficiency and learners’ difficulties is necessary. Hence, to improve the knowledge of patterns including lexical collocations, learners need to be introduced to strong concordancer such as GS.

Huang (2014) found that the text produced by the experimental group, contained more various collocational and colligational patterns with fewer linguistic errors in employing the target abstract nouns compared to control group. This is where GS tool may help learners extract patterns unavailable in dictionaries. Wang (2011, p.2) reported that the participants developed awareness of collocation after utilizing Collocator. In a relevant study, Cheng (2011) reported that most of his participants, pre-service teachers, worked on several Web concordancers and Web-collocate tools and found that the Web concordancers enabled them to find both words and phrases.

Hence, using GSIPH places the learner in the position of active learner than passive and receiver of language knowledge, consequently s/he will be able to elicit natural pattern (lexical collocation) for compensatory purpose, an approach rooted in the tenet of constructionist. Besides, the GSIPH enables the learner to extract grammatical collocation as well, which is described in the following section.

Grammatical collocations

The data analysis demonstrates that the student teachers have extracted a wide range of grammatical collocations in the process of accomplishing their course projects. As grammatical collocation is normally a combination of the parts of speech (verb, noun, adjective or adverb) with preposition, the accurate use of preposition can be important. In a study by Loke et al. (2013) in Malaysia, they reported that ESL learners could commit three types of errors in relation to the usage of prepositional collocation: a)“Omission of Preposition – learners fail to use a preposition in a sentence


164

where it is obligatory”; b) “Insertion of Preposition – learners add on preposition in a sentence where it is not needed”; c) “Selections of Incorrect Preposition- learners use the wrong preposition in a sentence”. In a relevant study, Chang (2014) found that when it comes to writing, learners hesitate about the usage of a preposition, in a given context based on frequency. The combination of parts of speech with preposition is found to be a challenge for learners in both global and local contexts. Even in many well-written texts the errors associated to the use of preposition can be spotted. Although dictionaries provide large data of language usage in terms of preposition, they are still far from perfect (Brizna, 2012). This is where GSIPH tool can come to their help to extract natural patterns including preposition usage.

Discussion

In this section, the finding of analysis of data obtained from open-ended questions, focus-group interview and document analysis are discussed. The PTTs have come to emphasize that they have used GSIPH tool to elicit natural patterns from the Web in the process of writing their course project. More specifically, they have used GSIPH tool for compensatory purpose. They also reported that they have extracted collocations. This theme is sub-themed to lexical collocation and grammatical collocation, which are, in turn, divided into sub-sub-themes, as shown in Table 9.3. The finding of this study is in line with past studies. (Berzina, 2012; Conroy, 2010; Geluso, 2013; Gilmore, 2009; Kennedy & Miceli, 2010; Mull, 2013; Yoon, 2008; Yoon, 2011; Yoon & Hirvela, 2004;Yoon, 2014). Congruently, Tribble (2013, p. 6) sates that “Concordancing software does not restrict you to searching for individual word forms. It is also possible to look for closed and open phrase patterns”. Hence, equally important is that it allows a learner keep abreast of a wide range of patterns.

As reported, some PTTs remarked that they have used GSIPH to extract a wide range of patterns and words, even those patterns not available in dictionaries. This is confirmed by Kiativutikul and Phoocharoensil (2014, p.73), as they hold: “the corpus-based data could help provide additional information not illustrated in dictionaries. In addition, learners can explore the language patterns and search for naturally-occurring samples through the use of corpora”. Although dictionaries comprise a great source of word meaning and usage, they cannot offer a wide array of lexical/grammatical collocations that a learner needs to use in his/her language production (Mull, 2013). Nevertheless, a concordancer like GS would be a supplement to the dictionaries for extracting extra naturally-occurring examples of patterns and words.

Conroy (2010) suggests that learners can learn new words through the process of induction by typing in words into a concordancer and utilizing the rich semantic, syntactic and collocational information from contexts with the multiple sentence in the concordance output. He reported that, following training, his participants extracted grammatical collocation (verb + preposition collocations such as bestow upon, adhere to) by using Google as a concordancer. Hong (2014, p.253) confirmed: “Some respondents explicitly said that they had gained confidence in what they had written and had produced better writing with the aid of corpora”. Thus, corpus tool can help learner improve the writing while building confidence.


165

This is consistent with a study by Kennedy and Miceli (2010) in which they trained the learners extensively in the concordancer, and subsequently the participants used the tool effectively to carry out pattern-hunting while writing. They reported that two of their three respondents were successful in using the concordancer by developing personal strategies for finding useful patterns. They both agreed that they employed corpus for exploring patterns (expressions & phrases) useful for their writing. In a study by Botao et al. (2010), they reported: “Students expressed similar points regarding corpus advantages, i.e., learning common usage patterns and showing subtle nuances and contexts of use” (346).

When the concordancer and corpus offers writing samples that match the target style of writing (such as academic essays), language variations can be taken into consideration that help inform writing choices (Mull, 2013; Reppen, 2010). In this vein, GSIPH provides learners with immense natural patterns useful for different types of writings. Boulton (2012, p.36) reported that his respondents provided promising comments regarding “discovering things for themselves, the number of ‘examples’ available, the specificity of the queries, the quick and easy on-line consultation, usage of individual words and expressions, collocates, register use, and so on”. This is consistent with GSIPH tool capability. The finding of the present study is consistent with past study finding (Berzina, 2012), revealing that the GSIPH tool can be used to solve academic writing problems in terms of patterns

Therefore, as discussed, the findings of qualitative data obtained from questionnaire, interview and document analysis demonstrated that PTTs used GSIPH tool to solve their writing problems through eliciting different types of patterns such as collocations (lexical & grammatical), phrases, vocabulary, etc. It was also reported that they employed this tool confidently for writing improvement and curiosity. Almost all of the student teachers emphasized that GSIPH tool has significantly contributed to their academic writing improvement in terms of patterns (including lexical and grammatical collocations like phrasal verbs, noun phrases, vocabulary, etc.) which reaffirms the past studies as many researchers in the field of applied linguistics have emphasized the role of corpora and concordancers as tools for solving language problem and writing in particular. So, GS enables learner to keep abreast of a wide range of language patterns to perform GSIPH. However, care should be taken that the use of GSIPH is not without challenges.

Concluding Remarks

As discussed, the data obtained from open-ended questions, focus group interview and document analysis demonstrated that PTTs have used the GSIPH tool for the purpose of eliciting appropriate natural patterns in the process of accomplishing their course project effectively. More specifically, they have extracted appropriate natural patterns such as lexical collocations and grammatical colocations which are sub-themed to different kinds of patterns. The study reported that the student teachers have effectively elicited patterns highlighted by many researchers as big challenges for language learner.


166

References

Acar, A., Geluso, J. & Shiki, T. ( 2011). ‘How can search engines improve your writing?’. CALL-EJ, 12(1), Avaiable from:http://callej.org/journal/12-1/Acar_2011.pdf.1- 10.

Alharbi, W. H. (2012). Learners’ interaction with online applications: Tracking language related ‎ episodes in computer-assisted L2 writing. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3,96-107

Al Hosein, Y., Uysal, H., & Bulut, T. (2013). Using concordances as supplementary materials in teaching grammar. Kalbų Studijos, (22), 113-118.

Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. F. (1986). Lexicographic description of English (Vol14). John Benjamins Publishing.

Botao. W, Min.Y & Yunxia. S. (2010). A Study on a computer -based corpus approach to college English writing. International Forum on Information Technology Applications, 344-347.

Boulton, A. (2009). Data-driven learning: Reasonable fears and rational reassurance. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 1-28.

Boulton, A. ( 2012). Beyond concordancing: Multiple affordances of corpora in university language degrees. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 33-38.

Brezina, V. (2012). Google Scholar as a linguistic tool: New possibilities in EAP. C.Gkitsaki, & R. Baldauf (eds.), The Future of Applied Linguistics: Local and Global Perspectives. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.

Chang,. J.Y. (2014). The use of general and specialized corpora as reference sources for academic English writing: A case study. ReCALL, 26, 243-259.

Cheng, W. (2011). Exploring corpus linguistics: Language in action. Routledge.

Conroy, M. A. ( 2010). Internet tools for language learning: University students taking control of their writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 861-882.

Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.

Geluso, J. (2013). Phraseology and frequency of occurrence on the Web:Native speakers’ perceptions of Google-informed second language writing, Computer Assisted Language Learning. iFirst article,1-14.

Gilmore, A. (2009). Using online corpora to develop students’ writing skills. ELT Journal, 63(4),363-372.

Granger, S., Hung, J., & Petch-Tyson, S. (Eds.). (2002). Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. John Benjamins Publishing.

Hong, A.L., Abdul Rahim, H., Kim Hua, T., Salehuddin, K. (2011). Collocations in Malaysian English learners ’ writing : A corpus-based error analysis. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17 (Special Issue), 31 - 44.

Huang, Z. (2014). The effects of paper-based DDL on the acquisition of lexicogrammatical patterns in L2 writing. ReCALL, 26,163-183.

Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning. In T. Johns and P. King (Eds.), Classroom Concordancing. English Language Research Journal, 4,1-16.

Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus-assisted creative writing: Introducing intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1),28–44.

Kiativutikul, C., & Phoocharoensil, S. (2014). A corpus-based study of phrasal verbs: Carry out, find out, and point out. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(7).


167

Leech, G. (1992). 100 million words of English: The British National Corpus (BNC). Language Research, 28(1), 1-13.

Loke, D. L., Ali, J., & Anthony, N. N. Z. I. (2013). A Corpus based study on the use of preposition of time ‘on’and ‘at’in argumentative essays of Form 4 and Form 5 Malaysian students. English Language Teaching, 6(9),128-135.

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440.

Molavi, A., Koosha, M., & Hosseini, H. (2014). A comparative corpus–based analysis of lexical collocations used in EFL textbooks. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 7(1), 66-81.

Mull, J. (2013). The learner as researcher: Student concordancing and error correction. Studies in Self- Access Learning Journal, 4(1).

O’Sullivan, Í., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of second language writing, 15(1), 49-68.

Panah, E., Yunus, M. M., & Embi, M. A. (2013). Google-informed patter-hunting and pattern-defining: Implication for language pedagogy. Asian Social Science, 9(3), 229-238.

Reppen, R. (2010). What are the key considerations?. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, 31-37.

Romer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 141–163.

Sha, G. (2010). Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: A Comparison with the British National Corpus. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23,377–393.

Shei, C.C. (2008). Discovering the hidden treasure on the internet: Using Google to uncover the veil of phraseology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 67–85.

Stapleton, P., & Radia, P. (2010). Tech-era L2 writing: Towards a new kind of process. ELT Journal, 64(2), 175-183.

Teck-chai, L., Kim-Hong, Y., Ching-Ching, C. (2010). Exploring Malaysian trainee teachers’ adaption of the internet as information tools. International Journal, 3(2),25-38.

Tribble, C. (2013). Concordancing. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.

Wang, S. L. (2011). A qualitative study of effects of a browser-based collocation tool on l2 learners’ collocation awarenes (Doctoral dissertation, MA Thesis), National Central University, Chungli, Taoyuan, Taiwan).

Wood, M. (1981). A definition of Idiom. Manchester, England: Center for Computational Linguistics, University of Manchester.

Wu , S. (2010). Supporting collocation learning. PhD Thesis. Department of Computer Science, The University of Waikato. Hamilton, New Zealand.

Wu, S., Franken, M., & Witten, I.H. (2009). Refining the use of the Web (and Web search) as a language teaching and learning resource. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 83-102.

Wu, S., Witten, I. A. N. H., & Franken, M. (2010). Utilizing lexical data from a Web- derived corpus to expand productive collocation knowledge. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 249-268.

Yoon, C. (2011). Concordancing in L2 writing class: An overview of research and issues. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 130-139.


168

Yoon, C. (2014). Web-based concordancing and other reference resources as a problem solving tool for l2 writers: A mixed methods study of Korean ESL graduate students’reference resource consultation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto).

Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 teaching ESL writing course. Language Learning & Technology, 12 (2). 31-49.

Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257–283.

Chapter

10

Adoption of a Project-based Learning as a Learning Strategy in e-Portfolio Assessment

for Art and Design CoursesSyamsul Nor Azlan Mohamad, Mohamed Amin Embi & Norazah Mohd Nordin,

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Introduction

The adoption of a Project-based Learning or known as PjBL into e-Portfolio appears to benefit the learners. It will involve the actual creation of the course content, learning materials and assessment. These learning strategies need to be aligned with specific learning goal to develop higher order thinking skills among learners.

In the Malaysian context, art and design courses have implemented projects as a routine in assessing their coursework. It is aligned with the needs of assessment provided by Malaysia Qualification Accreditation known as MQA as a guideline in assessing students in higher education institution, especially for art and design courses. As such, the portfolio becomes important assessment evidence to store, reflect and show their visual art and design projects. The e-Portfolio will help them communicate with the ideas by collecting, displaying, articulating and evaluating the projects or tasks.

Although e-Portfolio has been developed in many countries and fields, there is little research focused on e-Portfolio assessment such as project-based, experiential education or active learning (Thomas et al., 2000; Woelfel, 2012). Mohamed Amin Embi et al. (2011) have reported that only 11-20% of student coursework is conducted as an e-learning assessment in Malaysian HEI’s. So, there is a potential and need to embrace this study as DeFabio (1993), Jamentz (1994) and Tillema (1998) declared that the

Chapter

10


172

proponents of portfolio are better predictors of students’ performance in ‘authentic’ situation, and that they can also improve students’ higher order thinking (HOT) skills specifically in higher education institution (Chin Hung, 2013; Gikandi et al., 2011).

Considering the needs of e-Portfolio and the lack of learning strategy and measurement tools, PjBL has been proposed to ensure the success of e-Portfolio to increase their engagement and intention to fulfill the task. Thus, the PjBL is able to offer instructor and learners a set of learning strategy and measurement tools in evaluating their higher order thinking for respective courses or tasks. However, the potential of ICT in bringing major changes in the education system cannot be questioned. The increase in numeral, sophistication, and the role of ICTs in providing rich and effective tools to transform teaching and learning are more autonomous and entertaining.

Literature Review

Project-based learning projects are central, not peripheral to the curriculum (Barrow, 1986; Thomas, 2000). Savin-Baden (2003) defines PjBL as being something different from problem based learning, whereas Boud (1985) claims they can be the same. However, to justify based on the purpose of the study, in perspectives of definition and conceptualization, both are the same. The difference lies in which PjBL acquires a production model, while problem based learning develops an inquiry model. The learning process in PjBL starts with the authentic (Albion, 1998) problems as a context (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). PjBL involves learners in a constructive investigation in which transferring of knowledge takes place in a real context (Brown et al., 1989; Perkins & Salomon, 1989; Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich & Anderson, 1988). Projects are student-driven where activities are designed into a different level and degress to promote learners’ higher order thinking (Dunlap & Grabinger, 1996). Thomas (2000) defines PjBL as a model that organizes learning around projects (Thomas, 2000) which is presented in a student-centered environment where teacher acts as a facilitator (de Graaff & Kolmos, 2002; Tse & Chan, 2003). PjBL environment emphasizes on learners’ application of knowledge, higher-order thinking and self-directed learning skills (Barrows, 1996; Dods, 1997; Dolmans & Schmidt, 1994; Kamin et.al, 2001) according to the goals and setting of learning (Esko et.al. 2005).

The interconnection between PjBL and theoretical ideas has been proven, such as experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), the reflective practitioner (Schon, 1987) and constructivism and social learning (Lave, 1993; Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1979). Consequently, numerous instructional models that focus on PjBL (Ryberg et al., 2006) have agreed that the PjBL strategy is entirely in accordance with the constructivist paradigm and collaborative learning concept. As a result, there is a strong support for the notion that computer-based learning environments can be effectively used to support constructivism and transformative learning (Reushle, 2005; Wilson, 2004) and may offer many advantages (Reushle, 2006).

Adoption of a Project-based Learning as a Learning Strategy in e-Portfolio Assessment for Art & Design

173

Methodology

The purpose of this study is to investigate the Project-based Learning (PjBL) as a learning strategy towards the development of an e-Portfolio in selected courseworks. At the preliminary stage, the Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) has been chosen with a total number of 30 respondents. These respondents were undergoing Bachelor of Art and Design Education with coursework mode. In this context, the preliminary study was conducted to examine the adoption of PjBL into the e-Portfolio. The constructs consist of (1) student responsibility (2) instructor support (3) instructional methodology (4) course and instructor and (5) student interaction and collaboration. These items were measured on five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree and (5) strongly agree.

Data Analysis and Findings

Respondent’s Profile

In this study, simple frequency and descriptive analysis were conducted on the demographic attributes. The result of the respondent’s profiles was presented based on frequency, as given in Table 1.1. The study reported that 16.7% (n=5) were male, while 83.3% (n=25) of the respondents were female. In terms of age grouping, almost half (46.7%) of them were average (24-25 years), 26.7% (20-21 years), 16.7% (22-23 years) and 10% (25 years above).

Table 10.1: Frequency of the respondents

Demographic Attributes Frequency % (Percentage)

GenderMale Female

525

16.783.3

Age20-21 years22-23 years24-25 years25 years above

85

143

26.716.746.710.0

The Student Responsibility

Based on this construct, as shown in Table 10.2, the learners behaved that there was a major responsibility for them to comply with the set of skills and fulfill the task (M=4.57). The approach will encourage them to reach a variety of resources (M=4.47) and play an important role (M=4.40) by having support and assistance from peer and facilitator (M=4.40). The project involved learners to accept the challenges and specific requirement (M=4.37) to peruse them to reflect and connect by using a peer or forum discussion. PjBL approach allowed learners to be evaluated (M=4.30). It also helped transfer the knowledge to ensure the authenticity as well as the benefit of context.


174

Table 10.2: Responsibility towards the use of PjBL

No. Items M

1 I wish to fulfill the task given. 4.57

2 I will make enough effort to reach various information sources. 4.47

3 I will consult with fellow student or teacher when I don’t understand. 4.40

4 I must play an important role in my own learning. 4.40

5 I am willing to accept any challenges in this course by following the project requirements.

4.37

6 I prefer to have a discussion forum with my peer members/group members.

4.33

7 I am willing to be evaluated. 4.30

Instructor Support

The implementation of PjBL promotes effective tutoring, as illustrated in Table 10.3. Kaufman and Holmes (1998) stated that instructor tends to lecture than explain or guide through the learning process. Based on these findings, the learners will perform if the instructor is able to encourage and guide them to express the ideas clearly (M=4.67). This phenomenon might cause the learners to take efforts to explore a variety of information (M=4.53) by providing a positive feedback (M=4.50). The prompt and feedback will direct the learners to arrive at the solution with a step and process (M=4.23). These strategies preclude learners from receiving a tacit knowledge, which could prevent them from articulating their own reasoning processes. However, some of the learners believe that negative feedback (M=3.03) will give an implication whether it is good or different.

Table 10.3: Instructional support in the teaching and learning process

No. Items M

1 The instructor encourages me to express my ideas clearly. 4.67

2 The instructor encourages me to use various information sources. 4.53

3 The instructor provides me with a positive feedback. 4.50

4 The instructor asks me how to arrive at the solution with what steps and process involve.

4.23

5 The instructor considers my performance during the problem solving process.

4.13

6 The instructor provides me with a negative feedback. 3.03

Instructional Methodology

Based on these findings, the learners mostly prefer to have a discussion forum with peer members (M=4.57) and expect to achieve more in gaining knowledge (M=4.47), as shown in Table 10.4. The learners show a positive acceptance to working on a project (M=4.40) and are wiling to follow the project requirement (M=4.40), but in


175

some conditions the instructional methodology must suit to them (M=4.37). The instructional methodology should be able to provide and portray their skills (M=4.33) and the resources should allow them to satisfy the requirements (M=4.30).

Table 10.4: PjBL as instructional methodology

No. Items M

1 I much prefer to have a discussion forum with my peer members/group members.

4.57

2 I am expecting to achieve more in this course than I think. 4.47

3 I am willing to accept any challenges in this course by following the project requirements.

4.40

4 I am enjoying working on a project, if it is authentic. 4.40

5 I am willing the instructional methodology in this course must be able to suit the way I like to learn.

4.37

6 The instructional methodology is able provide me with enough scope to display my skills.

4.33

7 The resources must be allowing me to satisfy the course requirements. 4.30

Course and Instructor

This construct is to examine the implementation of the course and instructor using PjBL. The findings show that well prepared course content (M=4.47) and assessment (M=4.43) should be linked to and aligned with the instructional objectives, as given in Table 10.5. The goal should be designed clearly (M=4.43) and conducted accordingly (M=4.40). The bright and clear two-ways communication (M=4.33) will offer many opportunities for participation in the course (M=4.27). In PjBL, the course will be designed in relation to a real-life context, so, the learners are more happy if the instructor shares any innovations about the course (M=4.32) to supply resources and set a benchmark (M=4.20). In the learning process, the instructor has to be more innovative and creative to use a various support tools (M=4.13) and techniques (M=4.10) to achieve the learning outcome.

Table 10.5: Course and the instructor relationship

No. Items M

1 The instructor is well-prepared for the lessons. 4.47

2 Assessment is prepared in parallel with the course content. 4.43

3 The instructor adds a value to the ideas. 4.43

4 The course goal is briefly explained at the beginning of the task. 4.43

5 The course must be conducted according to the explained plan. 4.40

6 I am able to communicate with the instructor. 4.33

7 I am being offered with individual opportunities (project, presentation, discussion, etc.) for participation in the course.

4.27


176

8 The language used for delivering instruction is clear. 4.27

9 The instructor shares any innovations about the course content with me.

4.23

10 Sufficient information is supplied about accommodating resources. 4.20

11 I am able to get a feedback on the course activities. 4.13

12 The instructor used various methods whenever necessary throughout the course.

4.13

13 The instructor used various tools whenever necessary throughout the course.

4.13

14 The instructor used various techniques whenever necessary throughout the course.

4.10

Student Interaction and Collaboration

Based on these findings, the success of PjBL can be determined when student shows positive interaction and collaboration to sustain the momentum of the learning process. The ideal part of PjBL is that the learners will learn to respect others (M=4.53) and collaborate with the ideas (M=4.43), as shown in Table 10.6. The forum discussion is ways to help others (M=4.40) and the response and feedback is very useful (M=4.30) to improve their project. Hence, this forum discussion will train them to think, rethink and post a quality questions and answer (M=4.27). This strategy will help learners focus on the central issues and achieve the goals and complete the task given (M=4.27).

Table 10.6: Student Interaction and Collaboration In Learning Process

No. Items M

1 I will respect other’s ideas in my group. 4.53

2 I am able to collaborate with the other members of my group. 4.43

3 I am able to discuss my idea with the other members of my group. 4.40

3 I am able to read other posting about the course which is very useful. 4.30

4 I find the ability to post questions. 4.27

5 The setting of learning goals helps me focus on what needed to be achieved.

4.27

6 I am being able to collaborate in my group in practical sessions which is very helpful

4.20

Conclusion and Implication

Based on these findings, there are several points of discussion:

Appropriate Instructional Methodology

The true fact is that younger learners lack self-directed learning skill (Brown, 1978; Thomas et.al., 1988). In reflect, instructional methodology is to avoid potential detrimental effects to the learners who are not well prepared. The facilitator should


177

identify the learners’ current cognitive capabilities and their experiences with PjBL to devise reasonable expectations of their development of self-directed learning skills. The learner occupied with self-directed skills is able to be independent and responsible to satisfy the learning needs. The reasoning questions and deeper understanding of the task given will make them become more resourceful and knowledgeable. The projects will not only allow them to work individually but also with peers to share, help and support the learning environment. However, PjBL environment emphasizes the ability to solve and comprehend the problem and it allows the learner to become more realistic and matured with the unstructured and authentic problem. The set of skills infused in PjBL salon stated in Project-based Learning Blueprint by Ministry of Education (2006) that emphasizes higher order thinking attributes as key to facilitate meaningful and real-life learning.

Course and Instructors

The instructor should start identifying the real life problems within the context and then select one problem that best affords the results. The selected PjBL problem needs to be appealing to the learners to keep them motivated (Hung, 2006). Learning goals and objectives guide instructor to outline the depth of content and, consequently provide a body and structure for aligning the scope of the problem with the curriculum standards (Trafton & Midgett, 2001). In considering and specifying learning goals and objectives, the facilitator or instructor should focus on domain knowledge. Domain knowledge is afforded by the problem, so, the instructor should analyze the concepts, principles, procedures (Sugrue, 1995), and factual information that evolve around the most accepted interpretation of the problem/case, hypothesis, and solution to the problem. Notably, with PjBL, learners have equal opportunities of learning by doing which enable them to enhance critical skills, engage with the problem and shape the learning process (Doppelt, 2003). Therefore, it can be safely said that learners who undergo PjBL are absorbed into a system of assessment that focuses on learners’ performance (Corcoran, Dershimer & Tichenor, 2004).

Interaction and collaboration

The PjBL actually tests learners’ metacognitive skills to evaluate different sources, resolve conflicting viewpoints, and extend the learning experience to be possibly adapted in a daily life. Reflection of PjBL is a major idea of having this as a strategy (Barrows & Myers, 1993). Learners might be able to elaborate on the meaning, importance and use of learned materials. The design of the reflecting component should focus on: 1) acquisition of all the necessary knowledge, 2) adequate depth of study, 3) effective and efficient research methods, 4) logical and effective reasoning processes, 5) conceptual integration of knowledge and 6) effective problem solving strategies.


178

Limitations and Future Research

The current study still has its limitation as the samples do not cater the whole population of a Social Science and Humanities cluster. This study could benefit the early stage on justifying the reliability of the instrument. Therefore, there is a need the instrument to be tested to make sure it is reliable and could be used in the actual fieldwork. Therefore, for future study, it is very important to determine preferable sampling techniques to match with the requirement and represent the population of the study.

References

Albion, P. R., & Gibson, I. W. (1998). Designing problem-based learning multimedia for teacher education. Technology and teacher education annual, 1240-1244.

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481– 486.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Direction for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12.

Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

Boud, D. (1985). Problem-based learning in perspective. Problem-based learning in education for the professions. Higher Education Research Society of Australasia.

De Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (2002). Characteristics of Problem-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(5), 657-662. DEST.

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (1994). What drives the student in problem-based learning? Medical Education, 28, 372–380.

Dunlap, J. C., & Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning in the higher education classroom. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 65–82). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Farnsworth.

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D. D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333-2351.

Jamentz, K. (1994). Making sure that assessment improves performance. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 55-57.

Kamin, C. S., O’Sullivan, P. S., Younger, M., & Deterding, R. (2001). Measuring critical thinking in problem-based learning discourse. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 13(1), 27–35.

Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mohamed Amin Embi. (2011). E-Learning in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions: Status, trends, & challenges. Department of Higher Education Ministry of Higher Education.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skill context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25. Perrenet.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.


179

Reushle, S. E. (2005). Inquiry into a transformative approach to professional development for online educators. Doctoral, University Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Toowoomba.

Ryberg, T., Koottatep, S., Pengchai, P., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2006). Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments: A case study from the VO@NET project. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 151-170.

Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning: Illuminating perspectives. Berkshire, England. SRHE and Open University Press.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass. Schrage.

Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stanley.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. http://www.autodesk.com/foundation.

Thomas, K.R., Lamson, S., & King, A. (2001). Training teacher candidates to create Web-based electronic professional portfolios. Paper presented at Central Missouri State University’s Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Retrieved from the ERIC database.

Tillema, H. H. (1998). Design and validity of a portfolio instrument for professional training. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(3), 263-278

Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). The genesis of higher mental functions. In V. J. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-188). New York: Sharpe Inc. Wallace.

Wilson, G. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 33-48.

Woelfel K, Murray K, Page M. (2014). Electronic portfolios for professional educators - graduate Students and Instructors. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(2),175-183.

Chapter

11

Edmodo for Interactive Lecture: A Focus on Transparent and Ubiquitous

LearningM. Mokhtar, Supyan Hussin & Mohamed Amin Embi

Universiti Putra Malaysia & Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Introduction

Interactive lecture is expected to be successful when it involves active participation among students in their course. They will enjoy the spirit of sharing knowledge and opinions, and appreciate more of what they learn rather than the grades they obtain. Although this expectation is like an ideal model, it is really a meaningful achievement for both students and lecturer, once it can take place in a real class.

There are many techniques that have been applied in implementing interactive lecture either by face-to-face interaction or online modes, or combination of both. In order to verify the effectiveness of interactive lectures, many studies and researches have been carried out studies to analyse the outcomes of the applied techniques. Among them was Omer and Zahide’s (2007) study which focussed on students’ perception of effective dimensions of interactive learning in blended learning environment. The authors offer an operational definition for blended learning as a combination of face-to-face classroom instruction and online instruction. There are two interesting dimensions that they observed: the source of motivation and collaborative learning strategies. In term of motivation, this study concluded that via the blended learning, interview data showed that students had both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Nevertheless, the data analysis pointed out that towards intrinsic motivation is the key element for the success of this hybrid interactive learning technique. It showed a positive sign when

Chapter

11


184

the students demonstrated the understanding of ‘what they learned’ and ‘why and how they learned’. Meanwhile, looking at the collaborative learning dimension, this study showed that students benefited more by engaging in collaborative learning in face-to-face classroom activities compared to that in the online mode. Students indicated that the online mode (using Message Board) was useful but not as effective in student collaboration as expected.

In order to improve collaborative learning approaches, social connectivity among students was identified as a potential factor that can support self-governed, problem-based, and collaborative learning processes, as mentioned by many researchers such as Dalsgaard, (2007) and Mazman & Usluel, (2010). Social networking facilities like Facebook and Twitter have been widely used and analysed by many researchers to investigate the effectiveness of the sites to support students’ academic engagement. Christoper, Lauren & Ben, (2012) argued that while some studies showed positive engagement using social networking sites, other studies showed opposite outcomes due to some issues such as integrity, privacy, and distraction factors. Thus, they did a study to evaluate students’ perception of using designated ‘Facebook pages’ associated with university learning management systems for enhancing better students’ interaction with the course instructor and learning resources. Although the Facebook was well-received, the authors still believed that it was unclear if and how Facebook can enhance student’s learning outcomes.

Another Website that has similar outlook like Facebook, called Edmodo, was founded in 2008 in Chicago, Illinois, USA. The unique feature of this site is that it has private class for online networking between lecturer and students. In fact, it can be considered as an easy-to-use learning management system that allows each class member to download and upload materials, share knowledge and opinions, supported by additional applications like quizzes and polls. The investigation of how non-digital native teachers using Edmodo in Thailand was reported by Chada (2012). In this study, it was revealed that even non-digital-native teachers were capable of using Edmodo. The results showed that Edmodo was not only useful for a student circle, but also benefitted the teacher community.

Regardless of which techniques are used, lecturers have their own approach towards the success of interactive lecture. The differences may exist due to expected learning outcomes or issues they would like to tackle in the particular course. In this study, due to the fact that face-to-face techniques are limited by the constraint of lecture hour time, online activities were implemented to complement the process by allowing lecturer and students to be kept in touch at anytime and anywhere. This 24/7 accessibility that supports ‘ubiquitous learning’ was carried out by using Edmodo as the online tool. Another concern that is going to be highlighted in this study is about the ‘transparency’ especially during the grading stage. Similarly, TV reality shows approach that exposes all participants to individual performance and feedback, students would also like to know how the others have performed and how does lecturer respond to their findings (e.g. progress report, assignment report, etc.). Therefore, with the assignment given in this study, students were exposed to online tools and be aware of other students’ progress (in group) and each feedback given by


185

lecturer was able to be seen by all students. Focusing on the transparent and ubiquitous learning features provided in the Edmodo have led to the motivation of this study in investigating students’ perception of utilising Edmodo as a source of motivation and collaborative learning. This study was supported by face-to-face activities to trigger students’ teamwork and collaboration prior to the usage of Edmodo.

Based on the research gaps and objectives mentioned earlier, the research questions that guided this study were:

• What are students’ perceptions of the usage of Edmodo towards their learning and in particular interactive learning?

• How do the students utilize Edmodo in expressing their study motivation?

• How do the students utilize Edmodo in demonstrating their collaborative learning?

• How effective is the delivery lecture as a whole?

Framework of the Study

Challenges in Interactive Lecture

It is believed that interactive lecture can be best delivered in hybrid form which combines face-to-face techniques and online teaching and learning (T&L) activities. In other words, the synchronization between hi-touch (human approach) and hi-tech (technology support) could realize to the highest efficiency and effectiveness of interactive lecture activities. Nevertheless, in order to achieve it, which can also quite subjective, depending on the performance measurements used, many challenges are to be considered. Among them are lack of soft skills in teaching, resistance to the change of the new way of teaching, lack of confidence to adopt technology, or less readiness in using proper ways of teaching method due to time or other resources constraints. Since the intention of this study involved online tools, the most challenge faced was the slow internet connection in the lecture room. Downloading files were acceptable, but not for videos streaming. Therefore, some videos from Youtube have to be downloaded and saved before the class. The full usage of Edmodo was limited during class hour. Thus, uploading the big data or files was done at suitable places where the Internet connection was good.

Finding the Right Tool

After considering a few options for online tools for this study, Edmodo was chosen due to some advantages that it has. Special features that make Edmodo interesting to be used are simple ways to share files and communicate online, encourage a peer-learning and peer-support environment – both in the classroom and online, and various Website layout templates (just like Facebook) with secured environment.


186

Methodology

Course and Students Background

The study involved a total of 52 students enrolled in the ‘Optical Communications’ course at the Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia. The course was designed for 42 hours lecture and 42 hours practical (laboratory works) within 14 weeks. The students consisted of 20 female students and 32 male students with the race distribution of 54% Malays, 42% Chinese, and 4% Indians.

Engagement Trigger and Tasks for Interactive Lecture

In this study, during the lecture hours, a few face-to-face interactive lecture techniques were implemented based on the course content, such as:

• Role play and demonstration: Students were asked to perform acting in demonstrating the process of laser radiation.

• Picture and problem trigger: Students were given picture and fact with no explanation and were asked in group (of four members) to explain the trigger by filling in the FILA (Fact, Idea, Learning questions & Action plan) form. The trigger given in this course is shown in Figure 11.1.

Figure 11.1: Picture and Problem Trigger

Following two hours class of discussing the contents, students were asked to upload their completed FILA form through Edmodo after class. Overall, there were three stages of tasks given in this course. The first task was a preparation of completed FILA form. The second task was a preparation of technical description of suggested laser, and the last task was a preparation of video presentation and advertisement of the marketed laser. Each finding or output of the task was commented by the lecturer in the Edmodo. The discussion or feedback regarding their works was expected to happen in this online tool.


187

Instruments

Two types of were used in this study: questionnaires (prepared by lecturer and also through the teaching evaluation provided by the University) and lecturer’s observation on the Edmodo application. Each questionnaire was distributed to all students attending the course and they were asked to complete the questionnaires anonymously at the end of semester. The questionnaires are attached in Appendix A.

Table 11.1: Questionnaires on Students’ Perception of the Usage of Edmodo

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

a) Edmodo.com is an important element of my course for downloading notes and uploading assignments.

b) Using Edmodo.com, I can view other students’ works and it makes my course more enjoyable.

c) With Edmodo.com, I can interact more with other students and my lecturer.

d) I find using technological devices to browse Edmodo.com difficult (eg. Mobile phone/tablet).

e) Getting access to an Internet to access Edmodo.com is a problem for me.

f ) Using Edmodo.com makes my study easier.

g) It would be good if there was much more e-learning in my courses.


188

Table 11.2: Part of Teaching Evaluation Assessing the Teaching Delivery

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

a) The lecturer conducts his/her teaching effectively.

b) The lecturer makes an effort to attract or enhance the students’ interest in this course.

c) The lecturer uses appropriate teaching tools in his/her teaching.

d) The lecturer gives feedback on tests/assignments/practical/activities conducted in class.

e) The lecturer is always ready to assist students.

g) It would be good if there was much more e-learning in my courses studying would be easier for me.

Findings

Observational Results

In order to examine students’ interaction via Edmodo, some of indications were observed from this Website such as the message posted by students and the frequency of students’ work viewed by others. A snapshot of one example of message posting in Edmodo is shown in Figure 11.2.


189

Figure 11.2: A Snapshot of Message Posting in Edmodo

This figure shows the involvement of students sharing their works as well as supports given by other students either through their textual message posting or iconic message icons. It also shows the intrinsic motivation by students in appreciating others’ works. Besides, the number of views indicated students’ effort in learning by themselves through other students’ work. All these responses have never been emphasized out by the lecturer in class as part of evaluation or of any reward as it was expected that this kind of interaction occurred in natural and transparent ways.


190

Students’ Perception

Based on the given questionnaires, Figure 11.3 and 11.4 depict the results of students’ perception of Edmodo usage and teaching delivery respectively.

Figure 11.3: Results of Students’ Perception of the Usage of Edmodo

On average, all the questions (a)-(c) and (f ) scored more than 4.00 which shows students’ positive satisfaction on the usage of Edmodo. In contrast to questions (d) and (e), the results shows a bit disagreement of the problems on accessing Edmodo either through online or technology devices. These findings indicated good signs of accessibility among the students which can be normally accessed from the hostels. The results for question (e) also shows the element that supports ubiquitous learning.


191

Figure 11.4: Satisfaction among Students on the Lecture Delivery

Meanwhile, looking at the results shown in Figure 11.4, all statements in the questionnaires were strongly agreed by students (with mean score is more than 4.5), which indicates good satisfaction among students on the lecture delivery. Item in number 2 is pertained by the students in the highest satisfaction. However, this indirect measurement of the effectiveness of interactive lecture can be further improved by relating the usage of hybrid techniques to the teaching delivery.


192

Conclusion

This study can be considered as a preliminary investigation on the Edmodo features that can support for transparent and ubiquitous learning. Based on the results gathered, it showed that by providing transparent feedback and ubiquitous learning platform, this online tool can help driving students’ intrinsic motivation as well as collaborative learning with the support of face-to-face interactive lecture. The results were quite encouraging, and future studies should consider the way this study was carried out can be improved further by imposing triangulation method such as conducting interview with the students.

References

Chada, K. (2012). How a non-digital-native teacher makes use of Edmodo. Int. Conf. ‘ICT for Language Learning’, 5th Ed.

Christoper, I., Lauren, B., & Ben, D. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (7), 1221-1232.

Dalsgaard, C. (2007). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 2006 (II) http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm

Mazman, S.G. & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers and Education, 55(2), 444-453.

Omer, D. & Zahide, Y. (2007). Students’ perceptions on dimensions of interactive learning in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2), 133-146.

Chapter

12

The Use of Padlet.com to Enhance Student Teachers’ Communication Skills in Universiti

Malaysia SabahTan Choon Keong

Universiti Malaysia Sabah

Introduction

Numerous past reports have indicated that the number of jobless graduates has increased drastically in the past few years. According to Student Statistical Report by the Ministry of Education (MOE) (MOE, 2014), unemployment among graduates is high at 24% and most of them are from technical and vocational line. The report states that 30,000 out of 44,000 unemployed graduates are without jobs, while another 5,000 chooses to apply for furthering their studies. According to a report from Global Employment Trends (2013), there is a mismatch of skills that the graduates possessed with what is needed by the industries. Therefore, the MOE, particularly the universities need to introduce new teaching with technology approaches to improve the communicative skills among student teachers in order for them to be ready for the job market. For example, declarative learning via ubiquitous Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, Facebook and supporting learner-centred learning tools such as vodcast and podcast can contribute to successful improvement of communicative skills (Lynne & Barbara, 2009).

This research evaluates the supporting features of Padlet.com as a forum-based platform to engender development of communicative skills among student teachers. It will provide vital information on how student teachers construct knowledge and

Chapter

12


196

exchange ideas via collaborative approach using the various Padlet.com’s features. This research intends to investigate the following questions:

a) Are Padlet.com’s features effective in supporting the collaborative efforts of the student teachers in promoting the cultivation of their communicative skills?

b) Will Padlet.com improve the communication skills (CS), critical thinking and problem solving (CTPS) and teamwork skills (TS) of student teachers while working collaboratively?

Background of the study

Affordances are known as how users use the various functions of Web-based tools creatively to create new knowledge or product (Burden & Atkinson, 2008). Affordances are not the same for different users and can differ according to their respective learning objectives. Affordances can be associated with social connectivism and support and the sharing of information collaboratively.

In this research, the affordances that help student teachers’ work collaboratively to promote their communicative skills will be identified. These affordances will indicate some forms of efficiency of Padlet.com as a collaborative Web-based tool for student teachers. This research uses the affordances as proposed by by Resta and Laferriere (2007):

• Learners’ preparedness in learning

• Improving learner’s deep understanding and cognitive performance

• Flexibility of learning time and space

• Tracking of learner’s engagement, discussion and work

According to Lynne and Barbara (2009), Web-based forum platform can enhance learning through collaborative efforts by the users. Most researchers would refer to it as the free-formed forums where comments and ideas are put up and can trigger active participations and discussions among the users to create knowledge building. The most recent Web 2.0 free forum platform that is becoming growingly popular is Padlet.com. Figure 12.1 shows a screen shot of a Padlet.com page.

The Use of Padlet.com to Enhance Student Teachers’ Communication Skills

197

Figure 12.1: A screen shot of Padlet.com’s page

Padlet.com (formerly called Wallwisher) is a versatile free online tool for teachers to gather feedback from pupils as part of formative assessment. It also serves as a visually attractive tool for individuals or groups of pupils to present ideas in a way which can be edited, kept private to a user, or shared with specific individuals, or made public. Padlet.com works on any internet-enabled device, whether PC or mobile device as no software or apps are required to be downloaded or installed. Unlike the linear rigidity found in some discussion board layout, Padlet.com is not so rigid compared to other forum-based platform. It is a reliable and good platform for student teachers to develop multimedia content for collaboration with their friends (TeachersFirst, 2012).

Theoretical Framework

Theory of Communicative skills Cultivation via Digital Method

Web 2.0 tools can be used for digitally communicative skills cultivation. Adams and Morgan (2007) propose the Learning Triangle Model to propagate communicative skills through knowledge construction. The three important “communicative skills” learning triangle components are shown in Figure 12.2.


198

Figure 12.2: Adams and Morgan’s Communicative skills Learning Triangle

Each component of the model is inter-dependent. The “learner – content” relationship refers to the content relevancy where user must get the right materials for the interactions. The “learner – context” and “content – context” relationships are also important because it shows the learner’s commitment in comprehending and reconstructing content and learning to be applied to the correct context or situations. According to Taylor (2008, p.5), this transformative learning theory is also known as “the continuous change of personalised knowledge”.

The learner reconstructs learning from prior experiences to construct newer experiences or interpretations. Reflective learning process happens with the simultaneous existence of content, context and the learner components. Another related theory of knowledge building for enculturation of communicative skills is the connectivism theory as proposed by Siemens (2004). Siemens (2004) states that the oscillation of learning begins with the learner; oscillating to the learning community back and forth; and thus allowing growth, modification and construction of knowledge from the initial information block (refer to Figure 12.3).

Figure 12.3: The oscillation of learning theory by Siemens (2004)

The connectivism theory explains that a student must know the objectives of the learning objectives or process, the output of the impending learning activities or content and his impending successful responses to the situations or context. Interactions among teachers via collaborative negotiations by questioning and learning from each other allow active learning to happen (Stahl et al., 2006).


199

Methodology

The Respondents

The research involved 59 year two and three student teachers from the Faculty of Psychology and Education from Universiti Malaysia Sabah. They took Computer and Multimedia course – a faculty compulsory course for a Bachelor in Education degree in Semester 2 Year 2013/2014. They are required to complete a multimedia project as part of the course requirements. The project requires them to create multimedia materials for teaching and learning.

Instruments

Two main instruments were used to elicit data in this research, namely questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. The research uses a questionnaire adopting some affordances from Resta and Laferriere (2007). A 5-point Likert scale is used to gauge the respondents’ perception on the affordances. It ranges from 5 (strongly agree) (SA) to 1 (strongly disagree) (SD). The questionnaire has 2 sections. The first section consists of 12 items designed to measure how effectively Padlet.com is used for collaboration by the student teachers. The second section consists of 12 items which measures student teachers’ behaviour in using communicative skills in thinking critically, solving problems and working as a team (MOE, 2006). The questionnaire is reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha showing a value of 0.84. According to George and Mallery (2011), the questionnaire can be reliably accepted. The semi-structured interview was conducted with the student teachers after they completed their multimedia project. 10 out of 59 student teachers from the sample voluntarily participated in the interviews. They were interviewed mainly on their experiences using Padlet.com as a collaborative knowledge building tool. Additional qualitative data was gathered on their involvement in communicative soft skills as mentioned earlier.

Procedures

The course lecturer gave the student teachers six weeks to complete the multimedia project. They worked in groups of at least three members but not more than five. Each group would develop multimedia materials for online learning based on a general school subject topic. The student teachers were briefed on the functions of Padlet.com. They had to discuss their ideas or share problems while developing the multimedia learning materials using Padlet.com. Communicative skills for collaborative efforts among student teachers were given emphasis throughout the briefing session.

Analysis of Data

The collected quantitative data from both sections of the questionnaire was analysed descriptively using mean for reporting central tendency of distribution. The qualitative data from the semi-structured interview was analysed using discourse analysis method.


200


Research Question 1: Effectiveness of Padlet.com in supporting collaborative efforts of the student teachers in promoting the cultivation of communicative skills

Table 12.1 shows the mean scores from the questionnaire. The quantitative data showed that Padlet.com functions effectively as a collaborative knowledge building support tool.

Table 12.1: Findings from the questionnaire

Affordances N SD Mean

Learners’ preparedness in learning. 59 0.77 3.91

Improving learner’s deep understanding and cognitive performance. 59 0.89 3.46

Flexibility of learning time and space. 59 0.82 3.78

Tracking of learner’s engagement, discussion and work. 59 0.79 3.89

Affordance 1: Learners’ Preparedness in Learning

The mean of 3.91 indicates that Padlet.com allows them to manipulate and improve all information on a single platform. Improvement of the ability to think happens because of the student teachers’ active participation in the exchange of ideas and discussion on Padlet.com (Wegerif, 2006). The posted information such as ideas, images and discussions that are related to the topic of the study allows feedbacks among the student teachers. This proves that they possess high level of preparedness in learning.

Affordance 2: Improving Learner’s Deep Understanding and Cognitive Performance

This affordance of 3.46, although was slightly lower than other affordances, again demonstrates that Malaysian learners are able to incorporate Web 2.0 tools for cognitive development. Improvement of the cognitive discipline is difficult because the student teachers seldom show that they find faults with their friends’ ideas. They show passive behaviour in learning. Yong and Yuen (2008) offer two possible reasons. Firstly, the lack of critical behaviour in challenging ideas and secondly, heavy workload especially on assignments causes them to manage time poorly. This is also supported by some explanations from the semi-structured interview. Some of the comments from student teachers are:

“Simply too much work. No time to explore Padlet.com lah”

“Other courses also got many assignments. Pening kepala…”

“It is not that I cannot edit but not nice to my friends lah…”


201

Affordance 3: Flexibility of Learning Time and Space

The mean of 3.78 indicates that student teachers enjoy the flexibility of learning time and space. Once they are connected, they are able to work independently on the multimedia project. According to Resta and Laferriere (2007), Padlet.com allows student teachers to reconstruct new ideas among each other easily. The interactions bring together their prior experiences via online collaborations to create new experiences or ideas. For example, student teachers have the following comments:

“After starting to use Padlet.com, there is no need to move anymore. I no need to go to my friends place for discussion. Not so stressful lah…”

Affordance 4: Tracking of Learner’s Engagement, Discussion and Work

This mean (3.89) was the highest among the affordances. Student teachers agreed that Padlet.com was user-friendly, attractive and could track changes in the course of the six-week duration. The learners’ anxiety level would increase if an online platform is less user-friendly and reduces precious time for effective collaboration (Resta & Laferriere, 2007). This finding is also supported by Yong and Yuen’s (2008). Some interesting comments coming through the interview are:

“Looks like there is little chance Padlet.com will crash.…I feel safe.”

“Good lah. It autosave my work – save trouble for remembering it”

Research Question 2: Improving the communication skills (CS), critical thinking and problem solving (CTPS) and teamwork skills (TS) of student teachers via Padlet.com

The result on the student teachers’ communicative collaboration using communication soft skills is shown in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2: The findings on student teachers’ communicative skills

Communicative skills N SD Mean

Communicative collaboration 59 0.79 3.95

Critical method for solving problems 59 0.82 3.90

Working in a team 59 0.83 3.89

Soft Skill 1: Communicative Collaboration

The mean score for communication skills was 3.95 which proves that the student teachers have the ability in delivering and conveying their ideas well using Padlet.com. This finding is supported by Robert et al. (2013) who states that Padlet.com can improve communicative skills of learners by actively interacting with each other on the platform. Figure 12.4 shows a screen shot of student teachers’ participation in communicative skills on Padlet.com.


202

Figure 12.4: A screen shot on students’ communicative skills

Soft Skill 2: Critical Method for Problem Solving

A mean of 3.90 suggests that the student teachers can communicate effectively and successfully. However, it is noticed that they do not respond at once to all postings by their counterparts. They need some time for critical thinking and solving problem. The communication skills are mostly transferred through utterances. This is proved to be true as student teachers mostly ask questions about related issues and even express agreements with certain opinions. Some examples of utterances are:

“What is your opinion on…”

“…actually we agree with your ideas. It is included in the video (i think)…”

Soft Skill 3: Working in a Team

Working in a team resulted in the mean score 3.89. It shows that the student teachers display great teamwork skill for raising issues, helping and motivating each other in completing the given task in acomplishing the project. They work well with each other and are able to adjust well to each’s precious time in completing the work for grading purpose. Observations and interviews with a few of the members of the group show that they enjoy working with each other so as not to disrupt the project deadline.

Conclusion

The research manages to prove that the student teachers use Padlet.com effectively to enhance communication skills. Padlet.com provides important support structures to promote collaborations among student teachers to improve their communicative


203

skills, critical method for problem solving and crucial skills for working in a team. The findings show that student teachers perceived positively on the use of Padlet.com to improve their communication skills. They are able to demonstrate the use of Padlet.com in communication successfully. Nevertheless, according to Thompson (2008), lessons must be designed carefully to ensure that Web 2.0 tool such as Padlet.com provides positive implications to the student teachers.

References

Adams, J. & Morgan, G. (2007). Second generation e-learning: Characteristics and design principles for supporting management soft-skills development. International Journal on E-Learning, 6 (2), 157 – 185.

Burden, K. & Atkinson, S. (2008). Evaluating pedagogical affordances of media sharing Web 2.0 technologies: A case study. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite conference. Melbourne: Deakin University, November. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/burden-2.pdf

George, D. & Mallery, P. (2011). IBM SPSS statistics 19 step by step: A simple guide and reference. (12th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

____ (2013). Global Employment Trends (2013). Available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the- ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_203840/lang--en/index.htm

Lynne, S. & Barbara, B. Levin (2009). Leading 21st-century schools: Harnessing technology for engagement and achievement. Corwin Press.

MOE (Ministry of Education Malaysia). (2006). Modul pembangunan kemahiran insaniah (softskills) untuk Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia. (Communicative skills development module for Malaysian institutions of higher learning). Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia Publishers.

MOE (Ministry of Education Malaysia). (2014). Laporan statistik pelajar, kementerian pendidikan Malaysia. Available at: http://www.mohe.gov.my/Web_statistik/perangkaan2011.htm

Resta, P., & Laferriere, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19 (1), 65-83.

Robert, M. C., Mary, M. C. & James R. M. (2013). STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Approach. Springer Science & Business Media.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Available at: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Available at: http://gerrystahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf

Padlet.com: For flexible online creation collaboration and sharing (2012). Available at: http://www.padlet.com.com/

Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2008 (119), 5 – 15.

TeachersFirst. (2012). Review – Padlet.com. Available at: http://www.teachersfirst.com/single.cfm?id=9631

Thompson, J. (2008). Is education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate. 3 (4), Available at: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=393


204

Wegerif, R. (2006). Towards a dialogic understanding of the relationship between teaching thinking and CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. 1 (1), 143-157.

Yong, H.S. & Yuen, M. C. (2008). A Malaysian university students’ perceptions and experience. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Conference. Melbourne: Deakin University, November. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/song.pdf

Chapter

13

Practices of Interactive Lectures among Lecturers in UPM

Lailawati Mohd. Salleh, Wan Zuhainis Saad, Fadzilah Abdul Rahman & Rosnani Jusoh

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Introduction

Interactive Lecture (IL) calls for student-teacher interaction in a lecture setting. The idea behind IL is to get students involved in the class during lecture by participating, contributing ideas and sharing knowledge. Students are expected to be active listeners and lecturing now becomes a two-way interaction. This is done by breaking up the lecture with student activities to allow students to apply the class content so as to provide feedback on student understanding of class materials.

Many techniques, often called engagement triggers, can be used in IL. Think-pair-share, one minute paper and simulation are triggers used in the classroom. Some other techniques include computer-based activities and online learning. For example in China, Liao et al. (2013) developed a new interactive tool called collaborative cloud to assist instructors in enhancing interactivity in their instructional activities. With the advent of fast technology, IL will be a challenge to implement in the current setting. Some of the challenges and limitations faced are:

a) Instructor readiness in advancing interactive lecture. Readiness can be in the form of attitude, knowledge of the various interactive tools, and preparing for the activities.

b) Faculty training is not at par with the rise of technology. Many faculty members are still grappling with coping with the technology.

Chapter

13


208

c) Part of IL deals with technology. The infrastructures at the faculties and universities are not able to meet up with the technology requirements.

d) Students themselves can be a limitation to IL. The nature of IL is student willingness to be involved in class activities during lectures and this requires students to participate and contribute.

e) When classes are large, they will be difficult to handle and consequently be less effective.

f ) IL involves resources, which may be costly if a lot of activities are conducted.g) Time is definitely an issue, particularly, when the syllabus needs to be covered.

To what extent the ILs are being used among the lecturers. Lecturers should be familiar with and competent to use the IL techniques especially using interactive Web2.0 tools. The frequency of usage of the techniques and tools will also determine the impact of effective teaching and learning. A shift is needed toward a more active and engaging format to increase learning.

“Best learning happens when students are active agents processing content, assuming responsibility for, and exerting control over their own learning processes” (Pang & Ross, 2010). “Once you engage the students’ minds, there’s an eagerness to learn, to be right, to master” – Erik Mazur, Harvard Professor.

What are the learning tools used during interactive lecture?

Interactive learning tools available at the university apparently encounter a wide range of learners’ needs and support interactivity. In other words, using various interactive learning tools can increase student’s engagement and understanding while providing immediate feedback. In particular, the benefits could be:

• Inspires, engages and enthuses learners.

• Supports tutors communicating complex concepts through animation, video, image, sound and text.

• Encourages higher learning.

• Accommodates multiple learning styles and preferences.

• Encourages independent learning and self-assessment.

• Supports students’ learning at their own pace.

• Supports students reviewing content that they may be struggling with.

There are many types of IL tools that can be applied by lecturer or instructor. The tool can be online and software based such as Flickr, Wordle, Animoto, Elluminate, Posterous, TweetDeck, Snagit, Picasa, Google, SurveyMonkey, PollDaddy, Etherpad, Edublog, Vyew, Livestream, Zoho, Crocodoc, Flipsnack, Myebook, Open Educational Resource (OER), Open Resource Initiative (ORI), PowerPoint, Camtasia Studio, LectureMaker, Articulate, Captivate, Raptivity, Jing, Twiddle, Scribblar, TypeWith.me, Prezi, Slideshare, Youtube, Scribd, Issuu, Wallwisher, Edistrom, Edmono, Blogger, Wordpress, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedn, Google Docs, Dropbox, Skype, Delicious, Diigo, PBWorks, Wikispaces, Evernote, Glogster, GoAnimate, VoiceThread and many others.


209

There are also traditional method such as one-minute paper think-pair-share, role play, simulations and experiments.

There can be many virtual tools; however, it is still not clear what kind of tools do UPM lectures or instructors use during interactive lecture.

Research Objectives

1) To determine the usage of interactive lecture among UPM lecturers2) To identify the learning tools used in the interactive lectures3) To determine the challenges and limitation in using interactive lecture

Research Questions

1) To what extent is IL being used among UPM lecturers? 2) What are the learning tools used during IL? 3) What are the challenges and limitation in using IL? 4) What are the differences the in usage of IL among disciplines?

Research Instrument

An online questionnaire (Survey Monkey) was chosen to obtain accurate and effective information so that respondents will be able to give a good response in terms of the features studied, compared to the interview method. The instrument used in this survey study is a set of questionnaire. The survey monkey was used in developing questionnaire. The questionnaire was chosen as the instrument to gather data based on following reasons:

a) Respondents are more willing to give feedbacks on the features being studied rather than being interviewed.

b) Time, energy and cost of the study can be reduced by using this method. According to Sulaiman Ngah (1996), questionnaire is the easiest method to obtain data. Questionnaire has many advantages compared to other methods for gathering qualitative and quantitative data.

c) This questionnaire is divided into three parts that are Part A, Part B and Part C. Part A is on the demography aspect of the respondents. Part B deals with the level of usage of IL among lectures at UPM, while Part C is about the challenges and limitation in using IL.

Data Analysis

In this study, data was analyzed by using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS 20). The researcher used descriptive and inferential analysis to analyze the data. The results of the analyses were presented in tabular Table 13.1. Information in Part A which is demographic information of the respondents was analyzed descriptively. Frequency distributions and percentages were showed for each of the three items which were gender, field of expertise and years of service. Descriptive analysis was


210

used to analyze each item in Part B and C. The result of the analysis showed the frequency distributions, percentages, mean scores and standard deviations for each item. Average mean and average standard deviations were also shown. Determination of the differences between the usages of IL among disciplines was done based on t-test and ANOVA analysis.

Results

Familiarity

Table 13.1 shows the distribution of means and percentages for 26 interactive learning tools that were familiar to lecturers. The highest mean score and percentage belong to ‘Whatsapp’ (M=3.34, SD=0.95) at 12.84%, followed by ‘YouTube’ (M=3.27, SD=0.84) at 12.15%, ‘FaceBook’ (M=3.24, SD=0.94) at 12.46%, ‘Putra LMS’ (M=3.16, SD=0.85) at 12.15%, ‘SurveyMonkey’ (M=2.01, SD=.1.04) at 7.73%, ‘Google Form’ (M=1.84, SD=1.02) at 7.08%, ‘Edmodo’ (M=1.66, SD=1.10) at 6.38%, ‘OneMinutePaper’ (M=1.52, SD=.97) at 5.85%, ‘Socrative’ (M=1.48, SD=.94) at 5.69%, ‘ThinkPairShare’ (M=1.45, SD=0.97) at 5.58%, ‘Padlet’ (M=1.44, SD=0.98) at 5.54%, ‘Wikispaces’ (M=1.41, SD=0.85) at 5.42%, ‘FMindmap’ (M=1.38, SD=0.74) at 5.31%, Quizlet (M=1.37, SD=0.75) at 5.27%, HotPotatoes (M=1.34, SD=0.75) at 1.15%, ‘Poll Everywhere’ (M=1.32, SD=0.76) at 5.08%, ‘BuzzGroup’ (M=1.31, SD=0.73) at 5.04%, ‘Bingo’ (M=1.26, SD=0.63) and ‘CrosswordLecture’ (M=1.26, SD=0.63) at 4.85% each, ‘MuddiestPoint’ (M=1.25, SD=0.71) at 4.81%, ‘VoiceThread’ (M=1.24, SD=0.65) at 4.77%, ‘Fishbowl’ (M=1.20, SD=0.57) at 4.61%, ‘Wordle’ (M=1.17, SD=0.58) at 4.50%, ‘Mindomo’ (M=1.12, SD=0.45) at 4.31%, ‘Popplet’ (M=1.10, SD=0.41) at 4.23%, and ‘TriadDyads’ (M=1.07, SD=0.35) at 4.12% as the lowest mean score and percentage. Based on the findings, lecturers were found mostly familiar with ‘Whatsapp’ (M=3.34, SD=0.95) as their IL tool, while ‘TriadDyads’ (M=1.07, SD=0.35) was the least familiar tool.

Table 13.1: Distribution of means and percentages for interactive learning tools that are familiar to lecturers

No. Tool Mean % Std. Deviation

1 Whatsapp 3.34 12.84 0.95

2 YouTube 3.27 12.15 0.84

3 FaceBook 3.24 12.46 0.94

4 Putra LMS 3.16 12.15 0.85

5 SurveyMonkey 2.01 7.73 1.04

6 Google Form 1.84 7.08 1.02

7 Edmodo 1.66 6.38 1.10

8 OneMinutePaper 1.52 5.85 0.97

9 Socrative 1.48 5.69 0.94

10 ThinkPairShare 1.45 5.58 0.97

11 Padlet 1.44 5.54 0.98


211

No. Tool Mean % Std. Deviation

12 Wikispaces 1.41 5.42 0.85

13 FMindmap 1.38 5.31 0.74

14 Quizlet 1.37 5.27 0.75

15 HotPotatoes 1.34 1.15 0.75

16 Poll Everywhere 1.32 5.08 0.76

17 BuzzGroup 1.31 5.04 0.73

18 Bingo 1.26 4.85 0.63

19 CrosswordLecture 1.26 4.85 0.63

20 MuddiestPoint 1.25 4.81 0.71

21 VoiceThread 1.24 4.77 0.65

22 Fishbowl 1.20 4.61 0.57

23 Wordle 1.17 4.5 0.58

24 Mindomo 1.12 4.31 0.45

25 Popplet 1.10 4.23 0.41

26 TriadDyads 1.07 4.12 0.35

Average Mean 1.35

Purpose of Using Putra LMS Interactive Learning Tool

Table 13.2 shows the distribution of percentages for 14 purposes of using Putra LMS IL tool by lecturers. Accordingly, ‘all above’ that comprises of notes, assignment, grading, discussion, sharing, and discussion scored the highest percentage at 36.5%, followed by ‘notes’ at 16.2%, ‘notes and assignment’ at 14.9%, ‘grading’ at 12.8%, ‘not at all’ at 5.4%, ‘notes, assignment and discussion’ as well as ‘sharing’ at 4.1% each, ‘assignment’ as well as ‘feedback at’ 1.4% each, and lastly ‘grading’, ‘notes and grading’, ‘notes and discussion’, ‘discussion’, and ‘sharing, discussion and grading’ scored the lowest percentages at 0.7% each. Based on the findings, lecturers were found mostly using Putra LMS for notes, assignment, grading, discussion, sharing and discussion eclectically and simultaneously, and least using Putra LMS IL tool separately for ‘grading’, ‘notes and grading’, ‘notes and discussion’, ‘discussion’, and ‘sharing, discussion and grading’.


212

Table 13.2: Distribution of percentages for purposes of using Putra LMS IL tool by lecturers

No. Purpose %

1 All above 36.5

2 Notes 16.2

3 Notes and assignment 14.9

4 Grading 12.8

5 Not at all 5.4

6 Notes, assignment and discussion 4.1

7 Sharing 4.1

8 Assignment 1.4

9 Feedback 1.4

10 Grading 0.7

11 Notes and grading 0.7

12 Notes and discussion 0.7

13 Discussion 0.7

14 Sharing, discussion and grading 0.7

Discussion and Implication

Lecturers’ familiarities with interactive learning (IL) tools were due to several factors: Firstly, lecturers’ tendencies to use less technical, simple, easy and time-saving tools, secondly, lecturers’ tendencies to utilize online interactive tools as compared to offline interactive tools, thirdly, lecturers’ tendencies to use free of charge application and fourthly, lecturers’ tendencies to employ popular application. In this regard, ‘Whatsapp’ fits the criteria and thus lecturers were mostly familiar with using it as their interactive learning tool compared to other IL tools that are available in the market. Moreover, lecturers’ tendencies to use different tools for different purposes were also observed. From the findings on lecturers’ purposes of using Putra LMS, they were keen on using it eclectically and simultaneously for notes, assignment, grading, discussion, sharing and discussion rather than separately.

Realising the fact that lecturers were mostly familiar with a small number of IL tools available in the market, several recommendations were brought forth in order to diversify lecturers’ familiarities and skills towards other tools. Firstly, more training on knowledge and skill for other IL tools could be given to lecturers. Secondly, more exposure to offline IL tools could be given to lecturers, and thirdly faculty is advised to subscribe more paid version of IL tools in order to give lecturers more choices in choosing the right tools for them.


213

Challenges and Limitations of Interactive Lecture

Despite the many advantages and benefits of conducting Interactive Lecture (IL), many universities have yet to implement widely this student-centred learning approach. An article written by Kendall Powell (2003) published in Nature highlighted the concerns of US professors on the lack of students’ interest in science classes and are attempting to “put new spins” on the old curricula by using IL tools such as the computer. In China, Liao, Wong, Ran and Yang (2013) developed a new interactive tool called collaborative cloud to assist instructors in enhancing interactivity in their instructional activities. Also in Turkey, Ocak (2011) found that faculty members found difficult to conduct blended learning due to instructional processes, community concerns and technical issues. In Malaysia, too, many universities are working on inculcating student-centred learning among academic staff by providing various trainings including IL. With the advent and speed of technology, IL will be a challenge to implement in the current setting.

In addition to examining the kinds of interactive tools and familiarity in using them, this project also delves into the challenges and limitations that academic staff face using the tools in class. A pilot study was conducted to obtain the challenges and limitations of conducting IL. Based on the feedback from the pilot survey and literature search, we obtained several challenges:

i. Lecturer readiness to conduct IL,ii. Lecturers need more knowledge to apply IL, iii. Infrastructure at the faculty needs to be more supportive to conduct IL, iv. Lecturers need more skill to conduct IL,v. Difficult to handle when classes are large,vi. IL needs a lot of preparation time,vii. Institutional support is needed to encourage and motivate instructors in using

IL and viii. Lecturers have to be more creative to conduct IL.

An online questionnaire was developed and emailed to all academic staff in UPM. Out of 1670 academic staff, 149 responded. Respondents were asked to indicate their opinion on the above challenges based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Table 13.3 shows responses on the eight challenges posed. Interestingly, more than 65% of the respondents agreed with all the challenges except for “IL difficult to handle when classes are large” which 57% agreed. Even though this challenge has the lowest percentage, it still shows that more than half of the respondents find conducting IL for a large class difficult. Another finding was that more than 90% of respondents agree that the institution has to play an important role in providing support to encourage and motivate lecturers to conduct IL.


214

Table 13.3: Percentage on the Challenges and Limitations of Conducting Interactive Lecture

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly

agree Agree Strongly agree

*Total agree

Readiness 0.67 6.04 16.78 44.97 31.54 76.51

Need more knowledge 2.01 6.71 22.15 42.28 26.85 69.13

Infrastructure support 0 2.01 2.01 24.16 71.81 95.97

Need more skill 0.67 2.68 11.41 44.3 40.94 85.24

Difficult to handle 5.37 13.42 23.49 31.54 26.17 57.71

Need more time 0.67 8.72 21.48 35.57 33.56 69.13

Need Institutional Support 0 2.68 5.37 38.26 53.69 91.95

Need to be creative 2.01 1.34 10.07 42.28 44.3 86.58 * Total agree is summated from agree to strongly agree.

The challenges can be grouped into two levels: institutional and individual level. The individual level can be divided into content and motivational requirements, as shown in Figure.13.1.

Figure 13.1: Categories of Challenges and Limitations in Conducting IL


215

At the institutional level, lecturers’ comments are were follows:

Infrastructure• I am very disappointed with the current state of the internet connection

and teaching facility in the faculty. You may suggest all sort of IL but at the end of the day - do we have reliable internet connection? Do we have the infrastructure to support this faculty?

• The infrastructure must be good

• Provide better infrastructure

Need institutional Support• Agree with the above statement. Workload should be reduced if need to

focus on this type of teaching

• Also need resources such as materials and administrative support

• The faculty and the university must be able to provide good facilities

• I have conducted IL for two years now. Unfortunately, there is no credit or motivation given by the Big Boss

As for individual level, lecturers agree that IL is important but they need to know the different tools on how to conduct IL. In other words, lecturers would have to acquire knowledge and skills (content) of IL as seen in some of the comments below:

Knowledge• IL are more fun and rewarding. Lecturers just need more pedagogy knowledge

and more support as well as encouragement from the university• All lecturers should using IL during their lecture. The should be given the

training to more knowledgeable and skillful in using IL

• Lecturers got to be exposed to new technology

Skill• Motivation, encouragement, guidance and techniques need to be given to

lecturers to conduct IL• More practice

• More training should help

Creativity

- Even though almost 97% of the respondents agreed that creativity is important, none of them wrote any comments related to creativity.

At another individual level, lecturers need to be ready psychologically; willing to spend time on preparing the teaching activities, and able to organize and plan for large


216

classes. IL requires that lecturers have the motivation to overcome these challenges from within themselves.

Related comments were as follows:

Readiness

Willingness of lecturerPersonally, I am not familiar with it so if it is to be established in the faculty, formal training should be organized

Readiness of students must be taken into consideration, too.

Difficult to handle

• The challenge of setting the mindset of students nowadays• Sometimes it is difficult to conduct, even though you have made effort to

plan IL……..

Need more time• Need more preparation time and facilities must be available for both lecturers

and students• Time is the key essence. It needs a lot of time to prepare. Furthermore, the

infrastructure must be more supportive during execution• …. IL is fun and easy to do, but the lecturer need more time to evaluate each

student’s performance

In summary, IL is positively viewed by academic staff as one of the tools in engaging students. What then is needed to be done is the support from the institution in providing adequate infrastructure and training in using the different techniques in IL.

The survey on challenges and limitations of using IL in class among UPM academic staff showed that most of the lecturers were willing and agreed on using IL in class. Responses from the survey showed that less than 5% of the lecturers disagree or strongly disagree with the challenges posed to them. A snapshot of the responses (Figure.13.2) clearly indicates that IL is well-accepted and that UPM management should look into the suggestions and woes of the lecturers when they are conducting IL in class. Only “difficult to handle large class when conducting IL” was found to be less than 90% but when taken from slightly agree to strong agree, this challenge is more than 80% (81.2%). That said, lecturers require the training of how to conduct IL, even for large classes.


217

Figure 13.2: Comparisons of All Responses on the Challenges of IL

Finally, based on the survey, it is found that some of the challenges and limitations faced by academic staff in UPM were:

a) Instructor readiness in advancing IL. Readiness can be in the form of attitude, knowledge of the various interactive tools, and preparing for the activities.

b) Faculty training in using Web 2.0 is not at par with the rise of technology. Many faculty members were still grappling in coping with the technology.

c) Part of Interactive Lecture deals with technology. The infrastructure at the faculty and universities is not at par with the technology growth.

d) Students themselves can be a limitation to IL. The nature of IL is student willingness to be involved in class activities during lectures and this requires students to participate and contribute.

e) When classes are large, it is difficult to handle and be effective.f ) IL involves resources, which may incur high costs if the activities conducted

require materials which may be costly.g) Time is definitely an issue, particularly, when the syllabus needs to be covered.

The following are the key findings of the IL study:

The Science, Engineering and Technology discipline comprised (77%), while the Humanities, Arts and Social Science area accounted for (23%). In terms of age, many respondents (36.5%) are between 30-40 years old. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with IL techniques, the majority of the respondents (86.5%) are not familiar with the Muddiest Point, 73.6% are not familiar with One Minute Paper; whereas, more than half (76.4%) are not familiar with Think-Pair-Share. More than 80% are not familiar with other interactive lecture tools such as Triad and Dyads, BuzzGroup, Bingo, Fishbowl, Crossword Lecture and HotPotatoes. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with IL tools, most respondents are very familiar with Whatsapp (59.5%), Facebook (49.3%), YouTube (48.6%) and PutraLMS (39.9%). Two third or more of the respondents are not familiar with most of the major interactive Web 2.0 tools.


218

There are significant differences for the online and offline between science and social science in relation to using IL. In terms of implementing IL, nearly half of the respondents felt that they are not ready (47.3%), lack of time to prepare interactive lessons (33.8%), lack of training (41.9%) and skills (41.9%) are the main problems they face in conducting IL. In addition, more than a third of them felt that lack of resources (45.8%), lack of knowledge (44.5%), lack of facilities (43.5%), students’ preference for teacher-centered lesson (36.4%) and poor maintenance (34.8%) as other main challenges and limitations.

As a recommendation, training should include active learning, students’ engagement and integration of Web 2.0, exposure to IL techniques such as Think-Pair- Share, One Minute Paper and Muddiest Point. Lecturers need support from their own institutions in terms of facilities, infrastructure and motivation.

As a conclusion, this study has provided useful information for UPM management particularly for the academic development center when implementing IL.

1) Infrastructure, particularly internet access, is critical in implementing IL.2) Institutional support is highly sought after.3) Lecturers are ready but need training.4) There is a very positive acceptance of IL.

References

Liao, J., Wang, M., Ran, W & Yang, S.J.H. (2014). Collaborative cloud: A new model for e-learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(3), 338 – 351.

Mohd Majid, K. (2004). Kaedah penyelidikan pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Ocak, M.A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers and education, 56(3), 689-699.

Powell, K. (2003). Science education: Spare me the lecture. Nature, 425, 234-236.

Pang, K., & Ross, C. (2010). Assessing the integration of embedded metacognitive strategies in college subjects for learning outcomes: A new model of learning activity. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 10(1), 79-97.

Sulaiman Ngah, R. (1996). Analisis data dalam penyelidikan pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Chapter

14

One Size Fits All?: SoTL and Flipped LearningRaihanah M.M.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Introduction

This chapter problematizes the approach to flipped learning as an on-going experimentation towards developing the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) given the existing digital age. In the current technologically advanced landscape, there is more that can be done to promote a meaningful and diverse learning experience for each learner based on the availability of simple yet accessible technology. The ‘one size fits all’ approach demands all learners to reach the same level of competency at the same time using the same teaching strategy based on the face-to-face interaction in class. This paper challenges the ‘one size fits all’ conventional approach which rejects learner diversity for a homogeneous teaching methodology.

My contention is that for a true heterogeneous approach to teaching and learning to be successful, the teacher has to be willing to redefine the scope of her teaching from the conventional ‘sage of the stage’ mindset to a ‘guide on the side’ attitude (Morrison, 2014). This chapter begins with the assumption that flipped learning, or the invertion of classroom time with homework time, is an emerging approach in many institutions around the world making it an advantageous strategy for educators to be cognizant of. That being the case, what is a possible structured approach to flipped learning? This chapter presents my framework as a case study which I have developed over the last two and a half years based on three graduate courses that I taught from February 2013 to June 2015. Before that, let me identify the premise for the discussion.

Chapter

14


222

Premise of the Discussion

The premise of the current discussion is based on two fundamentals. The first, as concluded in a previous paper, challenges the current conventional mode of teaching and learning at tertiary level, which generally includes a one-hour lecture followed by a two-hour tutorial. Based on my 20 years of teaching experience at the National University of Malaysia, this convention as I had contended previously, is filled with problems. As illustrated in the following diagram, the problem is triggered by tardiness on the part of learners which subsequently create a snowball effect that begins with students missing the pre-set activities and culminating with their inability to successfully follow the lesson (See Raihanah, 2014). The main problems faced by my students can be summarised in Figure. 14.1.

Figure 14.1: Problems Encountered in Conventional Mode of Teaching

The second premise lies in the age that we live in. The 21st century as we know is the era of the internet and digital literacy. I draw on Ken Robinson’s (2009) statement of the true task of educators in the present age of information overdrive. If, as Robinson states, “Our task is to educate their [i.e. our students] whole being so they can face the future. We may not see the future, but they will and our job is to help them make something of it,” how do we begin to take up this challenge given that our training is rooted in the past and our vision of the future is rather limited? As an educationalist of the 21st century, I concur with scholars and educators that technology is a medium that we must embrace to ensure learners are prepared with 21st century skills (Sevilla, 2013). Furthermore, the learners of today, as research has shown, demonstrate greater


223

digital literacy than most teachers (Thang et al., 2014). For that, as a teacher, I need to evolve in my teaching and learning approaches to suit the demands and expectations of this century. I need to “break out of the isolation of the classroom” (Fried, 2001) and carve out “learning spaces” that incorporates the “physical” with the “virtual” (Thomas, 2010) in order to facilitate learning. Technology, I believe, is the essential tool that I need to assist my quest to create a conducive environment for my learners and prepare them with the skills for the 21st century.

Learning any subject in today’s technologically driven age requires tapping into the available online and mobile learning spaces for both the learners and facilitators to engage and embrace meaningful learning. These learning spaces leverage on technology to develop and carve out places for engagement and collaborative learning. These learning spaces are also sites which demand commitment from both learners and facilitators to ensure the process of learning is a sustainable one which taps into the needs of “digital natives”, despite the educator being a “digital immigrant”. The former, like many if not most of the 21st century learners, “spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. [...] Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives.” (Presky, 2001, p.1). The latter, like myself, albeit, “not born into the digital world ... have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology” (ibid., 1-2). Taking Marc Prensky’s (2001, p.1-2) definition of both terms, my investigation into my teaching and learning using the flipped classroom methodology locates my students and me within the binary of “natives” and “immigrant”.

In order to facilitate the engagement of teaching and learning as a preparatory step to embracing the future, as a teacher, my role is to ensure students engage with the subject matter in the way that they would in their everyday life – in any situation, both online and face-to-face. The personalized learning spaces that I aim for in my teaching and learning echoes the definition provided by Tom Franklin and Jill Armstrong (2005, p. 87): “spaces in which to personalized learning rather than on personalizing of spaces for learning.” For that, I find that the flipped classroom method promises the best opportunity to enable learners to develop and explore personalized learning spaces both physically in a classroom and virtually wherever there is internet access. This issue to an extent is addressed by the current higher education institution (HEI) blueprint put together by the Malaysian Ministry of Education which requires at least 50% of any course offered at the tertiary level to incorporate a blended learning approach, with at least 30% to be based on online learning. This policy change allows the instructor greater flexibility to engage with the current learners through the medium which appeals to them, online.

My Approach to Teaching and Learning Using Flipped Learning

Extensive work has been done on the flipped classroom methodology, focusing both on the learner’s and teacher’s perceptions and the related teaching benefits (see Lee et al., 2014; Mohamed Amin Embi & Ebrahim Panah, 2014; Mohamed Amin Embi et


224

al., 2014; Raihanah, 2014; Zaid Alsagoff et al., 2014). Each study focuses on the central premise of fusing online learning with face-to-face engagement, through a flipped approach of knowledge construction.

For a concise definition of the flipping of the cognitive emphasis in a flipped classroom, I turn to Christopher Waterworth (2014) in Pause, Rewind My Teacher: A Flipped Approach To Learning. Waterworth (2014) succinctly describes flipped learning as a pedagogy that “enables children to complete the knowledge and understanding aspects of a learning journey outside of class time. They are then able to apply, analyze and evaluate the concepts inside the classroom.” The key aspect of the ‘flipped’ approach to teaching and learning, thus, is in the inversion of the cognitive skills being put into practice. The lower order cognitive skills are being put into practice outside of the classroom, while the higher order cognitive skills are being exercised in the classroom. This approach allows for the achievement of higher order cognitive skills within the learning spaces carved by the blended learning approach, namely online and face-to-face (see Figure 14.2).

Figure 14.2: H.O.T.S and the Flipped Learning Method

The foremost focus in my teaching and learning, among others, is the development of higher order thinking skills. Questions that I begin with at the onset of my courses every semester include, how can I get my students to put into practice higher order thinking skills? Which activities allow them to examine, synthesize and create knowledge, and which ones engage their lower order cognitive skills of comprehension and understanding? How can I get them to develop the lower order cognitive skills before coming to class? Using these questions I engage in a more hands-on learning process with my students. The following section presents my methodology on the


225

flipped learning based on the questions I asked myself and the experimentation of my teaching and learning with my graduate learners from February 2013 to June 2015.

The 3Es of Flipped Learning: Engage, Encourage, Embrace

My methodology of flipped learning is based on the fundamentals of my teaching and learning. I quote Ken Robinson’s (2013) statement in one of his famous TED Talks that has received over a million viewings, “The role of a teacher is to facilitate learning.” My ability to be a good teacher is only matched by my students’ ability to learn well in my classroom. If they are not learning well, then I too am not teaching well. For a while, my learners were not learning well in my classroom. Although all my students passed the courses that I had taught, my observations of the learning patterns of my students, collectively, from 2007 till 2012 indicated a strong lack of enthusiasm, focus and commitment. When asked to discuss a particular topic, I find only a handful willing to engage in face-to-face interaction. During lectures, a minority of them would unabashedly be on their mobile devices much to my chagrin. By the end of 2012, I realized that my days of teaching, or rather the conventional way of teaching, were coming to an end.

From 2013 onwards I began experimenting with the flipped classroom approach and found within a semester, students began to engage better. Their commitment level and focus showed tremendous increase and I felt like I was beginning to get through. I had, in fact, become another statistic to the findings by scholars that indicated how the schism between the digital natives and the digital immigrant had entered my classroom. As Thang Siew Ming et al. (2014) indicate, based on their findings on the state of digital natives in Malaysian universities, “Malaysian students have the potential to become ’digital native’ in the true sense of the word if the appropriate learning environment is provided which includes teachers who are ready to embrace the use of technology and the necessary infrastructure support.” At this stage of my teaching career, after over 17 years of experience under my belt, I was on the verge of becoming the real obstacle for my digital native learners who craved for a different type of learning space than the one my conventional training provided.

Over the next two years, I began to feel convinced that flipped learning can and should be the approach that I take with my graduate classes. In this section, I present my own methodology of flipped learning based on various experiment accumulated from 2013 till now. I use it as a working framework to ensure that I do not assume a ‘one size fits all’ approach; my paradigm shift occurs in the way I interact with my learners, in the way I present the course input to them and in the way they, in turn, engage with the topics we cover in the duration of each 14-week semester, using both physical and virtual learning spaces.

Engage Learner Interests Pre and Post Class

The first E of the ‘3Es of the Flipped Learning Methodology’ is Engage. Engagement with the learner forms the crucial first step in ensuring that learning can happen. In my classroom, engagement takes place before class where I use various Web 2.0 tools


226

and mobile applications to connect and interact with the students and motivate them to participate in the week’s discussion.

One of the easiest ways that I have engaged with my learners is using mobile apps like WhatsApp. This approach I find is beneficial in many ways. Firstly, it ensures a two-way communication between my learners and myself. They can ask me any questions and are assured that I will respond to them often times within the hour. They also reciprocate this two-way communication by engaging with me on any of the questions posted. The screenshot below illustrates an example of the two-way communication discussed.

Another benefit in incorporating mobile devices for pre and post class engagement is the speed with which students respond to my query. Most times, I am able to get a response from my learners within an hour. As shown in the screenshot below, the student’s respond time can be as quick as to the second. This quick response from the learners allows me to act immediately on the issue at hand (see Figure 14.3).

Figure 14.3: Engaging with Mobile Device

Where previously I would have to wait for the class representative to get back to me on any given issue, today, I get their individual feedback almost immediately. One drawback of this otherwise free application is the need for all students to own a smart phone. I realized this within the first two semesters of using mobile applications to conduct pre and post classroom engagement with my students. To ensure I do reach all learners, I have had to fall back on the more ‘conventional’ mode of online engagement, namely through email.


227

The second application I use to engage my learners’ pre and post class is by sending them messages through our Learning Management System (LMS). At the National University of Malaysia (UKM), our LMS is called ifolio. Using ifolio, instructors can make announcements to all students registered in our course collectively. These announcements will be sent straight to the student’s email inbox and a copy is kept in the announcement section. The screenshot below shows an example of an announcement sent to learners using the ifolio announcement facility (see Figure. 14.4).

Figure 14.4: Engaging with LMS

The third tool that I use to engage my learners pre and post classroom is an education tool called Voki.com which allows me “to create …[a] talking character”. I send humorous and at times quirky avatars to remind students of assignment deadlines and tasks at hand. An example of an avatar sent to remind students of an assignment deadline (see Figure 14.5) says the following: “Hi there. This is a message from Doctor Raihanah. Please, please, upload your assignment before class on Friday. It’s off with my head if you forget, okay? All the best and see you on Friday.” Short of sounding like a ‘nagging mother of a teenager’, these avatars allow me to continue my role as the ‘guide on the side’.


228

Figure 14.5: Engaging with Education Tool

Encourage Creative, Critical and Collaborative Teaching and Learning

The second E of the ‘3Es of the Flipped Learning Methodology’ is Encourage. Encouraging learners to participate, construct and collaborate in their learning requires both learners and myself as their instructor to be committed to the process of learning. My task begins with ensuring that the course input is continuous, critical and creative. For that, I use pre-recorded lectures that I prepare using various screen casting tools including Camtasia, Screencast-o-Matic and Movenote. Each lecture on average is around 10 minutes long and each topic has a number of these mini lectures. For each topic, students are to watch the lecture and answer the specific task assigned and upload their responses before class (see Figure 14.6)


229

Figure 14.6: Encourage with Pre-recorded Lecture as Input

In addition to recording lectures which are uploaded a few days before class, I also record guided reading of the compulsory textbook that students need to go through for the course. I use this recording as an important input for the entire semester as the textbook in question can facilitate future weeks’ input and the students can refer to the said recording over the semester (see Figure 14.7).

Figure 14.7: Encourage with Guided Reading


230

Besides my own lectures, I also use existing lectures on Youtube, and TED Ed as I concur with proponents of flipped learning that reusing and recycling existing knowledge and information speaks directly to the digital age that we live in (see Mohamed Amin Embi, 2015). As Morrison (2014, p.1-2) aptly puts it, “the lecture–content delivery by a learned sage via a one-way transmission mode – may well not be needed anymore as a means of delivering or transmitting content, the latter now readily and abundantly available virtually anywhere and anytime via technology.” The followings are two examples of the types of online materials that I reuse for my courses. The first is based on a TED Ed lesson that I modified for my Research Methodology course in which the students watch a short video about plagiarism and answer some critical questions based on the video and their own research topic (see Figure 14. 8 for example of a TED Ed lesson used).

Figure 14.8: Encourage with Existing Ted Ed Lessons

The second example for recycling available material is for my Parameters of Comparative Literature course. I used, among others, an interview with a Professor of Comparative Literature, Haun Saussy, discussing the current state of Comparative Literature. Students were again given a short task as a form of response to the interview (see Figure 14.9).


231

Figure 14.9: Encourage with Existing Videos on YouTube

Besides committing to provide learners with continuous, critical and creative input, the second E to the ‘3Es of the Flipped Learning Methodology’ encourages learners to be an active participant of the learning process. I concur with Charles D. Morrison (2014) that for learning to happen, two factors need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, the teacher needs to move out of the “sage-on-the-stage” mind set and become a “guide by the side.” Second and perhaps more crucially, learners need to “assume the responsibility to learn deeply” (Morrison, 2014, p.3). To that end, students in my courses have had to participate in the process of knowledge construction on a weekly basis. Each week students are assigned a range of tasks. Some include a short one-minute personal response in a written form be it directly on ifolio or on wallwisher tools like padlet.com (see Figure14.10).


232

Figure 14.10: Encourage with 1-Minute Response

Others include a brief recording of their thoughts using any Web 2.0 tools (see Figure 14.11)

Figure 14.11: Encourage With Short Video Response


233

I also require students to record their seminar prior to class as part of the flipped experience (see Figure 14.12).

Figure 14.12: Encourage With Recorded Seminars by Students

Each task is designed to suit the learning objective for each week. And each task challenges the learner to participate in the learning process. The learning spaces that are carved out online allow them the opportunity to make their learning visible to me, the instructor of the course, and to their classmates and in so doing, allows for the start of collaborative learning to take place.

Embrace Reflective Teaching and Learning

The final E in the ‘3Es of Flipped Learning Methodology’ that I have been experimenting with is Embrace. One of the fundamentals of teaching and learning is in the reflective attitude that both teachers and learners do as part of their learning curve. As mentioned on the onset of this section, my own journey with flipped learning began with my reflection on the failure of the conventional mode of teaching that I used with my students. My journey is akin to Randy Bass’ (1998) description of his approach to SoTL: “from seeing my teaching as a problem (or failure) to seeing in my teaching a set of problems worth pursuing as an ongoing intellectual focus.” Embracing reflective teaching and learning thus brought me face-to-face with an “intellectual focus” worth addressing: how do I make learning more visible and viable for my students? What pedagogical transformation can I do to suit the demands of the digital natives in my classroom?


234

In my classes, reflective learning is a fundamental feature where I encourage learners to keep a journal and reflect on the learning they have experienced in class for the duration of the 14-week semester. I also use Wall-wisher tools like Padlet.com to capture a particular class’ overall reflection of their learning using the flipped learning method. The preliminary findings of student reflections based on one particular course which I taught in 2014 indicate a very positive attitude among the graduate students regarding flipped learning (Raihanah, 2014). More significantly, the findings also signal a clarity of responsibility on the part of the learners of their role in the learning process, concurring with Morrison’s (2014, p. 3) findings of shifting learners role from “recipient to participant.” The continuous process of reflective teaching and learning by myself and my learners, I feel, will help generate the needed awareness of where best to innovate the learning process in the coming years.

Conclusion

Using the ‘3Es of the Flipped Learning Methodology, I conclude that a successful flipped classroom must do these three things. Firstly, it must engage the learner’s interest and participation before and after the class. Secondly, it must encourage a continuous, critical and creative output by learners based on equally continuous, critical and creative input by the instructors. Thirdly, a successful flipped learning environment must embrace reflective attitude about the teaching and learning that is taking place and it has to be done both by the learner and the educator. Only with this type of structured and focused methodology, can the blending of online learning space with the physical learning space be successful (See Figure. 14.13).

Figure 14.13: Summary of the 3Es of Flipped Learning Methodology


235

At this point, I just want to clarify the premise of my experimentation with my teaching, specifically my understanding of flipped learning and how best to use it to empower myself as the teacher and to empower my learners as digital natives. I draw on Myles Horton’s ideas on education and social change: “I’m much better at working out ideas in action than I am in theorizing about it and then transferring my thinking to action. I do not work that way. I work with tentative ideas and I experiment and then with that experimentation in action, I finally come to the conclusions about what I think is the right way to do it.” (Horton & Freire 1990:238)

My stance is that as a teacher of the 21st century I continue to “work with tentative ideas”, “experiment” with any resources at my disposal which include technology, and with the “experimentation in action” draw my own conclusions about what I feel is the best approach for my students as the learners of my courses. This I feel is the basis of my scholarship of teaching and learning and the approach I have taken to develop my methodology of flipped learning.


236

References

Atkinson, M. P. (2014). Context matters for teaching and SoTL: Economic constraints, contingent faculty, and technology. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2). Article 2

Bass, R. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: What’s the problem? Inventio. 1(1)

Franklin, T. & J. Armstrong. (2005). Designing spaces for personalizing learning: Spaces for personalizing learning or personalizing spaces for learning? In Personalizing Learning in the 21st Century. Edited by de Freitas, S. & C Yapp. Stanford: New Educational Press

Franklin, J. & Theall., M. (2001). Faculty opinions about the scholarship of teaching. Paper presented at the 81M annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Seattle WA: April 13

Fried, R.L. (2001). The passionate teacher: A practical guide. Beacon Press

Horton, M. & P. Freire, (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Temple University Press

Lee, K. W, N.G. S. I., Tan, C. K. & Yoon, S. J. (2014). To flip or not to flip the classroom? Findings from a Malaysian undergraduate course in UMS. In Blended & Flipped Learning: Case Stdies in Malaysian HEIs edited by Mohamed Amin Embi MEIPTA.

Mohamed Amin Embi (2015). Flipped learning 3.0. Keynote presented at K-Novasi 2015. 11th Feb 2015, DECTAR, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Mohamed Amin Embi & Ebrahim Panah. (2014). Overview of flipped learning. In Blended & Flipped Learning: Case Studies in Malaysian HEIs edited by Mohamed Amin Embi MEIPTA.

Mohamed Amin Embi, Supyan Hussin & Ebrahim Panah. (2014). Flipped learning readiness among graduate and postgraduate students in UKM. In Blended & Flipped Learning: Case Stdies in Malaysian HEIs edited by Mohamed Amin Embi MEIPTA.

Morrison, C. D. (2014). From sage on the stage to guide on the side: A good start. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 8(1):Article 4.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon. 9(5), Part 1 & 2

Raihanah M.M. (2014). Flipped classroom and meaningful learning among UKM graduate students: A teacher’s reflection In Blended & Flipped Learning: Case Stdies in Malaysian HEIs edited by Mohamed Amin Embi MEIPTA pp. 277-295

Robinson, K. (2013). How to escape education’s death valley. TED Talks. https://youtu.be/wX78iKhInsc. Retrieved on 30 March 2015.

Sevilla, M. (2013). 21st century classroom: Creating engaging elearning for every student. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform

Thang S.M, Nurjanah Mohd Jaafar, Nambiar R. M.K., Zaini Amir & F.F. Wong. ( 2014). Are Malaysian undergraduates ‘digital natives’ in the true sense of the word? A Quantitative Analysis in 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 20(1): 177 – 191

Thomas, H. (2010). Learning spaces, learning environments and the displacement of learning. British Journal of Education Technology, 41(3), 502-511

Waterworth, C. (2014). Pause, rewind my teacher: A flipped approach to learning. Kindle eBook

Zaid Alsagoff, Hasnain Baloch & Norhasliza Hashim. (2014) Flipped large lectures @ IMU. In Blended & Flipped Learning: Case Stdies in Malaysian HEIs edited by Mohamed Amin Embi MEIPTA.

Chapter

15


Munira Abdul Razak, Noradilah Md Nordin, Wan Marzuki Wan Ismail & Zarina Mohd Ali

Universiti Malaysia Pahang

Introduction

Teaching non-engineering course to the engineering students requires interactive e-learning tools and technology oriented interaction rather than traditional learning approach (James Cooper & Ball, 2003). Edmodo is one of the e-learning tools used as e-learning platform to enhance teaching and learning (Mohamed Amin Embi, 2011) of the university core courses in University Malaysia Pahang (UMP), namely Ethnic Relations, Soft Skills and Islamic and Asian Civilization which are non-engineering courses in nature. In addition, this chapter covers on the instructor experience and challenges in embedding and engaging teaching and learning activities via Edmodo with impact on teaching performance.

Edmodo Application in the University Core Courses: Embed and Engage

According to Kenkonen-moneta et al. in Hong Kong, students who used e-learning tools outperformed those in traditional classes (Kekkonen-moneta, Bay, Kong & Moneta, 2000). Using Edmodo as e-learning tools can further enhance students’ understanding and interaction inside and outside class. Both statements are in line with the chronosystem in Bronfrenbrenner Ecological Theory (Baharuddin, 2012).

Chapter

15


240

Edmodo Application in University Core Courses: Challenges and Responses

The initiatives to embed and engage the university core courses of Ethnic Relations in teaching and learning of engineering students in UMP lead to both technical and operational challenges and responses. The technical challenges are to embed the modular approach of the course plan integrated with assessments that comply with a two credit hours course. In the other words, the lecturer must be fair and wise whenever he or she wants to adopt and adapt any e-learning tools to be integrated into his or her respective course. Lecturer must also be alert with the related academic policies and guidelines.

For a university core course like the Ethnic Relations, in particular, point of concern is that all the activities involved must be compatible with two credit hours and students’ in-class and out–of –class learning time. This practice complies with the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) requirements which are mandatory for all courses, such as the number of hours that students spend to interact and engage with e-learning platform. Others include the types of activities assessed. In response to the technical challenges in e-learning platform such as Edmodo, a thorough understanding of the objectives and course outcomes of related courses and their delivery process as well as the assessment method is vital. Instructors must check and balance the degree and division of interaction between course design, delivery and assessments methods in the desired e-learning environment that involves both face to face and synchronous engagement. These are among the many advantages of embedding Edmodo application and engaging students with it.

Meanwhile, the operational challenges of embedding Edmodo application within the curriculum especially engineering curriculum lie in the execution of the modular oriented course materials integrated into the planned course activities and assessments simultaneously and synchronously. Such combined 2-in-1 approach corresponds to operational challenges in both real and virtual modes. This is an indication that the module is an essential element of teaching and learning activities. In practice, all the activities during lecture hours and online activities are integrated with Edmodo engagement. For instance, three out of four assessments require students to make submissions via Edmodo. The three assessments are reflection, team project and mid-semester test with online submission mode. For engineering students who generally have minimal interest in non-engineering courses like Ethnic Relations, this attempt has enabled students to fulfil the course assessment requirements more interactively and efficiently. Hence, learning becomes more student-centred (Sharma et al., 2010). In this example, students are required to read the course module, understand the module and lecture notes, reproduce them and share their understanding through the three assessments conducted in classroom setting as well as in the Edmodo online e-learning platform. In addition, students can incorporate Edmodo into other popular and widely used social networking applications.


241

Lecturers and students can and should be able to utilise the Edmodo platform interactively from the course plan settings, lectures and assessments activities. It is possible to maintain interactive communication through announcements, course notes, posts, assignments and projects submissions (Mohamed Amin Embi, 2011). All activities in Edmodo including the progress of the assessments submission are well recorded and tracked which can be monitored by lecturers and followed by students anytime and anywhere (Mohamed Amin Embi & Nordin, 2013). This allows students and lecturers to stay not only interactively connected but also updated with the latest development taking place within the course as well as the progress and the performance of students individually or in groups.

Embed and Engage: How to deliver teaching and perform simultaneously

Utilisation of the Edmodo has made the aim of embeding and engaging of the course content and delivery through integration of face to face and virtual interaction between lecturer and students possible with considerable impact. Since the usage of Edmodo has been embedded into a non-engineering course like the Ethnic Relations, the teaching and learning process allows more time and space for interactions and feedback. Such initiative considers as more “engineering students friendly” than before. The lecturer and students can extend and expand the delivery of course contents either lectures or students’ presentation in both real and virtual classes.

Lecturer here the opportunity to integrate delivery of lectures and assessment with comprehensive, more effective and efficient approach (Ahlfeldt, Mehta & Sellnow, 2005). For example, lecturer delivers lecture on the concepts and theories of Ethnic Relations in the face-to-face mode classroom which can also be made available in other modes like in video form, electronic cue and flip cards, mind maps, power point slides and even audio recording. When marking is concerned, any assessment marked by the lecturer, the result is automatically published, recorded and triggered to the students and updated. Significantly, Edmodo allows efficiency in terms of reducing waiting time as well as other administrative processes such as marks entry and score update per assessment and calculating the total score per students.

Students also benefit from both delivery options. For instance, before presenting their video project, they could send their preview to the lecturer for feedback. The received feedback allow them to further improve their video beforehand. The students can also make use of the notes and course materials available in the Edmodo library. They can retrieve files and slides whenever necessary. The students can closely monitor their course progress and assessment and be updated whenever the lecturer has marked their submitted work synchronously anytime and anywhere beyond office hours. Apparently, Edmodo provides an interactive platform that enables and promotes win-win performance for both lecturer and students.


242

How does Edmodo Application Influences Teaching Performance?

Feedback from Students

Based on Table 15.1, majority of the students gave a positive feedback towards lecturer’s performance. About 68.27% strongly agree, that lecturer knew the course material well. For Item 2, the majority of the students (63.45%) strongly agree with this. About 94 students (64.82%) strongly agree with the lecturer’s responsive feedback via Edmodo. The majority of the students (n=99, 68.27%) strongly agree that their lecturer encourages them to use technology in e-learning (for example completing assignment, project & lab work). A total of 92 students (63.44%) strongly agree with the lecturer encouragement by using Edmodo as two communications in lesson and finally, 94 students (64.82%) strongly agree with the resource materials which are uploaded online by lecturer through Edmodo so that they can easily access.

Table 15.1: Feedback from students

ITEMS SDn (%)

Dn (%)

Nn (%)

An (%)

SAn (%)

Lecturer knew the course material well 1(0.69)

0(0)

3(2.07)

42(28.96)

99(68.27)

Lecturer was innovative and creative in conducting the course

1(0.69)

0(0)

4(2.76)

48(33.10)

92(63.45)

Lecturer was responsive to questions asked by students

1(0.69)

0(0)

3(2.07)

47(32.41)

94(64.82)

Lecturer encouraged student to use technology in e-learning (for example completing assignment, project, lab work)

1(0.69)

0(0)

3(2.07)

42(28.96)

99(68.27)

Lecturer encouraged two way communications in the lesson

1(0.69)

0(0)

2(1.37)

50(34.48)

92(63.44)

Lecturer uploaded resource materials online so that students can get easy access

1(0.69)

0(0)

3(2.07)

47(32.41)

94(64.82)

Note: SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree

Results from the Teaching Evaluation

Figure 15.1 shows the result from teaching evaluation. Overall, the pie chart reveals that the lecturer performance was excellent as the majority of students (67.04%) strongly agree with the lecturer’s performance. The performance was measured by six items (course material, innovation and creativity, assertiveness, IT-savviness, interaction and resourcefulness). Then, about 30.14% of students agree, followed by neutral (2.21%), strongly disagree (0.49%) and disagree (0.11%).


243

Figure 15.1: Result from Teaching Evaluation

Reflection and Way Forward

Practice Made Perfect

Initially, the move to practise, adopt and adapt an innovative and comprehensive approach in teaching and learning by using e-learning platform like Edmodo involves combination of management commitment and support as well as instructors willingness to apply with the possibilities of trial and error with the challenge to get cooperation from the students to fully participate during the whole semester as well as the impact and feedback from the students in the university lecturers’ evaluation or e-PAT. The head of programme provides technical and operational support to implement such tool. The instructors attended workshop and Webinar on the Edmodo usage and applications before implementing it in the teaching and learning comprehensively. Such preparations and exposures are needed to ensure the smooth running of the teaching and learning activities. Awareness and readiness of the instructors are fundamental towards this motion. Again, embed and engage are challenging tasks to be accomplished. It demands perseverance, commitment, knowledge and efforts to maintain the interaction throughout the semester. Once the instructor gets the rhythm and art to embed and engage, in the following semesters, it will be easier to use the technology. The first step is always the hardest part in any journey towards excellence.


244

Room for Improvement

The biggest room is always the room for improvement. In order to improvise the current practice of embedding and engaging via Edmodo platform, a few suggestions can be made. Firstly, is on the basic technical support which is the internet support. High internet speed must be available to ensure the optimisation of e-learning application and implementation. This is one of the feedbacks given by students whenever e-learning implementation is concerned.

Second is on the possibility of technical integration of the Edmodo with the university e-learning platform. If the Edmodo is integrated into the university e-learning platform, it will minimise the duplication of administrative work of the course assessments such as the marks entry and overall results and grade generated. The duplication of work will double the workload for the instructors to record and release the results for the course.

The third suggestion is on the features available in the Edmodo that can be more instructor-friendly by adding more functions that match with the teaching and learning assessment activities. For instance, the present function is that marks can be generated for total students of the assigned group. If possible, there should also be a function that is able to breakdown and personalise to sub-group view and categories.

Conclusion

In conclusion, embedding and engaging through Edmodo for teaching and learning activities are possible to be done with proper technical and operational support in terms of providing the real and virtual platform to interact within and beyond class hours. Significantly, it contributes to excellent performance and benefits for both instructors and students simultaneously. The attempt to blend the non-engineering course like Ethnic Relations with Edmodo application promotes students’ engagement and interactions with the course. Moreover, the successful implementation of Edmodo are worth and recognised by the university management in term of the instructors’ award related to teaching and learning through the online evaluation and feedback by the students.


245

References

Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 5–20.

Baharuddin, S. A. (Ed.). (2012). Modul hubungan etnik (Second Edi.). Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia: Institut Kajian Etnik, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Cooper, J. L., Robinson, P., & Ball, D. (2003). The interactive lecture: Reconciling group and active learning strategies with traditional instructional formats. Exchanges, the Online Journal of Teaching and Learning in the CSU.

Embi, M. A. (2011). Web 2.0 social networking tools. Bangi: Pusat Pembangunan Akademik, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Embi, M. A., & Nordin, N. M. (2013). Mobile learning : Malaysian initiatives & research findings. Bangi: PUsat Pembangunan Akademik, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Kekkonen-moneta, S., Bay, C. W., Kong, H., & Moneta, G. B. (2000). Online learning in Hong Kong : A preliminary comparison of the lecture and online versions of a computing fundamentals course. In Proceedings International WWW Conference (10), Hong-Kong.

Sharma, M. D., Johnston, I. D., Johnston, H., Varvell, K., Robertson, G., Hopkins, A., … Thornton, R. (2010). Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 1–9.

Chapter

16

Awareness and Acceptance of Interactive Learning Based on Web 2.0 Tools

Robiah Udin, Robiah Zakaria, Zunuwanas Mohamad, Zaiton Taat & Janice Jothi Pandian

Politeknik Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah & Politeknik Sultan Idris Shah

Introduction

Interactive learning is a method of applying latest technology to enhance the level of learning where electronic network (LAN, WAN or internet) is used in the teaching and learning process. With this method, lecturers are able to apply interactive learning in delivering content, information and interacting. Through interactive learning, more students can be continuously connected regardless of distance. According to Leamframe (2001), media application largely comprises of attractive text, animation, graphic, audio and video, besides providing online discussion and delivering applicable theories, methodologies and practices to larger and more enthusiastic audiences.

Web 2.0 which was introduced by O’Reilly Media in year 2004 was mainly a 2nd generation Web featuring Web application that is able to assist the user to collaborate and share online information. Examples of Web 2.0 applications used in teaching and learning are Padlet, Facebook, Twitter, Edmodo, Voicethread, Googledoc, etc. Web 2.0 in education, provides space for collaboration and idea contribution between the student and lecturer. The application also allows the student and lecturer to seek and gain information conveniently. For example, Padlet enables its user to collaborate online synchronously. By using this application, users may enhance ideas or improve something through online (where all users could view any changes done by other online users).

Chapter

16


250

Literature Review

Technological innovations provide new possibilities to transform the teaching and learning process (Sessoms, 2008). The discovery, regarded as the invention of the internet is large enough, changing the global nature of the world into a local one. This is because, through the internet, resources of the world’s information are accessible by all parties, no matter where they are through the Internet; making distance and time no longer an issue.

The world seems to be small, and communication becomes easier. Web 2.0 describes World Wide Web sites that use technology beyond the static pages of earlier Web sites. Although Web 2.0 suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update of any technical specification, but rather to cumulative changes in the way Web pages are made and used. Web 2.0 applications use the Web or the Internet as a platform (Wikipedia, 2014). Platforms are the place of a running application and commonly used ones including Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop. Using the Internet as a platform means that these applications run directly over the Internet without the use of any particular operating system.

The best example is Google which can be accessed from any operating system. Another example is Yahoo, Flickr and so on. While Web 2.0 technologies are becoming ubiquitous in the everyday lives of students, they are still new to a majority of instructors, especially in higher education settings (Yun-Jo An & Kevin Williams, 2010). The advantages are evident as Web 2.0 is no longer constrained by any Windows operating system as we do not need to ‘install’ anything to use these applications. A Web 2.0 site may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to Web sites where people are limited to the passive viewing of content. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, folksonomies, video sharing sites, hosted services, Web applications and mashups. Whether Web 2.0 is substantively different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon. His original vision of the Web was “a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write”.

Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0 but implemented differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may have had a guestbook page to publish visitor comments, instead of a comment section at the end of each page. Server performance and bandwidth considerations meant that having a long comment thread on each page could potentially slow down the site. The Power of Web 2.0 applications are the data. Internet applications result in data which is always backed by strong fundamentals and uniqueness. An example is Google whose strength lies in the collection and interpretation of data from Web pages on the Internet. Another example is Amazon, which has a wide range of data and not just complete but also full of information such as a book review, a guest book from the user, links to other books and so on. This clearly shows that the dominant firm is a company that can capture the data itself.


251

According to Richardson (2009), there are different types of Web 2.0 tools including: I). Blogs: Blog is online media content displayed in chronological order according to the reverse order in which updates are at the top. II) Wiki: A wiki is a collaborative Web site where anyone can add or edit content already published. III) Online Forum: Forum or bulletin board is an online discussion site that is tailored to a specific topic. IV). Social Bookmarking: Social bookmarking sites allow users to not only store the address of the Web page URL that has interesting content, but also allows users to save all pages of the Web interface. V). The Social Network: The social network is a group of individuals that form virtual communities based on several criteria such as sharing the same interests. VI) Media partnership: Photo sharing allows users to upload their media files and share with other users.


Research Design

Based on the research objectives, the method used in this research is descriptive and inference survey using questionnaires as the instrument. This method is aimed at studying and reviewing the lecturers’ knowledge in JKE towards interactive learning and their readiness in using the method in learning and teaching process. About 60 questionnaires were successfully gathered and analyzed using SPSS program. The gathered data were translated to certain codes representing the variables as appeared in the questionnaires. For Part A, data were analyzed based on descriptive statistics which is frequency, while in Part B, Part C and Part D data were analyzed based on mean score statistics and standard variance.

The “Cronbach Alpha” Test was used to measure the instrument reliability and consistency. According to Nunally (1978), “Cronbach Alph” values should exceed 0.70 for high reliability and consistency. Table 16.1 shows the analysis which indicates the reliability for the parts that applies scales which is Part B, Part C and Part D. The values gained from Part B and Part C indicates that the item in such construct is reliable.

Table 16.1: Cronbach Alpha Score Results

Bil. Kriteria untuk bahagian Nilai kebolehpercayaan (Alpha Cronbach

Part B Knowledge and self-efficiency 0.84

Part C Acceptance towards application 0.82

Part D Obstacles 0.51

Mean score or classification stage interpretation was used to elaborate the descriptive research finding pertaining to knowledge and self-efficiency. Classification stage is as stated in Table 16.2.


252

Table 16.2: Classification stage on knowledge and self-efficiency, acceptance and obstacles towards WEB 2.0 interactive learning

Classification stages Range level

Disagree 0.00 – 2.4

Moderate 2.41 – 3.80

Agree 3.81 – 5.00

Research Sample

Research sample consists of lecturers from the Electrical Engineering Department in Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Polytechnic and Sultan Idris Shah Polytechnic. For research and ethical purpose, the names and personal details of respondents are anonymous. The respondents were briefed on the research purpose and research procedures. This was to avoid confusion and misunderstanding of respondents in answering all items as stated in the questionnaires.

Research Instrument

The questionnaires instrument consists of four parts where Part A (Demographic Information), Part B (level of respondent’s knowledge and self-efficiency towards interactive learning), Part C (level of acceptance on the application of WEB 2.0 based interactive learning in advocating learning and teaching process) and Part D (Obstacles in applying WEB 2.0 based interactive learning faced by the Electrical Engineering lecturers in Polytechnic).

Part A is designed to gain the respondent’s background information where three (3) items are used as the basis of information, namely gender, education level and years of teaching experience by respondent. As a measurement of level of respondent knowledge, self-efficiency, acceptance and obstacles, Likert Scale 1 to 5 is used from the lowest point “Fully Disagree” to the highest point “Fully Agree”. Part B comprises ten (10) items in reviewing the level of respondent’s knowledge and self-efficiency towards WEB 2.0 based interactive learning. Part C has seven (7) items which are designed to review the acceptance on such interactive learning in advocating the teaching and learning process. Part D has five (5) items which are aimed at arranging the level of obstacles faced by the Electrical Engineering Department lecturers in both polytechnics while applying WEB 2.0 based interactive learning.

Findings

Data Analysis and Result

Analysis of Part A (Demographic Information) shows 60 respondents answered the questionnied. In terms of gender, 21 (35%) of the respondents were male, while 39 (65%) were female respondents. In terms of education level, 30 (50%) were undergraduates and 27 (45%) had a Bachelor’s Degree, while 3 (5%) had a diploma. The results show


253

that there is no PhD approval and other approvals for the two polytechnics from the samples taken. In terms of teaching experience, 7 (12%) taught for 1-3 years, 17 (28%) taught for 4-6 years, 10 (17%) taught for 7-9 years, 12 (20%) taught for 10 -12 years and 14 (23%) taught for 13 years and over. This shows that the majority of the respondents are equipped with teaching experience.

Part B (level of knowledge and competence of respondents to the interactive learning), is shown in Table 16.3.

Table 16.3: Level of knowledge and self-efficiency

NO ITEM MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION

LEVEL AGREEMENT LEVEL

1 I have attended a course of study based on interactive Web 2.0 applications

3.67 1.28 modest 8

2 I use my knowledge of Web 2.0 applications is high. 3.18 1.00 modest 10

3 I have the skills to use the Web 2.0 3.22 1.01 modest 9

4

There are many Web 2.0 applications that can be used to make the learning process more interesting.

3.78 1.03 modest 7

5 Interactive learning is easier for me to interact with students. 4.00 0.66 agree 6

6 Interactive learning to improve the quality of my teaching. 4.02 0.60 agree 5

7

Interactive learning is the learning that is controlled through the Internet or a network of computers and the internet.

4.20 0.55 agree 3

8

Interactive learning enables teaching and learning process executed with greater ease and performance to more students, regardless of distance.

4.25 0.57 agree 1

9

Interactive learning enables teaching and learning takes place continuously, regardless of the time limit.

4.25 0.63 agree 2

10 The handset is one of the tools that can be used during the process of interactive learning.

4.18 0.60 agree 4


254

Part C (level of acceptance-based interactive learning using Web 2.0 applications in learning and teaching), is illustrated in Table 16.4. Part D (Obstacles faced by the lecturer in Electrical Engineering Department in polytechnic in the use of interactive learning applications based on Web 2.0) is displayed in Table 16.5.

Table 16.4: Level of acceptance of the use of Web 2.0 applications



1

I am willing to use interactive learning methods based on Web 2.0 applications.

4.00 0.69 agree 6

2 I am willing to improve my knowledge of using Web 2.0 applications.

4.17 0.62 agree 2

3

I am ready to face the challenges in the use of interactive learning applications based on Web 2.0.

4.08 0.62 agree 5

4

I always give encouragement to fellow lecturers to use interactive teaching methods, teaching and learning.

3.80 0.80 modest 7

5

I know that learning-based interactive Web 2.0 applications have many advantages over conventional learning.

4.12 0.58 agree 3

6 Interactive learning to add my interest in teaching than conventional learning.

4.08 0.59 agree 4

7 Interactive learning method requires a greater commitment of lecturers.

4.25 0.63 agree 1


255

Table 16.5: Barriers faced by lecturers



1 I have internet access at home. 3.67 1.37 modest 1

2 Wifi access in polytechnic was easy. 2.93 1.25 modest 4

3

Teaching materials are easily accessed by using interactive learning methods.

3.45 1.02 modest 2

4

I do not have enough time to prepare teaching materials based on interactive learning.

3.33 1.05 modest 3

5 Multimedia equipment is insufficient for interactive learning process.

2.33 1.00 disagree 5

Table 16.6: The overall mean for the B, C and D

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

MEAN_B 60 2.70 4.90 3.8700 0.527

MEAN_D 60 1.80 4.20 3.1433 0.625

MEAN_C 60 3.00 5.00 4.0690 0.454

Valid N (listwise) 60

Referring to Table 16.7, the researcher found that there is the probability of (0.145)> significant level (0.05), then the null hypothesis is accepted. This shows that there is no relationship between self-efficiency for interactive learning and barriers in the use of interactive learning applications based on Web 2.0 by a lecturer in electrical engineering at both polytechnics.


256

Table 16.7: Correlation between the mean B (knowledge and self-efficiency ) and Mean D (barrier)

Conclusion

The purpose of the survey was to access and evaluate the awareness and acceptance of Interactive Learning based on Web 2.0 Tools. The main focus was on how we derived a Standard deviation, Std data analysis result from Part B, C and D. The conclusion and fact finding from this survey are as follows:

a) Part B- level of knowledge and competence of respondents to the interactive learning

Majority have the awareness about ICT as an interactive learning tool. However, it shows that there are still a significant number of lecturers who are not equipped with the proper knowledge about this. Thus, we should organize more training related to this course.

b) Part C-level of acceptance-based interactive learning using Web 2.0 applications in learning and teaching.

Based on this survey report, this fact seems to be a contradicting statement. From one angle, the respondents have agreed that this learning based on interactive Web 2.0 applications has many advantages over conventional learning. However, at the same time, they are not really supportive in giving encouragement to fellow lecturers to use interactive teaching methods. Therefore, we need to verify and clarify further on why in principle they belief, but at the same time their confidence level is still very low.

c) Part D- Obstacles faced by the lecturer in Electrical Engineering Department in a polytechnic in the use of interactive learning applications based on Web 2.0

It shows that majority do not have an internet access and computer (either desktop or laptop) at their residence.

The action proposed to be taken in order to achieve the objectives are as follows:

1) Establish a yearly training program in advance. It is proposed to conduct this training on a quarterly basis.

2) Make it compulsory for all lecturers to attend this course.


257

3) Establish a steering committee and working group in order to ensure everybody is familiar with this.

4) Review the progress and achievement of lecturers on a regular basis.5) Zoom in further on contradicting statement based on the level of acceptance-

based on interactive learning using Web 2.0 applications in learning and teaching. From there, we can come up with better justification on action plan.

6) The facilitator should organize more live participation and more fun during this training program such as more workshops and full live participation from all of the lecturers.

References

Abdul Rasid Jamian, Norhashimah Hashim & Shamsudin Othman. (2012). Multimedia interaktif mempertingkatkan pembelajakemahiran membaca murid-murid probim.

Faizah A. Majid. (2010). Scaffolding adullt learners’ learning through their diversity: An action research, International Conference on Learner diversity 2010. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 235-239

Kamarul Ariffin Abd Rashid & Musidi bin Wahid. (2007). Kesediaan pembelajaran berasaskan elektronik (e-learning)di kalangan pelajar Sarjana Muda Kejuruteraan Elektrik di Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia (IPTA), PSP’s Research Digest.

Md Nor Bakar & Rashita A. Hadi. (2011). Pengintegrasian ICT dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran matematik di kalangan guru matematik di dalam kota Tinggi, Journal of Science and Mathematics Educational, 1-17.

O’Reilly, Tim (2005). What is Web 2.0. O’Reilly network.

Richardson, W. (2009). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for classrooms (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sessoms, D. (2008). Interactive instruction: Creating interactive learning environments through tomorrow’s teachers. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 86-96.

Yun-Jo An & Kevin Williams. (2010). Teaching with Web 2.0 technologies: Benefits, barriers and lessons learned. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,7 (3)

Wikipedia. (2014). Web2.0. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Zaihan Haron & Nazira Md Latib. (2014). Pengaplikasian bahan pengajaran interaktif Multimedia dalam OBE dalam kalangan pensyarah Jabatan Perdagangan, Prosiding Persidangan Antarabangsa Keselestarian Insan 2014, UTHM, Pendidikan Jilid 3.

Zarina Yasak, Baharom Nohamad, Ahmad Esa, & Sharizal Shabuddin. (2009). Kaedah pengajaran berasaskan Laman WEB terhadap pelajar Diploma Kejuruteraan Elektrik Mekatronik di politeknik, Persidangan Kebangsaan Pendidikan Sains dan teknologi 2009, 26-27 Oktober 2009, UTHM.

Chapter

17


Ebrahim Panah Mohamed Amin Embi & Melor Md YunusUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Introduction

Over the period of the last three decades, corpora have gone beyond the realm of merely serving as the linguistic data for the linguists and researchers. It has attracted attentions of a lot of researchers focusing on language pedagogy (Geluso, 2013; Gilmore, 2009). Many researchers have carried studies on corpora as language research tool for learning language through data driven learning (Boulton, 2012), while few studies have focused on the use of corpora as a reference tool for addressing language problem in writing. In this vein, Kennedy and Melice (2001, 2010) have carried out studies on the use of corpora for pattern defining. Pattern-Defining is concerned with searching for models when the writer already has a specific target language pattern in mind to apply at a particular point in a writing text (Geluso, 2013; Gilmore, 2009; Kennedy & Miceli, 2010). Putting it in another way, it is a matter of when a writer knows some of the components of words and patterns in question, but s/he is seeking a model for the actual structure required, for instance, which preposition can collocate with a verb or noun in a certain context, the position of an adjective in relation to a noun in a particular usage (Conroy, 2010; Liu & Jiang, 2009; Kennedy & Miceli, 2010). As such, pattern defining is regarded as a corpora-informed error correction approach, based on frequency, for solving writing problem. Since pattern can be considered as a string of words or multi-word units, it can encompass the word collocation, phrases, etc.

Chapter

17


262

However, in spite of its benefits for language pedagogy, the direct application of corpora tools and resources for pattern defining in the classroom has remained unpopular. Neither TESL teachers nor ESL learners are aware that pattern defining enables them to keep abreast of wide range of natural language materials in the process of discovering language patterns (Boulton, 2009; Liu & Jiang, 2009), without oversimplification seen in textbooks (Comelles et al., 2012). Nonetheless, these advantages have been paid more lip services than tested with first-hand and empirical studies, action speaks louder than words do, and only recently scholars have embarked on conducting studies in this area (Pérez-Paredes, Sánchez-Tornel, Alcaraz Calero, & Jiménez 2011; Yoon 2011).

Nevertheless, although online corpora such as British National Corpora (BNC) and Corpus of Contemprery American English (COCA) are useful reference tools for performing pattern defining and error correction, they are not without limitations. This is where Web as a corpus and Google as a concordancer is suggested. To briefly recap the advantages of using the Web as a corpus and Google as a matching concordancer, firstly, the Web with its enormous linguistic data can provide much richer results even for relatively infrequent patterns including (words, phrases, and even long strings of texts) than can any standard large-scale corpora. Secondly, Google is easy to use as it requires no complicated query syntax, and processes queries very quickly, which is an important factor for any online tools. Students are already familiar with it from years of use for their content searches and may already have developed their own strategies for effective searches (Conroy, 2010).

Thirdly, Google can offer unique ways of supporting L2 writers, for example, Google search results are typically displayed in a “snippet” format, consisting of the title of a Web page that contains the search item and two to three lines of context surrounding the item on that page. It provides broader contexts in which the target item occurs than does KWIC (single-line concordances) and offers direct access to the original source from which the snippet comes from. Moreover, unlike most concordancers which return concordances that exactly match the query, Google returns results that are close or similar to the query item as well as exact matches, allowing the user to explore the alternatives. As such, Google Web’s search engine can be used when the user needs. Google can be used to quickly check the existence and overall frequency of a linguistic item (especially multi-word strings) for confirmatory purpose or verifying the naturalness of collocational or colligational patterns in ways that are difficult or not possible with more traditional concordancers. Nevertheless, despite its benefit for language improvement, Google has some demerits which are discussed in the next section.

Why Google Scholar

However, as pointed out, using Google as a concordancer is not without limitations. In short, Web content, by nature, is extremely heterogeneous and can be a mishmash of different genres, registers and linguistic varieties, which can pose a problem for learners with the intention to use it as a supporting tool for their academic writing. In addition, the Web contains a significant number of lexical and grammatical errors


263

made by both L1 and L2 speakers/writers of the target language. To address, if not all, these weaknesses, Google Scholar search engine that is more specialized is used. As the text extracted by Google Scholar is mostly created by native speakers or expert writers and Google Scholar searches only a database of scholarly literature, it can be used when the user intends to confine her/his queries to academic registers, assumed to contain much fewer lexical and grammatical errors than language data extracted from the entire Web may have (Berizna, 2012; Sha, 2010; Yoon, 2014).

Literature demonstrates that some researchers have studied the Web as corpus and Google as concordancer for writing improvement, for example, Google and phraseology (Shei, 2008), Google as a ‘‘pedagogical tool’’ (Chinnery, 2008), static corpora derived from Google searches of the Web (Guo & Zhang, 2007; Wu et al., 2009), Google as tool and technique for writing improvement (Conroy, 2010) and comparisons of Google to more traditional corpora (BNC) (Sha, 2010), native speakers’ perceptions of Google-informed phrases based on frequency in second language writing (Geluso, 2013).

The literature has evidenced only one study on the use of Google Scholar (GS) for writing improvement by Brizna (2012). He has highlighted the benefit of GS for language learning and writing improvement. He reported that the students found the materials hunted through GS engaging and attractive. Brizna (2012) decided that students’ enthusiasm for GS activities can partly be associated to the novelty of the exercises. He suggested long-term effectiveness of these activities, thus, remained to be investigated. He also highlighted that one of the most positive results of introducing GS was the fact that the students could learn quickly how to formulate complex queries in GS and apply the strategy of collocation searches to novel situations. Hence, in the present study, the effectiveness of using GS tool through Google Scholar Informed Pattern Defining (GSIPD) for writing improvement was explored.

Statement of the Problem

Studies reveal that patterns (lexical collocation, grammatical collocation, etc.) pose challenges to language learners especially Malaysian ESL learners. Despite the positive effect of corpora, specially GSIPD, on language learning and writing improvement, as noted earlier, the studies on the use of GSIPD (verifying the naturalness of patterns in mind or at hand based on frequency) based language learners perspectives is almost absent in literature in Malaysian ESL context. In addition, no study on the use of GS as a reference tool for solving problem of authentic writing course project has been undertaken.


264

Objectives

This study aims to explore the language learners’ perspectives of using GSIPD in performing an authentic writing project, where this writing is part of the course requirement.

Methodology

This study uses a qualitative approach (using open-ended questions and interview) to explore how effective Pre-service Trainee Teachers (PTTs) use GSIPD for correcting and verifying their patterns while producing authentic course project. It also used document analysis. To collect the data, three instruments namely open-ended questionnaire, interview and document analysis were used. The data collected from open-ended questions and interview were analyzed using thematic analysis, while the data from document was analyzed by computing frequency. The study used purposeful sampling and involved 17 PTTs studying at UKM.


In this section, PTTs’ perception and evaluation of GSIPD for writing improvement (confirmatory purpose) is presented. The analysis of qualitative data (from open-ended question and semi-structured interview) and document analysis are presented respectively.

Writing improvement: Theme confirmation

Data analysis reveals that a theme relevant to writing improvement, Confirmation, was extracted, as shown in Figure 17.1. When the learner is hesitant about naturalness/grammaticalness of the pattern in question, s/he can use GSIPD tool to confirm the naturalness of pattern through frequency analysis. The study also reported that the PTTs have mostly corrected collocations. This theme is sub-themed to lexical collocation and grammatical collocations. Lexical collocations and grammatical collocations are in turn divided into different sub-sub-themes.


265

Figu

re 1

7.1:

The

code

s and

The

me

Confi

rmat

ion


266

Findings of Open-ended Questions

Writing in a second language using natural patterns is one of the big challenges that second language learners face while producing language. When it comes to writing academically, this concern increases. As such, the learner seeks for reliable resources to consult. The first valid source that comes to mind would be dictionaries; however, due to limitations that dictionaries have, they cannot accommodate all words and phrases useful for language learning and writing improvement (Wu, 2010). Hence the learner would search for a reference tool with more coverage, such as corpus tool. A more user-friendly tool can be GS with immense coverage of Web data. In this study, one of the main purposes that PTTs used GS was for confirmatory purpose (confirmation) through GSIPD tool, based on frequency of occurrence on the Web.

As such, the learners have shown their feeling to the tool by highlighting and sharing their experiences while correcting patterns in course project. In this vein, they have attributed the use of GSIPD tool to producing patterns which are natural, appropriate, advanced, accurate, grammatical and correct. This delineates that the PTTs find it difficult to employ natural patterns without consulting a valid and reliable source. This is well-reflected in the following remarks:

ROQ5_2 claims: “it provides me with appropriate and advanced pattern”. ROQ9_2 makes comment along the same line: “learning how to look for naturalness of a word by typing the Google Scholar search engine”. ROQ11_2 confirms: “GSIPD helps me towards my sentence make accurate”. ROQ7_2 acknowledges: “Because I am always concerned about the correct use of words and grammar rule”.

Based on these excerpts, the PTTs have used GSIPD for different reasons including finding appropriate patterns, checking naturalness of patterns, making their sentences correct and also confirming correct use of word and grammatical rules.

Correspondingly, ROQ7_2 has used GS to define and correct her pattern using GSIPD. She says: “corpora helped me to define some certain patterns of phrases that we commonly make mistake and are not confirmed”. This respondent has used GS tool to verify the naturalness and accuracy of her patterns. Another respondent emphasized that Web corpus has helped her explore the context of usage of some patterns. ROQ14_2 confirms: “It helps by making me understand the usage of the phrase according to the context intended, and how to use the phrase”. ROQ10_2 confirms that she uses GSIPD: “because it defines precisely my key word and helps in searching for appropriate materials”. ROQ11_2 stresses: “GSIPD helps me towards my sentence make accurately”. Likewise, ROQ7_2 agrees: “I make use of GSIPD, because it is easier and more related to us. I usually use it to define some different versions of phrases/patterns I think better”. She exemplifies some of the usages of GSIPD as “phrasal verbs and adverb usage”.

The data also discloses that PTTs have used GSIPD frequently during accomplishing their course project. One student teacher acknowledged that she always uses GSIPD to define and correct her words or sentences. For example, ROQ15_2 emphasizes: “GSIPD, because I always want to correct words/sentences that I found”. Another respondent states that she often uses GSIPD to check the usage of words that she daily encounter in reading or speaking. In this vein, ROQ17_2 acknowledges: “I use GSIPD as I often


267

found new term everyday through reading and talking to people. However, she stresses: I only use GSIPH when I need to do my academic writing which is a seasonal situation. This is maybe she finds GSIPD tool more practical for her spoken usage than academic writing purpose.

In addition, studies at both international and local levels highlight that collocation is a challenging issue for both teachers and ESL learners (Liu & Jang 2009; Hong et al. 2011). To address this issue, learners need to consult reliable and valid resource. This is where GSIPD may help learners solve their writing problems in terms of collocations. This is well portrayed in the following remark: ROQ5_2 claims: “GSIPD serves me with different types of word patterns that might be useful for me to employ in my academic writing”. She says that she has used this tool for lexical collocations such as: “phrasal verbs, adjective usage and noun usage” [ROQ5_2]. ROQ9_2 sums up: “I use pattern-defining, because I am always concerned about the correct use of words and grammar rules”. Correspondingly, she mentions some of the problems that she has solved by using GSIPD for both lexical and grammatical collocations such as “nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions and other words usage. Grammar rules (plural)”. ROQ8_2 claims that she has used GSIPD for “collocation, noun usage”. Similarly, ROQ14_2 approves “I use it for phrasal correction, noun usage, and adverb usage”. ROQ17_2 provides some example of her activities in relation to GSIPD: “verb patterns, phrasal verbs, adjective, noun, adverb, and preposition usage.”

Based on the above mentioned excerpts, student teachers have corrected a wide array of patterns and collocations. As previous studies evidenced, collocations (both lexical and grammatical) pose challenges to Malaysian ESL learners at different proficiency levels. This fact is well expressed in their evaluation and use of GISPD for solving their writing problems and correcting different combinations of words. They have brought to the attention that lexical collocation (combinations of verb, noun, adjective and adverbs) and grammatical collocations (combination of verb, noun, adjective or adverb with prepositions) are challenging issues for them.

In a nutshell, the data based on PTTs’ quotations represents that the student teachers have used GSIPD for extracting and verifying different kinds of natural patterns including lexical and grammatical collocations. In what follows, the interview findings are presented.

Findings of Interview

As findings of open-ended questions revealed, student teachers have exploited GSIPD tool for confirming the naturalness of their erroneous patterns. This is also reflected in their quotations extracted from focus group interview. It was found that using prepositions in a natural combination with the parts of speech (verb, noun, adjective or adverb) poses a big challenge to student teachers. Accordingly, they have underscored that through GSIPD consultation, they corrected this category of errors along with the other types of errors including lexical collocations. An important point highlighted by the PTTs is that using natural patterns produced by professionals in their pieces of writing brings about confidence for them. They rationalized that the


268

patterns produced by professionals suggest that they are natural. These findings are well expressed in the following remarks created in the focus group interview:

“I get more confidence in my writing. Finding natural pattern, even teaching my friend how to do pattern defining. Mostly find it exciting” [RI1_2].

“for proposition, collocations, to find more natural patterns” [ROI3_2].

“the grammatical errors, for preposition and pattern; during the course I use Google scholar and get confidence, because it is written by professional writers and native speakers”[ROI4_2].

“I think in terms of naturalness, I think pattern and proposition and other grammatical errors. As mostly the articles are written by professionals, I think that the phrases they use, is correct so I get confident in using it” [ROI2_2].

“actually, we are university students. we have articles, folios assignments and essays in which we need to correct the sentences. So, I use pattern defining to correct my sentences, my errors”[ ROI5_2].

“pattern defining is just to check the grammar that I can use in writing. give me confidence to find the correct patterns. Mostly the problems are preposition and patterns because they are quite the same but I want to find the most used so I get confidence” [RI6_2].

As the interview data delineates, the student teachers have used GSIPD tool for different reasons including checking naturalness of patterns, correcting collocations, prepositional and grammatical errors, etc. This agrees with the finding of open-ended questions. As discussed in the previous section, writing grammatically correct sentences with natural patterns is regarded as one of the main concerns of learners while producing language, particularly academic writing. The main reason that PTTs use GSIPD with confidence is rooted in the fact that they believe that the data extracted by GS is mostly produced by native speaker or expert or professional writers.

Document Analysis: The sample of GSIPD

Another instrument used to investigate the effectiveness of using GSIPD tool was collecting the sample of patterns the PTTs have corrected as a result of GSIPD. These samples were extracted from their samples of tabulated patterns during completing course projects. They utilized this tool for correcting the erroneous patterns in the process of accomplishing their course projects. The errors corrected from their projects


269

are presented and discussed, as provided in Table 17.1. It is worth to note that here the learners have corrected the patterns about which they were hesitant in terms of naturalness. It should be also mentioned that the patterns presented here comprises only the sample of the whole patterns they have corrected through GSIPD while accomplishing course project. The sample of the patterns was analyzed quantitatively based on frequency.

Table 17.1 The Classification of Patterns Corrected by PTTs using GSIPD, adapted from Benson, Benson and Ilson (1986).

Subtheme Sub-subthemeExamples

FBefore consulting GS After consulting GS

Lexical collocation

Verb+ noun takes an appointment makes an appointment 27

Verb + noun + verb To have students to write To have students write 9

Noun +noun technology implementation technology application 28

Noun +verb Picture making Picture taking 10

Noun +of +noun The insufficient of facilities the lack of facilities 20

Adjective + noun unestablish source unreliable sources 30

Verb +adjective is not properly is not proper 18

Verb+ adverb use technology independent

use technology independently 29

Adverb + adjective good-established well-established 22

Adverb+ adverb using technology very good

using technology very well 19


Verb+ Preposition improving at improving in 50

Noun +Preposition effect at effect on 35

Adjective + preposition Interested to Interested in 21

Adverb + preposition Similarly at Similarly to 18

Agreement Plural, third person, etc. everything have everything has 25

Total 361

As shown in Table 17.1, the analysis of the patterns defined and corrected in course project by TESL PTTs reveals that they have corrected different patterns in terms of naturalness/grammaticalness. In this research, the terms grammaticalness and naturalness are used interchangeably (Geluso, 2013). The data shows that PTTs have


270

corrected different types of patterns including lexical collocations, grammatical collocations and agreement. Concerning agreement, a point is needed to be made here that although the Microsoft word process may help correct the errors, in the present study, the PTTs used the hardcopy with errors, meaning that they have corrected this type of error as a result of GS consultation. As Table 17.1 shows, a total of 361 patterns were selected, but this is maybe a small sample of patterns corrected by the PTTs. The reason is that they may have revised their projects many times.

It is shown that grammatical collocations (verb + preposition) constitute the most frequent type of pattern (50) that was corrected by PTTs, while verb + noun + verb with least frequency (9) was corrected. The second type of pattern in term of frequency was noun preposition with the frequency of (35) followed by adjective + noun, verb+ adverb, noun+ noun, verb + noun, agreement, adjective + adjective, adverb + adjective, adjective + preposition, adverb + adverb, adverb preposition and verb+ adjective, with the frequencies of 30, 29, 28, 27, 25, 22, 21, 20, 19,18 &18 respectively. Less frequently corrected pattens comprised Verb + noun+ verb and noun + verb with frequency of 9 and 10 respectively.

As can be seen from Table 17.1, the PTTs have corrected different patterns with different frequencies. It was noted that grammatical collocations (verb + preposition and noun+ preposition) comprised the most frequently corrected patterns. From lexical collocations, adjective + noun, noun + noun, verb + noun and verb + adverb were corrected more frequently compared to other patterns. All in all, the PTTs have addressed the problematic and erroneous patterns reported in literature (Hong et al., 2011; Saadyah Darus, 2009). It is mentionable that the presented data here is just a sample taken from some PTTs. The patterns represented here are supplementing the data obtained from open-ended question and focus group interview. As a matter of fact it could be a cumbersome job, if not impossible, to track all of their queries for correcting erroneous patterns.


The present study reported that grammatical collocation (prepositional pattern) is among the most corrected pattern through GSIPD tool consultation. The interesting point is that this type of grammatical collocation is a common error reported by many scholars in Malaysia (see Hong et al., 2011; Norwati, 2011; Saadiyah Darus, 2009). The analyses of learner-generated English corpus show that preposition combinations comprise one of the most erroneous patterns used in their language production, specially writing. Lock et al. (2013) found three types of prepositional errors, namely “Omission of Preposition”, “Insertion of Preposition” and “Selections of Incorrect Preposition”.

Consistently, Norwati Roslim and Jayakaran Mukundan (2011) claim that prepositions are constant source of difficulty for the ESL/EFL learners and therefore must be taken seriously and studied more systematically. This adds to the importance of GSIPD for addressing this issue. The data delineates that PTTs have corrected different combinations of parts of speech (verb, noun, adjective and adverb) with


271

prepositions effectively as a result of GS consultation. As a big challenge, the PTT’s were able to address verb + preposition through GSIPD effectively. They reported that this tool is very exciting for solving their writing problems. Another factor was the confidence that they built based on the validity of the data obtained through GS consultation. Several PTTs stated that they trust GSIPD due to the fact that the Web data retrieved by GS is produced by native speakers of English or professional writers.

One of the most common and challenging combination of pattern is verb + preposition combination. The majority of the students have stressed that they have used GSIPD tool to extract grammatical, natural verb preposition as well as to correct them in terms of grammaticalness and naturalness. Correspondingly, they reported that they have corrected some patterns (for confirmatory purpose) like “assist in” vs. “assist at”, “satisfy with” vs. “satisfy on”, “embark on” vs. “embark at”, to name a few, by using the GSIPD tool based on frequency of occurrences. Li (2014) reported that the corpus-based approach was more effective in comparison with the dictionary-based approach in the process of retention of phrasal verbs.

Another challenging pattern was combination of noun + preposition which was solved using GSIPD. This collocation comprises the second category of grammatical collocation corrected by PTTs based on frequency of occurrence. Some examples for corrected noun + preposition include: exposure to vs. exposure at , effect on vs. affect in, ‘improvement in’ vs. ‘improvement at’, ‘resemblance to” vs. ‘resemblance at’, ‘a glance at’ vs. a glance in’, etc. through employing GSIPD based on frequency of occurrences on the Web. This was proved by both learners’ perceptions and productions. Çelik (201, p.282) concluded that “The Data-driven learning approach can be implemented into intensive English language programs focusing on lexical and collocational competence”. This is well expressed in respondents’ remarks.

Chujo et al. (2012, p.132) state: “each DDL approach can be effective for improving grammar basics such as understanding and producing noun phrases.” They maintain: “At the beginner level, DDL has shown to be effective in teaching basic grammar such as NPs” (142). Their finding sheds light on the significance of corpus tool for writing improvement even at low level. According to Tribble (2013), Concordancing software does not restrict you to searching for individual word-forms. It is also possible to look for closed and open phrase patterns, using a mix of full word forms and wild-cards to create search algorithms that most closely meet your needs. He continues that in a larger corpus, it begins to be possible to search for quite extended patterns and obtain a surprisingly large number of results. This is the case with GS as a reference tool for writing improvement.

Learners may be able to acquire and recognize the language pattern and the usage of prepositions more effectively if they use concordance independently. As Loke et al. (2013) stress, the learners’ awareness of the language may also be developed when they are encouraged to explore the usage pattern in learning prepositions. According to Gotz (2012, p.273), “Learners can easily solve language quests that do not require too much reading or interpretation, such as discovering the use of prepositions”. He also adds: “advanced learners can benefit from discovering grammatical patterns or communicative routines if they are provided with appropriate corpora and interim


272

questions”. As discussed, the finding of data on GSIPD tool shows that PTTs could use this tool to correct their prepositional errors effectively and successfully.

Lexical collocation

Another type of collocation that was found to be corrected by PTTs was lexical collocation. It was reported that a wide range of lexical collocation was corrected by PPTs. Lexical collocations (such as verb + noun) were verified (for confirmatory purpose through GSIPD). For example, make a mistake vs. take a mistake, take picture vs. make a picture, to name a few. This finding is consistent with the result of past study. Kheirzadeh and Marandi (2014) found that their participants “indicated an overall satisfaction with the use of the concordancers in learning collocations among which verb + noun collocations were searched more frequently as they were more problematic for EFL learners”.

Discussion

In this section the finding of data analysis from open-ended questions, interview and document analysis are discussed. It is argued that naturalness/grammaticalness is one of the main concerns of ESL learners, even at advanced level. The justification is that at university level, the learners (especially PPTs) are supposed to develop their proficiency in terms of patterns mostly through self-study (Conroy, 2010). Studies have unveiled that those learners who improve their language pattern through self-study may develop fossilized language (Hong et al., 2011; Romer, 2009). Furthermore, as Liu and Jian (2009) reported, even the teachers sometimes are hesitant about the naturalness of their pattern (collocation), and accordingly stick to their intuition which may lead to erroneous patterns. As such, some teachers or learners may refer to dictionaries to look up the correct use of the patterns; however, due to limitations in terms of coverage, this can also cause frustration.

For example, mostly learners use the pattern ‘discuss about language learning’ than ‘discuss language learning’ while writing or speaking. A dictionary lookup does not show any preposition after the term ‘discuss’, but after ‘discussion’. The learner generalizes this to the verb and uses ‘discuss about’, which is inaccurate. However, a simple search in GS through frequency effect shows that the word ‘discuss’ does not need preposition. This is where the Web as an immense corpus and GS as a matching concordancer can help learners confirm the correction of their patterns.

Hence, sometimes, students create patterns (lexical collocation, grammatical collocation, etc.), but are not sure about the accuracy and naturalness of their patterns. Here, they can consult GS based on frequency of occurrence of the patterns on the Web (Acar et al., 2011; Brezina, 2012: Conroy, 2010; Geluso, 2013). Using GSIPD helps learner verify his/her problematic pattern and find natural pattern and check patterns for confirmation based on frequency.

The finding of this study concurs with what the literature is reporting. Likewise, Geluso and Yamaguchi (2014) reported that their participants have used near-synonymous words and phrases such as huge/ enormous/ immense, think/ consider


273

/wonder, resemble/ look/ like similar, etc. using corpora based on frequency and come up with various usage of these words and phrases. They also reported that students also viewed corpus tool helpful for writing. The finding of the current study is also in line with the findings of other previous studies (Berzina, 2012; Feng, 2014; Gilmore, 2009; Götz, 2012; Mull, 2013).

As Berzina (2012) expounds, when students trust the source such as GS, they will use it to improve their language ability. In this study, the PTTs embraced this tool enthusiastically. A study by Geluso (2013) reveals that students used Google based on frequency to confirm the correctness and naturalness of their patterns. Mull (2013) found that between the two pairs of her respondents, 11 of a possible 20 errors were corrected with the concordance during the core work sessions. Mull (2013) reported that they seemed to feel that the concordancer could fill a unique gap in their knowledge, especially since it represented authentic English from persuasive essays, which was the kind of writing they were expected to do for class, and consequently helped them use it for confirmatory purpose.

Congruently, Feng (2014) found that students used concordancers to correct their errors and held a positive attitude toward the facilitation of corpus concordancing in writing and error correction. Gilmore’s (2009) reported his students used corpora to correct their writing errors in terms of pattern effectively. However, they complained about the drawbacks of well-known concordancers such as COBUILD (in terms of size) and BNC (regarding speed and complexity) and consequently some handed in their writings without redrafting or corpora-drafting. These demerits of traditional corpora may be compensated for by GS.

Literature evidenced that the learners have employed the concordancer for three different purposes: Theory checking, changing the original meaning and discovery learning (Mull, 2013). She reported the primary benefit respondents received from the concordancer was as a theory-checking device. In the present study, the PTTs also mostly focused on GSIPD for checking their hypothesis and consistently reflected on previous knowledge in order to predict how their error might be corrected. They checked and used the concordancer successfully to confirm their theories. In the present study, the respondents used this tool to solve their writing problem. Using GSIPD tool enables learner to find out how frequent a particular word is and what other words tend to collocate with it.

The data analysis brought to the light the fact that student teachers have used GSIPD predominantly for the purpose of correcting grammatical collocations (mostly prepositions) and lexical collocations. The data also delineated that as a result of using natural patterns in their writing through GSIPD consultation, the learners’ confidence boosted. The finding in not surprising due to the fact that as literature evidences, collocations, particularly prepositional phrases, comprise a big portion of errors in essays produced by Malaysian ESL learners (Hong et al., 2011; Saadiyah Darus & Kaladevi, 2009). Hong et al. (2011) reported among all the kinds of collocational errors, the one which occurred most frequently is the preposition errors (41.72%). Verb errors comprised the second most frequently erroneous item (16.56%), followed by


274

noun errors (14.24%). So, it seems that the PTTs have well addressed the problematic patterns through GSIPD.

The finding of this study also agrees with past relevant studies (see Acar et al. 2011; Geluso 2013). Geluso (2013) reported that the majority of students’ sentences improved by using Google for pattern defining and correcting. Acar et al. (2011) reported that after the comparison of pre-training and post-training sentences, the students improved their writing dramatically, in which the average of improved sentences to total sentences ratio was around 24% for the 8 subjects. Acar et al. (2011) sum up: “revising what they wrote in comparison with written information available online may help learners become more effective writers as they go through the process of searching and scrutinizing language usage through authentic materials”. Thus, finding and correcting errors through the use of web search engines can be considered both an effective solution for common writing problems. This is rooted in usage-based theories of language learning which suggest that native speakers of a language are acutely aware of natural language patterns due in large part to frequency effects (Bybee, 2007; Geluso, 2013).

Given the fact that concordance demonstrates the use of words in different contexts, Hedayat and Mehrgan (2012:17) reported: “Concordancing conserves the efficiency of list targeting while allowing for exposure to the new word in multiple contexts.” Some researchers reported that learners can use concordancers to extract language rules and regularities. Al Hosein (2013:115) believes: “The possibility of coming up with the rules inductively is not only restricted to teachers, but is equally available for students”. He suggests: “Concordances are probably best suited for this end, as they have the potential to show the pattern of a certain structure” (116).

Similarly, Frankenberg-Garcia (2011) reported: “users, who returned to the system tended to submit complex queries for collocations and patterns rather than for single words, perhaps reflecting greater ability to notice, interpret and apply corpus information”. Shei (2008) designates how a non-native speaker may learn about the usual phraseological patterns in the discourse of native-speaker by using Google searches based on extended collocations’ frequency analyses (combinations of up to four words). So, ESL learners at different level of language proficiency can use GSIPD tool to correct the problematic patterns for confirmatory purpose based on frequency of occurrences on the web. In a study by Götz, (2012:237) he reported: “For tasks dealing with grammar or lexico-grammar, it seems most applicable as a means to consolidate the learners’ knowledge or as an opportunity to verify whether a chosen option is correct, e.g. while writing an essay”. On the same note, Conroy (2010) suggests that in the process of writing, learner can check any doubtful pattern he/she has composed in term of frequency count in Google using quotation mark.

As discussed, the GSIPD tool has helped PTTs correct different types of erroneous patterns for the confirmatory purpose based on frequency of occurrence on the web. This finding also confirms the finding of past studies (Geluso, 2012, 2013; Gilmore, 2009; Conroy, 2010). The data showed that prepositional errors comprised the bulk of patterns corrected, which confirms past studies (Acre et al., 2011) and addresses a challenging problem in Malaysian ESL writer (Hong et al., 2011; Norwatti 2011;


275

Saadyah Darus, 2009). The finding of document analysis along with the findings of open-ended questions and focus group interview brings to our attention the importance of collocations and using natural patterns for PTTs while producing pieces of writing. Hence, the triangulation of three methods of data collection has highlighted the importance of GSIPD for addressing confirmatory problems in terms of patterns. As the findings of qualitative data (open-ended questionnaire and focus group interview) show, the PTTs have corrected different types of collocations (lexical and grammatical). However, based on the analysis of learner-generated corpus, some kinds of collocations are found to pose more challenges to Malaysian ESL learners including: phrasal verb, preposition, verb + noun and noun + preposition. Noteworthy is that this study has limitations which may be addressed by further study. For example, inorder to trace the process of performing GSIPD by PTTs, observation and screen recording of learners’ search queries are suggested. Further study can also use think aloud protocol to delve into this issue.

Concluding Remarks

As discussed, the triangulation of data obtained from open-ended questions, focus group interview and document analysis reported that PTTs have used GSIPD tool for confirmatory purpose through correcting and verifying the patterns produced during completing course project effectively. The study also found that they have used this tool to correct different kinds of patterns including lexical collocations and grammatical collocations. It was also shown that they have corrected those problematic patterns which were frequently reported in literature as challenges for Malaysian ESL learners.

References

Al Hosein, Y., Uysal, H., & Bulut, T. (2013). Using concordances as supplementary materials in teaching grammar. Kalbų Studijos, (22), 113-118.

Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. F. (1986). Lexicographic description of English (Vol14). John Benjamins Publishing.

Boulton, A. (2012). Beyond concordancing: Multiple affordances of corpora in university language degrees. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 33-38.

Brezina, V. (2012). Google Scholar as a linguistic tool: New possibilities in EAP. C.Gkitsaki, and R. Baldauf (eds.), The Future of Applied Linguistics: Local and Global Perspectives. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.

Chinnery, G.M. (2008). You’ve got some GALL: Google-assisted language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 12(1), 3–11.

Chujo, K., Anthony, L., Oghigian, K., & Uchibori, A. (2012). Paper-based, computer-based, and combined data-driven learning using a Web-based concordancer. Language Education in Asia, 3(2), 132-145.


276

Comelles , E., Laso, J.N., Forcadell, M, Castaño, E., Feijóo, S., & Verdaguer, I. (2012). Using online databases in the linguistics classroom: Dealing with clause patterns, Computer Assisted Language Learning.1-13.

Conroy, M. A. (2010). Internet tools for language learning: University students taking control of their writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 861-882.

Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.

Frankenberg-Garcia, A., Flowerdew, L., & Aston, G. (Eds.). (2011). New trends in corpora and language learning. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Geluso, J. (2013). Phraseology and frequency of occurrence on the Web: Native speakers’ perceptions of Google-informed second language writing, Computer Assisted Language Learning. iFirst article,1-14.

Gilmore, A. (2009). Using online corpora to develop students’ writing skills. ELT Journal, 63(4), 363-372

Götz, S. (2012). Testing task types in data-driven learning: Benefits and limitations1. Aufgaben 2.0: Konzepte, Materialien und Methoden für das Fremdsprachenlehren und-lernen mit digitalen Medien, 249.

Hedayat, M., & Mehrgan, K. (2012). Concordancing vs. textual vocabulary acquisition. Advances in English Linguistics, 1(1),12-19.

Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2001). An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 77-90.

Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus-assisted creative writing: Introducing intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 28–44.

Kheirzadeh, S., & Marandi, S. S. (2014). Concordancing as a tool in learning collocations: The case of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 940-949.

Liu, D. & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 93(9), 61-78.

Loke, D. L., Ali, J., & Anthony, N. N. Z. (2013). A corpus based study on the use of preposition of time ‘on’and ‘at’in argumentative essays of form 4 and form 5 Malaysian students. English Language Teaching, 6(9), p128.

Norwati Roslim & Mukundan, J. (2011). An overview of corpus linguistics studies on prepositions. English Language Teaching, 4 (2), 125-131.

Romer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 141–163.

Saadiyah Darus & Kaladevi Subramaniam. (2009). Error analysis of the written English essays of secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 483-495.

Sha, G. (2010). Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: A comparison with the British National Corpus. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 377–393.

Shei, C.C. (2008). Discovering the hidden treasure on the internet: Using Google to uncover the veil of phraseology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 67–85.

Tribble, C. (2013). Concordancing. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.


277

Wu, S. (2010). Supporting collocation learning. PhD Thesis. Department of Computer Sciencel, The University of Waikato. Hamilton, New Zealand.

Wu, S., Franken, M., & Witten, I.H. (2009). Refining the use of the Web (and Web search) as a language teaching and learning resource. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 83-102.

Yoon, C. (2011). Concordancing in L2 writing class: An overview of research and issues. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 130-139.

Yoon, C. (2014). Web-based concordancing and other reference resources as a problem solving tool for l2 writers: A mixed methods study of Korean ESL graduate students’reference resource consultation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto).

Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 teaching ESL writing course. Language Learning & Technology 12 (2), 31-49.

Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257–283.