scenario study report: interactive lecture module

Interactive Lecture ModuleScenario Study Report

Scenario Study Report

Interactive Lecture Module

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi (UKM) Prof. Dr. Abd. Karim Alias (USM)

Prof. Dr. Abdul Halim Sulaiman (UM)Assoc. Prof. Dr. Faizah Majid (UiTM)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Supyan Hussin (UKM)Assoc. Prof. Dr. Saemah Rahman (UKM)

Published by:Higher Education Leadership Academy

Ministry of Higher Education&

Centre for Academic AdvancementUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

2012

Introduction

The National Higher Education Strategic Plan (PSPTN), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), is a document that translates the direction of national higher education for the future that focuses on the development of quality human and intellectual capital. This is to realize the country’s aspirations to become a developed, prosperous, and competitive nation. To ensure that the implementation of the PSPTN is according to the set phases, the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) has developed 21 Critical Agenda Project or CAPs. Each of these CAPs has strategic objectives, indicators, and targets to be achieved through various planned activities. These activities must be executed either at the Ministry level or at the agency level, including all agencies under MOHE, which includes all Institutions of Higher Learning (HEIs). As e-Learning has been identified as one the Critical Agenda Project (CAPs) and a Key Result Area (KRA) of MOHE, besides a study on e-Learning implementation in Malaysian higher education institutions conducted by MEIPTA 2011, a scenario study on Interactive Lecture is commissioned by AKEPT (Akademi Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia) to provide a baseline data for the development of a Training of Trainers Module in the area of Interactive Lecture.

Research Objectives

In general, the objectives of this research are to1. identify the Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges) lecturers’

level of knowledge, skills and usage of Interactive Lecture.

2. identify issues/problems/challenges of implementing Interactive Lecture in Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).

3. 4. identify current needs and future directions for training related to Interactive in Malaysian

IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).

Scope of the Study

On the basis of the objectives described above, this study explores five main aspects; namely, (i) level of Interactive Lecture knowledge, (ii) level of Interactive Lecture competencies, (iii) level of Interactive Lecture usage, (iv) issues/problems/challenges of implementing Interactive Lecture, and (v) current needs and future directions for training related to Interactive Lecture in Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).

Background Information

4

Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module

Methodology

This is a survey study using an online developed and delivered questionnaire known as the AKEPT Interactive Lecture Survey (see Appendix 1). The sample involves 1022 lecturers from 58 Malaysian IHLs, comprising 20 public ILHs, 8 private IHLs, 25 polytechnics and 5 community colleges as follows:

Public ILHs

1. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia2. Universiti Sains Malaysia3. Universiti Putra Malaysia4. Universiti Malaya5. Universiti Teknologi MARA6. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia7. Universiti Utara Malaysia8. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris9. Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia10. Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia11. Universiti Malaysia Sabah12. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak13. Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia14. Universiti Tun Hussain Onn Malaysia15. Universiti Teknikal Malaysia16. Universiti Malaysia Kelantan17. Universiti Malaysia Terengganu18. Universiti Malaysia Perlis19. Universiti Malaysia Pahang20. Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin

Private IHLs

1. Multimedia University2. International Medical University3. UniKL4. Wawasan Open University5. Taylor’s College6. International College of Yayasan Malacca7. AlBukhary International University8. Kolej Universiti Islam Selangor

Community Colleges

1. Kolej Komuniti Hulu Langat2. Kolej Komuniti Selayang3. Kolej Komuniti Kuala Langat4. Kolej Komuniti Hulu Selangor5. Kolej Komuniti Sabak Bernam

5


Polytechnics

1. Politeknik Ungku Omar2. Politeknik Shah Alam3. Politeknik Johor Bahru4. Politeknik Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah5. Politeknik Kuching Sarawak6. Politeknik Kota Kinabalu7. Politeknik Kota, Melaka8. Politeknik Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin9. Politeknik Sultan Azlan Shah10. Politeknik Sultan Idris Shah11. Politeknik Muadzam Shah12. Politeknik Balik Pulau13. Politeknik Nilai Negeri Sembilan14. Politeknik Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah15. Politeknik Kota Bharu16. Politeknik Port Dickson17. Politeknik Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah18. Politeknik Seberang Perai19. Politeknik Kota, Kuala Terengganu20. Politeknik Merlimau21. Politeknik Tuanku Sultanah Bahiyah22. Politeknik Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin23. Politeknik Mukah24. Politeknik Jeli Kelantan25. Politeknik Banting Selangor

Research Instrument

A set of questionnaire was developed and used for this study. The instrument consists of 13 items comprising of 4 items on demographic information, 4 open-ended items and 5 Likert-scale items for lecturers. This questionnaire was made available using an online survey called SurveryMonkey.

Research Team

The research team comprised six members of the Malaysian Public IHLs e-Learning Coordinators (MEIPTA) of the Research Universities,:,

1. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi (UKM) Head2. Prof. Dr. Abd Karim Alias (USM) 3. Prof. Dr. Abdul Halim Sulaiman (UM)4. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Faizah Majid (UiTM)5. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Supyan Hussin (UKM)6. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Saemah Rahman (UKM)


A total of 1022 lecturers took part completing the online questionnaire. Figure 1 shows that the majority of the respondents (81.7%) are from the public Malaysian IHLs. This is followed by the polytechnics (15.2%), private IHLs (2.3%) and community colleges (0.8%).

Figure 1: Distribution of respondents by IHLs

Figure 2 shows that of the majority of the lecturers involved in this study are from the Science, Engineering and Technology discipline (44.9%) and the Humanities, Arts and Social Science area (42.8%). Only 12.3% of the respondents are from the Medical and Health background. In terms of years of service (see Figure 3), the data shows that the majority of the respondents (83.7%) have 15 years of service or below. Only 16.7% have more the 16 years of service.

Findings

8


Figure 2. Field of study/disciple of the respondents

Figure 3. Years of service

9

Findings

In terms of formal training on how to teach, one third of the respondents (37.3%) indicated that they attended periodic training provided by their institutions after becoming a lecturer. A total of 29.7% modeled their teaching based on observing their professors/teachers; while, 27.1% had a teaching certificate or degree in Education.

Figure 4. Formal training on how to teach

Conception of Teaching & Interactive Lecture

In the open-ended question of the online survey, the respondents were required to briefly describe their conception of teaching and Interactive Lecture. A total of 1022 responses were recorded with varying conceptions of teaching and Interactive Lecture. Figure 5 shows the respondents’ conception of teaching categorized according to the 28 most important key words/phrases. In general, data shows that the main key words used like ‘delivering knowledge’, imparting knowledge’, and ‘giving knowledge’ reflect the traditional conception of teaching. In a similar fashion, Figure 6 shows the responses analyzed according to 28 most important key words/phrases used by the respondents to conceptualize Interactive Lecture. Some key words used by the respondents include ‘interactive’, ‘two-way communication’ and ‘active’. Not much is mention about engaging every student in the learning process. Figure 7 shows 28 most important key words/phrases on how the respondents normally conduct a one hour lecture. Some of the key words include ‘discussion’, ‘questions/Q&A’ and ‘PowerPoint’.

10


Figure 5. Key words/phrases used to describe teaching

11

Findings

Figure 6. Key words/phrases used to describe Interactive Lecture

12


Figure 7. Key words/phrases used to describe how an hour lecture is conducted

13

Findings

Interactive Lecture Techniques

Data displayed in Figure 8 shows Interactive Lecture techniques reported to be used by the respondents. Results show that the most common technique used is lecturing followed by questions (Q&A). Not much is mentioned about Interactive Lecture techniques like Think-Pair-Share, One Minute Paper and Muddiest Point etc.

Figure 8. Techniques used by the respondents during teaching

Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Application of Learning Theories

Data displayed in Figure 9 shows how much the respondents are familiar with the main learning theories. In general, more than half of the respondents (53.5%) are very familiar Bloom Taxonomy, whereas, nearly half of the respondents are quite familiar with Behaviorism (49.7%), Constructivism (47.7%), Cognitivism (47.1%) and Learning Style (46.1%). However,

14


more than half of the respondents (52%) are unfamiliar with Andragogy; while nearly half of them (42.6%) are unfamiliar with Instructional Design Principles. Data displayed in Figure 10 shows how much the respondents are competent with the main learning theories. In general, nearly half of the respondents are quite competent with Learning Style (53.9%), Behaviorism (50.5%), Cognitivism (49.1%) and Constructivism (46.6%). Moreover, more than half of the respondents (56.4%) are not competent with Andragogy; while nearly half of them (47.1%) are not competent with Instructional Design Principles. Data displayed in Figure 11 indicates the frequency of learning theories application by the respondents. Data shows that only Behaviourism (55.8%) and Learning Style (41.8%) are always applied by the respondents; whereas, Andragogy (53.8%) and Instructional Design Principles (44.4%) are not at all applied in teaching.

Figure 9. Familiarity with learning theories

15

Findings

Figure 10. Competencies on learning theories

Figure 11. Frequency of application of learning theories

16


Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of Interactive Lecture Techniques

Data in Figure 12 shows the familiarity of the respondents with three Interactive Lecture techniques. Majority of the respondents (85.5%) are unfamiliar with the Muddiest Point and more the two third (68.4%) are unfamiliar with One Minute Paper; whereas, more than half (59.9%) are unfamiliar with Think-Pair-Share.

Figure 12. Familiarity with Interactive Lecture techniques

Data in Figure 13 shows the respondents’ competencies for three Interactive Lecture techniques. Majority of the respondents (85.6%) are not competent with the Muddiest Point and more the two third (70.94%) are not competent with One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly two third of them (63.8%) are not competent with Think-Pair-Share.

Figure 13. Competencies of Interactive Lecture techniques

Data in Figure 14 show the respondents’ frequency of usage of the three Interactive Lecture techniques. Majority of the respondents (87%) never use the Muddiest Point and more the two third (71.7%) never use One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly two third of them (64.9%) never use Think-Pair-Share.

17

Findings

Figure 13. Frequency of usage of Interactive Lecture techniques

Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of Interactive Learning Tools

Data in Figure 14 shows the familiarity of respondents with the main interactive learning tools. Generally, most respondents are very familiar with PowerPoint (92.5%), Facebook (72.5%) and YouTube (69%). In addition, nearly half of the respondents are also very familiar with Google Docs (48.3%), Skype (45%), Blogger (43.1%). Data also shows that two third or more of the respondents are unfamiliar with the following interactive Web 2.0 tools:

Crocodoc (95.1%)Posterous (94.8%)Flipsnack (94.8%)Vyew (94.7%)Edistorm (94.1%)Glogster (94%)Animoto (93.4%)Elluminate (93.2%)Zoho (93.2%)PBWorks (93%)Etherpad (92.8%)TweetDeck (92.3%)Edmodo (91.4%)Snagit (91.2%)Diigo (91.1%)Polldaddy (91%)Twiddla (90.6%)Issuu (89.4%)VoiceThread (89.3%)Edublog (88.9%)TypeWith.me (87%)Myebook (85.4%)Scribblar (85.2%)Delicious (84.1%)

18


Wallwisher (83.5%)GoAnimate (83.4%)Evernote (82.1%)Jing (81.7%)Prezi (78.1%)Livestream (75.1%)Wikispaces (64.8%)

In addition, nearly half of the respondents are also unfamiliar with Picasa (54.6%), Dropbox (49.2%), SurveyMonkey (45.3%), Flickr (43.7%), LinkedIn (40.4%) and iGoogle (40.3%).

19

Findings

20


Figure 14. Familiarity with interactive learning tools

Data in Figure 15 shows the level of competency of the respondents with the main e-learning tools. In general, most respondents are very competent with PowerPoint (80%). Nearly half of them are competent with Facebook (54.6%) and YouTube (47%). In addition, nearly one third of the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%), Skype (35.5%) and Google Docs (35.1%). Data shows that two third or more of the respondents are not competent with the following interactive Web 2.0 tools:

21

Findings

Crocodoc (95.4%)Posterous (94.9%)Vyew (94.9%)Flipsnack (94.8%)Animoto (94.4%)Elluminate (94.3%)Edistorm (94.2%)Glogster (94.1%)Zoho (93.6%)PBWorks (93.2%)Etherpad (93.1%)Diigo (93%)TweetDeck (92.4%)Twiddla (92.3%)Edmodo (92.2%)Polldaddy (91.8%)Snagit (91.6%)Wordle (91.4%)VoiceThread (90.8%)Issuu (90.3%)TypeWith.me (88.6%)Myebook (88.6%)Scribblar (87.7%)GoAnimate (87.74%)Delicious (87.3%)Wallwisher (85.5%)Evernote (85.6%)Jing (84.1%)Livestream (83.8%)Prezi (83.7%)Wikispaces (73.1%)

In addition, nearly half or more of the respondents are also not competent with Picasa (64.2%), Flickr (61.7%), SurveyMonkey (62%), Dropbox (57.9%), LinkedIn (57%), iGoogle (52.3%), Slideshare (50.7%), Scribd (49.5%), Wordpress (47.8%) and Twitter (47.1%).

22


23

Findings

24


Figure 15. Competencies on interactive learning tools

Data in Figure 16 shows respondents’ frequency of usage the main interactive learning tools. In general, most respondents always use PowerPoint (87.3%). Nearly half of them always use Facebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%). Data shows that two third or more of the respondents never use the following interactive Web 2.0 tools:

25

Findings

Crocodoc (96.7%)Flipsnack (96.2%)Vyew (96%)Posterous (95.8%)Animoto (95.6%)Etherpad (95.2%)Elluminate (95.1%)Edistorm (94.9%)Zoho (94.9%)Glogster (94.8%)PBWorks (94.8%)Diigo (94.6%)TweetDeck (93.6%)VoiceThread (93.2%)Twiddla (93.2%)Edmodo (93.2%)Polldaddy (92.9%)Wordle (92.8%)Issuu (91.4%)GoAnimate (90.8%)TypeWith.me (90.7%)Scribblar (89.7%)Delicious (89.7%)Myebook (88.6%)Evernote (87.8%)Wallwisher (87.7%)Jing (86.6%)Livestream (85.6%)Prezi (84.4%)Wikispaces (76.9%)Flickr (67.9%)Picasa (67.7%)SurveyMonkey (65.1%)LinkedIn (63.9%)

In addition, nearly half or more of the respondents never use Dropbox (59.9%), Twitter (56.9%), iGoogle (55.9%), Wordpress (55.3%), Slideshare (53.7%), Scribd (52.6%), Skype (42.9%) and Blogger (42.8%).

26


27

Findings

28


Figure 16. Frequency of usage of interactive learning tools

Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of Integrating Interactive Lecture

Data displayed in Figure 17 shows that more than half the respondents felt that lack of time to prepare interactive lessons (70.7%), poor infrastructure (e.g. slow internet connection) (62.6%), lack of time (59.6%), lack of training (58.8%) and poor technical support (52%) are the main problems they face in integrating Interactive Lecture in their lesson. In addition, more than a third of them felt that lack of resources (45.8%), lack of knowledge (44.5%),

29

Findings

lack of facilities (43.5%), students’ preference for teacher-centered lesson (36.4%) and poor maintenance (34.8%) as other main constraints/hindrances.

Figure 17. Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of integrating e-Learning

Future Training on Interactive Lecture

Data displayed in Figure 18 shows areas of knowledge the respondents felt important for effective teaching. The majority of the respondents believe that knowledge on Teaching Strategies (80.2%), Educational Technology (70.2%) and Educational Psychology (62.5%) are important for effective teaching. More than half of them also indicated that knowledge related to Instructional Design (55.1%) and Learning Theories (54.6%) are also crucial for effective teaching. When asked what topics should be included in future training on Interactive Lecture, the majority of the respondents (78.3%) would like to know more about Interactive Lecture Strategies, Tools for Learning (74.5%) and Active Learning (72.9%) (see Figure 19). Nearly half or more of the respondents would like topics such as Collecting Feedback on Understanding/Learning (54%), Andragogy (52.3%) and Learning Theories (51.8.4%) to be included in training related to Interactive Lecture.

30


Figure 18. Knowledge important for effective teaching

Figure 19. Topics that should be included in training related to Interactive Lecture

Summary of Findings

From the analysis conducted on the data collected from 1022 lecturers from 58 Malaysian IHLs, comprising 20 public ILHs, 8 private IHLs, 25 polytechnics and 5 community colleges using the AKEPT e-Learning Survey, the following of the key findings of the Interactive Lecture Scenario Study:

1. The majority of the lecturers involved in this study are from the Science, Engineering and Technology discipline (44.9%) and the Humanities, Arts and Social Science area (42.8%).

2. In terms of years of service, the majority of the respondents (83.7%) have 15 years of service or below.

3. In terms of formal training on how to teach, only a third of the respondents (37.3%) reported that they attended periodic training provided by their institutions after becoming a lecturer.

4. When asked to conceptualize teaching the main key words used like ‘delivering knowledge’, imparting knowledge’, and ‘giving knowledge’ reflect the traditional conception of teaching.

5. When asked to conceptualize Interactive Lecture, the main key words used by the respondents include ‘interactive’, ‘two-way communication’ and ‘active’. Not much is mentioned about engaging every student in the learning process.

6. When asked how they conducted an hour lecture, the main key words/phrases reported by the respondents ‘discussion’, ‘questions/Q&A’ and ‘PowerPoint’, indicating the conventional approach to conducting a lecture.

7. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with learning theories, more than half of them (53.5%) are very familiar Bloom Taxonomy, nearly half of them are quite familiar with Behaviorism (49.7%), Constructivism (47.7%), Cognitivism (47.1%) and Learning Style (46.1%); whereas, nearly half or more (52%) are not familiar with Andragogy and Instructional Design Principles (42.6%).

8. In terms of the respondents’ competencies of learning theories, nearly half of them are quite competent with Learning Style (53.9%), Behaviorism (50.5%), Cognitivism (49.1%) and Constructivism (46.6%); whereas, nearly half or more (56.4%) are not competent with Andragogy and Instructional Design Principles (47.1%).

Summary of Findings & Implications for Development of Training Module

32


9. In term of frequency of application of the learning theories, only Behaviourism (55.8%) and Learning Style (41.8%) are always applied by the respondents; whereas, Andragogy (53.8%) and Instructional Design Principles (44.4%) are not at all applied by them.

10. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with Interactive Lecture techniques, the. majority of the respondents (85.5%) are not familiar with the Muddiest Point and more the two third (68.4%) are not familiar with One Minute Paper; whereas, more than half (59.9%) are not familiar with Think-Pair-Share.

11. In terms of the respondents’ competencies of Interactive Lecture techniques, the. majority of the respondents (85.6%) are not competent with the Muddiest Point and more the two third (70.94%) are not competent with One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly two third of them (63.8%) are not competent with Think-Pair-Share.

12. In term of frequency of usage of Interactive Lecture techniques, the majority of the respondents (87%) never use the Muddiest Point and more the two third (71.7%) never use One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly two third of them (64.9%) never use Think-Pair-Share.

13. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with interactive Learning tools, most respondents are very familiar with PowerPoint (92.5%), Facebook (72.5%) and YouTube (69%).

14. In addition, nearly half of them s are also very familiar with Google Docs (48.3%), Skype (45%), Blogger (43.1%).

15. Two third or more of the respondents are not familiar with most of the major interactive Web 2.0 tools.

16. In terms of the respondents’ competencies of the interactive Learning tools, most respondents are very competent with PowerPoint (80%).

17. Nearly half of them are very competent with Facebook (54.6%) and YouTube (47%).

18. In addition, nearly a third of the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%), Skype (35.5%) and Google Docs (35.1%).

19. Two third or more of the respondents are not competent with the major interactive Web 2.0 tools.

20. In term of frequency of usage of interactive Learning tools, most respondents always use PowerPoint (87.3%).

21. Nearly half of them always use Facebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%).

22. Two third or more of the respondents never use the major interactive Web 2.0 tools.

23. In terms of implementing Interactive Lecture, more than half the respondents felt that lack of time to prepare interactive lessons (70.7%), poor infrastructure (e.g. slow internet connection) (62.6%), lack of time (59.6%), lack of training (58.8%) and poor technical support (52%) are the main problems they face in their lesson.

33

Summary of Findings & Implications for Development of Training Module

24. 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 constraints/hindrances.

25. The majority of the respondents believe that knowledge on Teaching Strategies (80.2%), Educational Technology (70.2%) and Educational Psychology (62.5%) are important for effective teaching.

26. As far as future training on Interactive Lecture, the majority of the respondents (78.3%) would like to know more about Interactive Lecture Strategies, Tools for Learning (74.5%) and Active Learning (72.9%)

27. Nearly half or more of the respondents would like topics such as Collecting Feedback on Understanding/Learning (54%), Andragogy (52.3%) and Learning Theories (51.8.4%) to be included in training related to Interactive Lecture.

Implications for the Development of Interactive Lecture Training Module

Generally, the findings of this Scenario Study support the needs for developing a training module on Interactive Lecture for Malaysian Institutions of Higher Learning. In addition, the following considerations should be considered:

1. Training should include the contemporary conceptualization of teaching and Interactive Lecture that includes active learning, students’ engagement and integration Web 2.0.

2. Training should include exposure to various learning theories including Behaviorism, Constructivism, Cognitivism, Learning Style, Andragogy and Instructional Design Principles.

3. Training should include exposure to Interactive Lecture techniques including Think-Pair-Share, One Minute Paper and Muddiest Point.

4. Trainees should be given specialized coaching on how to integrate various interactive Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning.

5. Topics for training should include Interactive Lecture Strategies, Tools for Learning and Active Learning.

6. Other topics such as Collecting Feedback on Understanding/Learning, Andragogy and Learning Theories should also be included in training related to Interactive Lecture.

7. In encouraging the application of Andragogy theories, activities, tasks and projects in the modules need to be related to trainees’ work and institution.

8. The training need to encourage collaborative effort among the trainees across the IHLs in line with the concepts of interactive and collaborative learning espoused in the modules.

9. As the modules incorporate work-based activities and projects during the training sessions, all participating IHLs need to have a standard minimum infrastructure/facilities (especially good internet connection) to encourage the application of the modules in the trainees workplace.

35

Appendices

36


37

Appendices

38


39

Appendices

40


scenario study report: interactive lecture module

Documents