scenario study report: e-learning module

e-Learning Module Scenario Study Report

Scenario Study Report

e-Learning Module

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi (UKM) Prof. Dr. Hanafi Atan (USM)

Prof. Dr. Sidek Abd Aziz (UPM)Assoc. Prof. Dr. Norazah Mohd Nordin (UKM)

Dr. Afendi Hamat (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 the Critical Agenda Project (CAPs) and a Key Result Area (KRA) of MOHE, besides a study on e-Learning ímplementation in Malaysian higher education institutions conducted by MEIPTA 2011, a scenario study on e-Learning is commission by AKEPT to provide a baseline data for the development of a Training of Trainers Module in the area of e-Learning.

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 e-Learning.

2. identify issues/problems/challenges of implementing e-Learning in Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).

3. identify current needs and future directions for training related to e-Learning in Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).

Scope of the Study

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

Background Information

4

Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module

Methodology

This is a survey study using an online developed and delivered questionnaire known as the AKEPT e-Learning 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 10 items comprising of 4 items on demographic information, 2 open-ended items and 4 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 ILHs e-Learning Coordinators (MEIPTA) of the Research Universities:

1. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi (UKM) Head2. Prof. Dr. Hanafi Atan (USM) 3. Prof. Dr. Sidek Abd Aziz (UPM)4. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Norazah Mohd Nordin (UKM)5. Dr. Afendi Hamat (UKM)


A total of 1022 lecturers responded to 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 e-Learning

In the open-ended question of the online survey, the respondents were required to briefly describe their conception of e-Learning. A total of 1022 responses were recorded with varying conception of e-Learning. Figure 5 shows the responses analyzed according to 28 most important key words/phrased used by the respondents to conceptualize e-Learning. Data shows that not much is said about social media. In addition, Figure 6 shows 28 most important key words/phrases on how the respondents integrate e-Learning in their teaching. Similarly, not much is described about the use of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning.

10


Figure 5. Key words/phrases used to describe e-Learning

11

Findings

Figure 6. Key words/phrases used to describe how e-Learning is integrated into teaching

12


Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Application of Learning Theories

Data displayed in Figure 7 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, 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 8 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 9 indicates the frequency of application of learning theories 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 7. Familiarity with learning theories

13

Findings

Figure 8. Competencies on learning theories

Figure 9. Frequency of application of learning theories

Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of e-Learning Tools

Data in Figure 10 shows the familiarity of respondents with the main 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

14


(48.3%), Skype (45%), Blogger (43.1%). Suprisingly, only about one third of them are very familiar with Learning Management Systems. Almost two thirds of the respondents are unfamiliar with Open Resource Initiatives (68.9%) and Open Educational Resource (58.4%). As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents are unfamiliar with most of the available authoring tools in the market; namely, Raptivity (88%), Captivate (80.8%), Articulate (74.6%), Camtasia Studio (71.4%) and LectureMaker (62.6%). Data shows that two third or more of the respondents are unfamiliar with the following 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%)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%).

15

Findings

16


17

Findings

18


Figure 10. Familiarity with e-Learning tools

Data in Figure 11 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 a third of the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%), Learning Management Systems (36.6%), Skype (35.5%) and Google Docs (35.1%). Almost more than two thirds of the respondents are not competent with Open Resource Initiatives (73.3%) and Open Educational Resource (65.8%). As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the

19

Findings

respondents are not competent with most of the available authoring tools in the market; namely, Raptivity (88.9%), Captivate (82.68%), Articulate (78.86%), Camtasia tudio (77.5%) and LectureMaker (69.6%). Data show that two third or more of the respondents are not competent with the following Web 2.0 tools:

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%).

20


21

Findings

22


Figure 11. Competencies on e-Learning tools

Data in Figure 12 shows respondents’ frequency of usage the main e-learning tools. In general, most respondents always use PowerPoint (87.3%). Nearly half of them always use Facebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%). Suprisingly, only about one third of the respondents usually use Learning Management Systems (35.7%). Almost about two thirds or more of the respondents never use Open Resource Initiatives (73.7%) and Open Educational Resource (64.9%). As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents never use most of the available authoring tools in the market; namely, Raptivity (90.8%), Captivate (83.5%), Camtasia Studio (80.5%), Articulate (79.5%), and LectureMaker (71.8%). Data shows that two third or more of the respondents never use the following Web 2.0 tools:

23

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%).

24


25

Findings

26


Figure 12. Frequency of usage of e-Learning tools

Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of Integrating e-Learning

Data displayed in Figure 13 shows that more than half the respondents felt that lack of time to prepare e-learning materials (66.7%), poor infrastructure (e.g. slow internet connection) (63.9%), lack of time (60.9%), lack of training (53.2%) and poor technical support (50.2%) are the main problems they face in integrating e-Learning in their lesson. In addition, about a third of them felt that poor maintenance (38.6%), lack of facilities (38.9%), lack of resources (39%) and lack of knowledge (43%) as the main constraints/hindrance.

27

Findings

Figure 13. Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of integrating e-Learning

Future Training on e-Learning

When asked what topics should be included in future training on e-Learning, the majority of the respondents (73.5%) would like to know more about e-Assessment and Mobile Learning (60.4%) (see Figure 14). Nearly half or more of the respondents would like topics such as Web 2.0 (55.1%), OER or Open Educational Resources (54.6%), Blended Learning (52.9%), Instructional Design (51.8%), Learning Theories (51.2%), Andragogy (46.9%) and Learning Preferences (44.4%) to be included in training related to e-Learning.

Figure 14. Topics that should be included in training related to e-Learning

Summary of Findings & Implications for Development of Training Module

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 e-Learning 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 e-Learning, not much is said by the respondents about social media and the use of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning.

5. 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%).

6. 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%).

7. In term of usage 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.

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

30


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

10. However, only about a third of them are very familiar with Learning Management Systems.

11. Almost two thirds of the respondents are not familiar with Open Resource Initiatives (68.9%) and Open Educational Resource (58.4%).

12. As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents are not familiar with Raptivity (88%), Captivate (80.8%), Articulate (74.6%), Camtasia Studio (71.4%) and LectureMaker (62.6%).

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

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

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

16. In addition, nearly a third of the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%), Learning Management Systems (36.6%), Skype (35.5%) and Google Docs (35.1%).

17. Almost more than two thirds of the respondents are not competent with Open Resource Initiatives (73.3%) and Open Educational Resource (65.8%).

18. As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents are not competent with Raptivity (88.9%), Captivate (82.68%), Articulate (78.86%), Camtasia tudio (77.5%) and LectureMaker (69.6%).

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

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

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

22. However, only about a third of the respondents usually use Learning Management Systems (35.7%).

23. Almost about two thirds or more of the respondents never use Open Resource Initiatives (73.7%) and Open Educational Resource (64.9%).

24. As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents never use Raptivity (90.8%), Captivate (83.5%), Camtasia Studio (80.5%), Articulate (79.5%), and LectureMaker (71.8%).

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

26. In terms of integrating e-Learning, more than half the respondents felt that lack of time to prepare e-learning materials (66.7%), poor infrastructure (e.g. slow internet connection)

(63.9%), lack of time (60.9%), lack of training (53.2%) and poor technical support (50.2%) are the main problems they face in their lesson.

27. As far as future training on e-Learning, the majority of the respondents (73.5%) would like to know more about e-Assessment and Mobile Learning (60.4%)

28. Nearly half or more of them would like topics such as Web 2.0 (55.1%), OER or Open Educational Resources (54.6%), Blended Learning (52.9%), Instructional Design (51.8%), Learning Theories (51.2%), Andragogy (46.9%) and Learning Preferenes (44.4%) to be included in training related to e-Learning.

Implications for the Development of e-Learning Training Module

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

1. Training should include the current conceptualization of e-Learning that include social media and the use of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning.

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 Open Resource Initiatives and Open Educational Resource.

4. Trainees should also be introduced to authoring tools available in the market for developing e-Learning materials/packages including Raptivity, Captivate, Articulate, Camtasia Studio and LectureMaker.

5. Trainees should be trained how to the major Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning.

6. Topics for training should include e-Assessment and Mobile Learning.

7. Other topics such as Web 2.0, OER or Open Educational Resources, Blended Learning, Instructional Design, Learning Theories, Andragogy and Learning Preferences should also be included in training related to e-Learning.

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

33

Appendices

34


35

Appendices

36


37

Appendices

scenario study report: e-learning module

Documents