TRENDS &ISSUES
IN HIGHER EDUCATION Selected papers presented in SEAHES 2017
EDITORS
Wong Su Luan Zalina Mohd. Kasim
Trends & Issues in Higher Education © Centre for Academic Development (CADe), Universiti Putra Malaysia First Print 2018
All Rights Reserved. No part of this e-book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in a review written for inclusion in a magazine or newspaper.
Published by Centre for Academic Development (CADe) Canselori Putra Building Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor
03-8946 6044 03-8946 6043 http://www.cade.upm.edu.my
CONTENTS Foreword by the Vice Chancellor, Universiti Putra Malaysia
iii
Foreword by the Director, Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT)
iv
Preface
v
Introduction
vi
1
Students’ Perspectives on An Augmented Reality Embedded Gamification Kit for Learning
1
Mas Nida Md. Khambari
2
Gamification of Haematology: Making Haematology Fun
7
Lai Mei I, Eusni Rahayu Mohd Tohit, Faridah Idris, Sabariah Md Noor and Zainina Seman
3
Mobile Applications for Education: Student Perceptions of an Undergraduate Course
14
Sharifah Norkhadijah Syed Ismail, Umi Raihana Abdul Rahman, Sarva Mangala Praveena, Emilia Zainal Abidin, Irniza Rasdi and Mas Rina Mustaffa
4
A Computer-Supported Learning Tool to Improve Students’ Learning in Object-Oriented Models
27
Norhayati Mohd Ali, Novia Indriaty Admodisastro, Sa’adah Hassan and Mohammed Sadeq Abdullah Saeed
5
Emphasising Paragogy and Cybergogy in the Architectural Studio through the S.O.L.E Approach: A Formulation of a New Theory of Studiogogy
35
Mohd Zairul Mohd Noor
6
Mindset Change – Questioning Skills as a Focus for Educator Professional Development
45
Jon Mason, Wong Su Luan and Eunice Sari
7
Establishing Qalb-Guided Principles in the Teaching-Learning Process as an Academic Professionalism Practice in Higher Education Institutions Mohd Rushdan Mohd Jailani and Nurul Ashikin Ahmat Miskam
i
53
8
A Conceptual Study on Organisational Commitment of Academic Staff in Malaysian Research Universities
65
Roshafiza Hassan, Mohd Majid Konting, Ramli Basri and Soaib Asimiran
9
An Assessment of the Level of Entrepreneurial Leadership in Secondary Schools: Developing Entrepreneurial Mind Set through Flexible Learning
76
Abbas Sani Dahiru and Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie
10
Inculcating Behaviour Change through Education for Sustainable Consumption and Production (ESCP)
86
Ho Yuek-Ming
Index
94
Contributors of Chapters
95
ii
FOREWORD by the Vice Chancellor, Universiti Putra Malaysia
Institutions of higher learning in the ASEAN region are expected to continuously play a significant role in teaching-learning. With the advent of Industrial Revolution 4.0, there is the inevitable need for higher institutions to cultivate holistic, entrepreneurial and balanced graduates to be globally competitive and able to meet the needs of Industry 4.0. They are also expected to develop talent, discover and share knowledge, as well as to provide professional services to the communities and industries in the era of Industrial Revolution 4.0. In order to face these challenges, it is imperative that the higher institutions be more innovative in developing and enhancing their core functions to remain competitive.
This e-book is seen as an appropriate platform for academics to share and identify Education 4.0 challenges faced by the higher education sector especially in the ASEAN region while at the same time looking for opportunities to enhance its role and responsibility. This e-book is an enthusiastic celebration of ideas and experiences of academicians in driving the growth and raising the standards of higher learning institutions in delivering outstanding academic outcomes to meet the future global needs. It is also a platform to bridge the knowledge gap among educational institutions and explore new strategies in redesigning learning of higher education institutions for a more sustainable future. It is hoped that this e-book will be able to help educators develop a shared vision in formulating a good resolution on ASEAN’s future directions to redesign learning in our higher education institutions.
“WITH KNOWLEDGE, WE SERVE” Professor Datin Paduka Dato’ Dr. Aini Ideris, FASc.
iii
FOREWORD by the Director, Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT) Higher education now operates in an increasingly interconnected world. As the global education landscape evolves in a fast challenging scenario, higher education academicians and leaders must understand the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead in order to address changes that are taking place. New strategies and approaches need to be explored to provide a more effective learning experience in line with the constant evolution of technology. This e-book has been the culmination of efforts by scholars whose interests and concerns have been to develop holistic, entrepreneurial and balanced graduates as well as to move together with the innovations and transformations of higher education delivery approach to meet the ever-changing global challenges such as the Industrial Revolution and Education 4.0 as highlighted in the Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015-2025. In conjunction with the theme of the e-book which explores the trends and issues of higher education, this e-book provides a platform for sharing of ideas and benchmarking with best practices of academicians and professionals from various institutions and disciplines. The discussions by scholars from various disciplines which can be found in the different chapters of the book offer new perspectives and insights into the redesigning of learning within ASEAN higher education institutions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all writers for taking the time to contribute to this e-book and sharing their expertise, knowledge and experience. I sincerely hope that this e-book will become a valuable source of reference for educational practitioners and that readers will have gained a broader perspective on the potential innovations that can be incorporated in the teaching and learning approaches as a way towards a more effective and globalised education. Datuk Professor Dr. Rohana Yusof
iv
PREFACE by the Editors
The Centre of Academic Development (CADe), Universiti Putra Malaysia had the privilege and honour of organising the South-East Asian Higher Education Summit 2017 (SEAHES2017) in collaboration with the Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT) with support from the Council for Heads of Teaching and Learning Centers of Malaysian Public Universities (MAGNETIC) and the Council of e-Learning for Public Universities (MEIPTA). The event was held on 26-27 October 2017 at Auditorium Putra, Universiti Putra Malaysia. SEAHES2017 served as a platform for academicians and leaders of higher institutions of learning to acquire new knowledge and exchange ideas about new strategies and approaches needed for more effective learning experiences in line with the Industrial Revolution and Education 4.0. The summit was successful in connecting scholars to facilitate their dissemination and sharing of new ideas about the trends and issues in higher education which are aptly reflected through the ten chapters presented in this e-book.
We invited all presenters of SEAHES2017 to submit their full papers in December 2017. Then, in February 2018, we completed selection of ten papers from various disciplines and carefully vetted the contents to ensure originality, significance, and impact on higher education. In order to ensure the highest quality for this e-book, all papers were subjected to rigorous peer review before being accepted as chapters in April 2018. We are, therefore, confident that this e-book will be of interest to an interdisciplinary readership.
As mentioned earlier, this e-book owes its origins to SEAHES2017. Therefore, we would like to thank the Patron of SEAHES2017, Director General Datin Paduka Ir. Dr. Hamisah Tapsir, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Higher Education and the Advisor of SEAHES2017, Professor Datin Paduka Dato’ Dr. Aini Ideris, Vice Chancellor of UPM for their strong support of the summit. We would also like to express our sincerest gratitude to the Co-Chairs of SEAHES2017, the then Director of CADe, Professor Dr. Majid Konting, and the Acting Director of AKEPT, Associate Professor Dr. Ismie Roha Mohamed Jais, for their vision and excellent leadership in making the summit a reality. Our special thanks go to the current Director of CADe, Professor Dr. Muta Harah Zakaria, for her constant encouragement in completing this e-book in a timely manner. Last but not least, we would like to put on record our gratitude to all staff members at CADe, who made SEAHES2017 a resounding success.
Wong Su Luan Zalina Mohd Kasim
V
INTRODUCTION Higher institutions of learning (HLI) have never ceased performing their core role of producing holistic graduates who are highly employable. However, graduates of today not only need to be resilient but have to be future-proof for the unpredictable job market. Given the aforesaid context, the publication of this e-book is timely as it explores trends and issues of higher education. The ten chapters presented encapsulate a broad range of topics such as augmented reality, gamification, mobile applications and computer supported learning tools, delivery approaches such as paragogy and cybergogy, questioning skills and the Qalb-guided principles in teaching-learning, academic staff organisational commitment, entrepreneurial leadership, and education for sustainable consumption and production.
The first two chapters focus on gamification, which is an interactive process of employing principles and the design of play in a nongame setting. Interactivity maintains learner interest and provides a means for personalised learning and reinforcement. Chapter 1, by Mas Nida Md. Khambari, discusses the development of a prototype instructional kit that applied augmented reality, mobile apps, and gamification. The kit was tested among undergraduate students who were enrolled in the Educational Technology course. A qualitative survey that employed an openended questionnaire was conducted to garner some insights on the approach from students’ feedback. Though students had explicitly experienced the wonders of play when the kit was employed, several implicit impacts were also evident. As such, students have in consensus suggested that the approach had promoted active learning and decision-making, self-driving behaviour and collaboration, fascination, and that it was suitable for 21st century education. However, the design of the kit will be revised recursively using the R2D2 design strategy (reflective, recursive, design, develop) until a concrete and robust design has been achieved.
In Chapter 2, Lai Mei I, Eusni Rahayu Mohd. Tohit, Faridah Idris, Sabariah Md Noor and Zainina Seman described how they designed and developed the MyHematology Q&A board game for Haematology to further facilitate the learning of Haematology subject matter. This board game is based on the traditional snakes and ladders board game with modifications including 400 question and answer cards to assist in increasing the proficiency of Haematology among the players. The cards have three levels of difficulty (basic, intermediate, and applied) and are subdivided into four broad categories of Haematology. There are several ways to play this game depending on the time allowed and the objective of the play. Overall, the preliminary playtest participants found the game to be enjoyable and engaging and agreed that the game assisted them in reinforcing their knowledge of Haematology.
It is important to note that mobile applications have remained popular and are still widely used in education. Chapter 3, by Sharifah Norkhadijah Syed Ismail, Umi Raihana Abdul Rahman, Sarva Mangala Praveena, Emilia Zainal Abidin, Irniza Rasdi and Mas Rina Mustaffa, surveyed students’ perceptions on the use of mobile vi
applications as tools in teaching-learning activities and on the important characteristics of the application. The mobile application was used in the teaching and learning environment for four weeks, and students’ experiences were assessed through selfadministered questionnaires. Students indicated that the important characteristics of an application should include fast loading, low battery consumption, and high data security. Other identified characteristics included compatibility of the application with the students’ preferred mobile platforms, a well-designed user interface, high adaptability, and good customer support. In addition, there were no significant differences in the students’ mean scores in terms of their perceptions towards the use of mobile applications for teaching-learning. Chapter 4, by Norhayati Mohd Ali, Novia Indriaty Admodisastro, Sa’adah Hassan and Mohammed Sadeq Abdullah Saeed, discusses the importance of teaching objectoriented modelling in a university, particularly for Computer Science and Software Engineering programmes. Teaching object-oriented modelling is important for computer science and software engineering students as this knowledge and the associated skills are widely used in the computing industry. Educators in most universities have used the Unified Modeling Language (UML) in teaching objectoriented modelling. There are many UML tools to support the teaching of UML. However, these tools are mostly meant for professional developers and not for educational purposes. There are several challenges for educators in teaching students about UML diagrams (or models). A major concern of the authors is that students have difficulty in modelling UML diagrams. There are general guidelines for creating UML diagrams; however, the same common mistakes/errors are made by most students. Students are not sure whether their diagrams are correct according to the diagram syntax. Sufficient practice with UML can enhance students’ knowledge and skills in UML diagrams. Thus, to address the challenges in teaching object-oriented models (specifically UML diagrams), the authors propose an educational support tool for UML diagrams to assist the computer science students in learning UML diagrams. This computer-supported learning tool is an educational tool with the aim of enhancing understanding and promoting self-learning about object-oriented models and UML diagrams. In addition, it could facilitate students and educators in the teaching and learning of UML diagrams in object-oriented modelling. As 21st century teaching-learning environments become more complex, instructors must equip themselves with innovative strategies to cope with the demands of effective delivery and assessment. The following two chapters explore the aforesaid concern. Chapter 5, by Mohd Zairul Mohd Noor, examines the implications of the Studio Oriented Learning Environment (S.O.L.E) in architectural studio teaching to facilitate architecture schools’ curricula developers in the formulation of a new theory of studiogogy. First, the research introduces S.O.L.E as a studio learning framework that encompasses lecturing-sharing-assessment. Next, it identifies paragogy and cybergogy as the key constructs for S.O.L.E. It is suggested that students: a) need a kick-start for their design projects through innovative lecturing sessions which involve the cybergogy approach; b) learn from each other better through sharing activities; c) understand the course better through summative and formative assessment. The results reveal some of the reasons why students like the S.O.L.E model in their studios. Among the reasons is the freedom to express their understanding, thoughts, vii
and ideas freely. The students also requested less involvement from tutors as they were viewed more as facilitators. Chapter 6, by Jon Mason, Wong Su Luan and Eunice Sari explores the Question Formulation Technique (QFT) and how it could benefit academics. The research was conceived as a strategic response to the stated goal within the Malaysian Curriculum of achieving a shift toward student-centred pedagogies. The Question Formulation Technique (QFT) was first introduced to participants as a structured approach for teaching students how to formulate and refine their own questions and as a means of changing traditional instructor-led classroom dynamics—with the aim of strengthening student inquiry. Developing questioning skills was therefore presented as fundamental to the critical thinking and problem-solving skills recognised by educators advocating focused development of ‘21 st century skills’. Given that Malaysian student performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has rated poorly in recent years, suggesting that Malaysian students are poor critical and creative thinkers, this intervention seemed timely. Apart from enthusiastic responses by participants, the findings indicate that the QFT is a viable intervention through which student questioning skills can be scaffolded in traditional Malaysian classroom settings. This was emphasised when the QFT was combined with a variety of digital technologies, including social media.
In Chapter 7, Mohd Rushdan Mohd Jailani and Nurul Ashikin Ahmat Miskam stressed that teaching and learning in the 21st century should envision more soulful trajectories to accomplish the outcomes of learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together. This is because the current system, which seems mechanistic and materialistic has created spiritual, social, and ecological divides. Such problems may be alleviated if education is ready to give room to focus more on “heart development” without comprehensively neglecting other aspects of human development. As the heart is the determinant of human actions and it affects the whole of cosmology, teaching and learning should be put in compliance with how the heart (qalb) works. The establishment of qalb-guided principles in teaching and learning is conceptualised based on five key aspects, which are i) the employment of Maqasid Shariah as the ultimate purpose of teaching and learning, ii) establishing interconnectedness, which is the relationship between the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels to attain justice; iii) moderation as the key to the embodiment of the virtues of justice, wisdom, temperance, and courage; iv) immeasurable and timeless learning; and last but not least, v) the importance of muhasabah (introspection) and tazkiyatunnafs (purification of heart) for educators.
Chapter 8, by Roshafiza Hassan, Mohd Majid Konting, Ramli Basri and Soaib Asimiran, focuses on the factors leading to the academic staff members’ level of commitment in Malaysian Research Universities. It also aims to conceptually address the issue of whether lecturers, under the new academic ecosystem, will continue to stay or leave their organisations. Furthermore, this research explores the relationship between lecturers’ organisational commitment and leadership practice. The terms, concepts, and information scrutinised in this literature review were obtained from various previously conducted studies suited to the context of Malaysian Research Universities.
viii
Although the focus of the last two chapters is on schools, they are included in this ebook because the authors raised and discussed issues that have significant impacts on higher education. Chapter 9, by Abbas Sani Dahiru and Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie, investigates the extent of entrepreneurial leadership practices based on the perceptions of 358 secondary school teachers in Zamfara State, Nigeria. This survey study indicated that entrepreneurial leadership was practiced moderately among the school principals involved in the study. The implication of the findings is that there is a need for policy makers and school leaders to develop ways of improving the entrepreneurial mindset to encourage the practice of entrepreneurial leadership at the school level through to HLI for the attainment of flexible learning and overall effective teaching and learning processes.
The last chapter discusses a new curriculum on Education for Sustainable Consumption and Production (ESCP) for secondary schools. This curriculum was proposed and developed by Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Malaysia under the auspices of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) Malaysia. Chapter 10, by Yuek-Ming Ho, highlights the aims and objectives of this new curriculum in fostering behaviour and lifestyle change among Malaysian consumers. The ESCP curriculum focuses on seven sustainable development areas identified in Malaysia's Green Growth Policy, which are: sustainable energy consumption, water consumption, waste management, food consumption and production, mobility, homes and buildings, and tourism and leisure. This curriculum emphasises the relevance of SCP practices in daily life, with the underlying philosophy of gaining more through less. The goal of the curriculum is changing consumption behaviour. ESCP is a combination of consumer education and education for sustainable development (ESD), which focusses on the relationships among people, culture, and the ecosphere, as well as highlighting the rights and responsibilities of the consumer. Both fields are about teaching and learning to change and for change. To prepare the young generation for active participation in a sustainable society, schools need to provide knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for daily life practices. The ESCP curriculum hopes to produce a new generation of Malaysian citizens that will fulfil the education for sustainable consumption objectives in educating towards sustainable lifestyles. Therein lies the challenge in applying educational strategies and effective pedagogies that will bring about intrinsic behaviour change.
The 10 chapters presented in this e-book will provide a glimpse of the realities facing higher education today. The trends and issues highlighted by the authors indicate that the stakeholders are responding well to the current developments in higher education. It is also hoped that readers will gain insights into the future trends in higher education by extrapolating from the present trends.
ix
Chapter 5 Emphasising Paragogy and Cybergogy in the Architectural Studio through the S.O.L.E Approach: A Formulation of a New Theory of Studiogogy Mohd Zairul Mohd Noor
Introduction The design subject of an architectural school is the fundamental subject for every architectural student. It is a unique education process that differentiates an architectural faculty from other professional faculties. Architectural design, which often becomes the most crucial subject in the syllabus, can be seen as constructivist and is learned through iterative design processes involving multiple critiques and evaluations. Ideas are presented and evaluated through formal and informal discussions (Kuhn, 2001). Pedagogy in architectural design studios can be based on student-centred learning characteristics such as project-based learning (Bell, 2010), case-based learning (Cifuentes, Mercer, Alverez, & Bettati, 2010) and complex learning processes, as described by Lee and Hannafin (2016). Although various studies on the adaptability of this concept in education have increased, there has been little research conducted on the benefits of a studio-oriented education from a design studio perspective, let alone research on the integration of paragogy and cybergogy in studio teaching. Moreover, the methods of architectural studio teaching have not changed much for the past 20 years. In pursuit of an innovative studio-oriented framework comprising paragogy and cybergogy inspired techniques, this paper was inspired by Grabinger and Dunlap's (1995) Rich Environments for Active Learning (REAL) model from two decades ago. Although vintage, this concept is similar to the studio-oriented concept. The REAL strategy adopts high learning thinking activities that lead to producing an artefact. This is similar to a studio-oriented teaching strategy that promotes ownership of the design work through design production. Furthermore, the paragogy and cybergogy strategies must create engagement through communication and information related through peer-based online mechanisms (Herlo, 2014; Wang & Kang, 2006). This paper evaluated previous research on paragogy and cybergogy related to the peer-led environment and focuses on peer feedback in relation to assessment practices. This research further delineates the assessment into two categories: formative and summative. Liu and Carless (2006) argue that peers provide better feedback in terms of learning than peer assessment; however, a combination of both may be necessary and create a better understanding of the subject. This chapter asserts that the SelfOrganized Learning Environments (S.O.L.E) (Butler & Winne, 1995, as cited in Greene & Azevedo, 2007) model will provide a more complex cognitive architecture, inclusion of monitoring and control within each phase of learning, and separation of task definitions and goal setting into separate phases, all of which are important contributions to the formulation of studiogogy literature for studio-oriented studies.
In the studio, this chapter proposes an alternative design framework called S.O.L.E, which encompasses lecturing-sharing-assessment inspired by the self-regulated theory by Butler and Winne (1995) (as cited in Greene & Azevedo, 2007). The selfregulated theory assumes that students play an active role in the success of their own learning and understanding. By being self-regulated, students have been proven to develop more understanding and achieve objectivity, while transferring the evaluation rubric into their own work (Liu & Carless, 2006). In this strategy, both peer feedback and peer assessment are performed at the same time. Through this, it is ensured that the feedback given by a peer to assess other students will be reviewed by the tutor to ensure the reliability of the marking scheme. Although the issues of the reliability of student grading are still conspicuous, tutors often collate and double check the marks given to ensure the reliability of the marks. Therefore, in this chapter, S.O.L.E is defined as a new approach to redesigning the studio way of teaching through a more systematic module that contributes to the formulation of the new theory of studiogogy. There is a common misconceptions about how the students will be expected to perform when implementing paragogy in their studies, which is the assumption that the students need to conduct their studies independently without a facilitating lecturer (Hannafin, Hill, Land, & Lee, 2014). There is also a canonical assumption that prior knowledge and experience can influence the ability to mediate one’s own understanding (Hannafin et al., 2014). Nevertheless, students should be facilitated throughout the studio project, starting from the desk research to group discussion and presentation strategy. To address this issue, this chapter describes the studio implementation of the S.O.L.E model in the form of teaching guidelines to support studio instructors and lecturers to create a self-taught learning environment for the studio subject. This chapter concludes by discussing remaining questions and directions for future research on studiogogy. Methodology This chapter discusses the implementation of S.O.L.E in design studios for final year bachelor’s programmes in architecture. The focus group selection for the study was based on the maturity of the final year students to make decisions and to participate in peer assessment. In addition to the peer assessment, the study involved a second assessment for the tutors on their seriousness in conducting an assessment of their peers. An additional 10% was given on top of the studio marks for their participation in the peer feedback and assessment process. A useful way of motivating students to rigorously carry out peer feedback is described by Bloxham and West (2007). The students were awarded certain merits and extra incentives for their time spent on the assessment criteria and writing the feedback. Based on the report, the students acknowledged the incentives motivated them to achieve their tasks. The S.O.L.E model implementation started with a series of input lectures from the tutors (lecturing). Prior to the input lecture, the students were required to provide sufficient reading materials during the class. The approach involved the use of online technologies such as Padlet and Web 2.0, which are useful tools to achieve a means to an end and engage students in a meaningful way. Next, the students were divided into several groups, and design critiques were facilitated by the assigned tutor. In this step, books and reference materials were shared and presented in the group (sharing).
Next, the students participated in the peer feedback and peer assessment to evaluate their peers’ work and designs in a given group (assessment). This procedure is supported by Lee and Hannafin's (2016) on the students’ role to assume more responsibility to cultivate their design ideas with support from the peers and tutors. The assignment for each week was given earlier in the project brief and the students were given the freedom to systematically present their thoughts while discussing together with peers in accordance with the constructivist learning approach (Lee & Hannafin, 2016). As suggested by Lee and Hannafin (2016), through the scaffolding technique, students do not passively receive and process information, rather, they enthusiastically build knowledge from primary and secondary sources. According to Liu and Carless (2006) one of the benefits of peer involvement in assessment is that it engages students more actively with the familiarity of rubrics and the criteria to achieve the rubrics. This chapter posits aforesaid strategy will ensure the assessment process becomes more transparent and beneficial to the students. This strategy is seen as a process to include more participation from the students in the class and to develop the necessary skills for better evaluation (Liu & Carless, 2006). In this scenario, the tutors will act as facilitators throughout the studio hours and evaluate performance, leadership, and commitment from the students throughout the semester program. Facilitator’s roles are crucial in ensuring students are more focused on decision-making rather than class participation alone (Kim & Davies, 2014). In order to achieve the objective of the S.O.L.E implementation, it was necessary to ensure the students were well briefed about the objective of the project early on, a proper project brief was discussed to ensure the learning objectives were comprehensively captured in the studio design output as suggested by Kim and Davies (2014). The S.O.L.E Model in Architectural Studios Inspired by the self-determination theory by Deci and Ryan (2008), the REAL model by Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) and the OLSit framework by Lee and Hannafin (2016), this chapter presents the S.O.L.E model for the introduction of paragogy and cybergogy in the architectural studio. It takes into consideration the aspect of engagement, support, scaffolding, and guidance and coordinates them to create a more holistic studio experience. Figure 5.1 represents the relationships between the individual tutorial (critique), external reading, input lectures, and facilitator guidance for the semester-long observation. The following sections describe activities that were conducted to support the S.O.L.E model framework for the development of studiogogy.
LECTURE
S.O.L.E
SHARING
ASSESSMENT
Figure 5.1 S.O.L.E model framework for studiogogy
Lecturing The lecturing and learning processes are important elements in the S.O.L.E model. A distinct feature of a studio design module is the complex technical requirements coupled with the quick propagation of potential design solutions. It is uncommon for architecture students to find any solutions by sitting for two or three hours in a class. The iterative process needs a lot of frequent critique and input on both technical and conceptual topics before any peer-led session. Therefore, the research included a series of lecture input sessions conducted throughout the semester according to the phases in the studio rubrics. During the first three weeks, lectures mainly focused on idea making and conceptual ideas based on precedent studies. Precedent studies help to find existing solutions to design problems; however, students are to use the precedent from online resources as a reference rather than copying them in Padlet. Prior to the lecture series, students were given the topic earlier on, and it was up to the assigned tutor to choose the method of presentation to deliver the lecture. In the student’s portal, the tutors were given freedom to use alternative media like video, YouTube, Padlet, KAHOOT or any other forms of presentation to ensure the objective was achieved (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2 Using KAHOOT as a game-based lecture
In the following week, the lectures focussed on the buildability, structure, and services of buildings. One special strength of the studio module is its ability to support multidisciplinary and integrated education. The technical aspects normally involve structurally sound building, passive and mechanical devices, and sustainability elements in buildings. The studio can act as a forum for debate to discuss certain issues such as firefighting requirements and services that relate to mechanical engineering. The studio master is responsible for making sure that the most important issues are covered during the course of the semester. Sharing It is common for an architectural studio to conduct critiques that can be conducted in both formal and informal ways. Previously, the culture of critique involved only one-toone sessions, but with the introduction of S.O.L.E, the students spent long hours working side by side on their projects in groups of six or seven people. During studio hours, they gave each other frequent feedback and got both formal and informal feedback from the tutor. The students would normally literally pin up their drawings on the wall or show their progress using digital presentations and discuss their work with others. In implementing S.O.L.E, each student was instructed to bring at least three new reading materials related to their work. They needed to read beforehand and summarise the gist of the book or materials that they brought to the studio. The group met for four to five hours twice a week to discuss their progress and to share any materials they found online or in printed form and upload them in Padlet for comments and interactive discussion from other group members (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3 Peer review and feedback session in Padlet
At this stage, the tutor would observe the student’s participation in the class, how they provided feedback to each other, and peer involvement activities that involved intellectual engagement and dialogues related to rubrics and requirements even through online means. The conceptual idea of the sharing and peer feedback sessions in Padlet is that it empowers the students to take a role in their own understanding of the subject matter. This step also helps the students to better self-assess themselves and make judgements about what has been learned, as suggested by Liu and Carless (2006). Based on the feedback in the student portal, this strategy really helped the students to be actively involved in articulating pressing matters related to the assigned projects and tasks. Therefore, paragogy through peer feedback brings the potential for enhanced student understanding of critical assessments, something beneficial to the students in a design course. Another advantage of the sharing and peer feedback in Padlet is that students receive prompt and more feedback from peers while waiting for the tutors’ comments. Nevertheless, we encouraged the students to verify their discussion with the tutor during the separate tutorial. Assessment Finally, the S.O.L.E model describes peer assessment (Figure 5.4) as one of the criteria that can be accepted as more mature students nowadays can be reasonably reliable assessors. According to the first paragogical principles, instead of focusing on how the students see themselves, this research asked the students to reflect on themselves (Herlo, 2014). However, there was an issue raised on the reliability of the grading and marking by the students. Nevertheless, the studio master often collated and vetted the marks based on the marking schemes by the tutors. The results revealed that the peer assessment strategy helped to increase the productivity of the tutors’ time in class. This might be helpful because a studio’s proportion of students is more than 10 per tutor. However, the time factor might cause discouragement, as mentioned by Topping (2005). Based on experience, the time can be reduced significantly when the tutor takes seriously their own evaluation of the students. Towards the end, the tutor would collate the given assessments and compare them with their own marks and observations for further verification.
Figure 5.4 Peer assessment
Rationale of S.O.L.E for Architecture Studio Modules The conceptual motivation for the S.O.L.E model in architecture studio modules is that it enables students to take an active role in the development of their own understanding of the subject matter. This will also help to reduce the dependency of the studio-to-tutor ratio in classes due to increasing numbers of architectural students every year. The strategy of S.O.L.E supports the idea of peer-developed fairness in relation to the standards that they can use in their own work (Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014). However, this chapter posits that the self-regulated learning should be assisted by individual critiques and additional input outside the studio hours. To maintain the sanctity of the peer feedback and assessment during studio hours, students were supported by additional input from their respective tutors for extra consultation on the design and technical aspects. There is much evidence that peer feedback enhances studio learning. As stated by a student in the academic portal: This approach (peer feedback and assessment) is the best way to expedite the learning process, previously I have no idea what my friends are doing (design). Now I can learn from each other better. A further advantage of the S.O.L.E model is that peer learning is quicker and understanding is better. Previously, students claimed that tutors would dictate their design creation process. With increasing online and secondary sources, peers no longer need to rely on the capacity of academics for information, rather the information can be obtained before class begins and verified in the class by the tutor as part of the learning process. A further important reason for engaging S.O.L.E is that the design input is likely to be extended from a single party to become more public (group). The discussion involves sharing ideas, materials, techniques, and sources obtained from one reading to another. In this process, the complex understanding of the subject matter will evolve and more discussion will be established. Another important element in S.O.L.E is students are able to be more expressive on their works. There are some cases where the students face difficulties in establishing their conceptual ideas at the beginning. The study has encouraged the students to be more articulated and express what they understand and bring a lot of materials for reference. This is the part where the peers are able to offer meaningful insights and share their materials publicly. Rationale of Peer Feedback and Assessment Much literature provides justification on the reliability of peer assessment in the course evaluation. For example, Liu and Carless (2006) posit that students nowadays can become reliable evaluators. This is earlier supported by Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000), where in an experiment on 48 quantitative peer assessments, it was found that students can be as reliable assessors as their tutors. Nevertheless, it is argued that the issue of reliability of students’ judgement is still a prominent issue. Therefore, in the S.O.L.E model, the tutor plays the role of collating the marks evaluated by the students and further correlating the marks given by the assigned tutor. In this way, both summative and formative marks will be justified and vetted. The feedback by the students in the online portal revealed several reasons why students like the S.O.L.E model in their studio. One reason is about having the freedom to express their understanding, thoughts, and ideas. The students also
requested less involvement from the tutors and to let the sessions run by themselves. Tutors are viewed as facilitators and only help in the sessions when necessary. Nevertheless, there is also a rather reluctant feedback comment from a tutor: Peer review should only involve teaching and learning not about evaluating others. The students are not qualified to assess others as they are not well equipped with the knowledge to do so. Despite that, the concept of peer assessment is getting more popular nowadays. As mentioned by Liu and Carless (2006), students and tutors may tend to be uncomfortable with such assessment at first, but within time they may get used to the approach. Another aspect to look at is the time needed to change how we look at things, especially in architectural education. This is further strengthened by the S.O.L.E concept, which will help assessment become more reliable and develop students’ ability to measure their own performance through evaluating others. A Way Forward The S.O.L.E model is still relatively new, and studiogogy could be the impetus for future research. Several problems and difficulties have been identified, namely, lack of tutor input, problems in discussion dynamics, as well as resistance to peer assessment. One way of handling the lack of tutor input is to provide questionnaires at the beginning of the semester to be distributed to the students to identify the lecture input that they require to benefit from the class. The topic selected must address students’ weaknesses in the subject matter. A useful way to conduct the lecture series more effectively is to also involve the students in the lecture process. Some of the innovations in the lecture series could involve role play, simulation activities by the students, or debates or forums organised by the tutors. Next, the sharing and peer feedback sessions require more active engagement from the students. This research observed that some students had difficulties at the beginning to share their materials and to critique works by others, but eventually they got used to the process and this helped them to develop conceptions of meaningful approaches in their own learning. This research found that with the S.O.L.E approach, students are more aware of the standards required, and it reinforces the development of self-assessment skills beneficial to lifelong learning and leadership skills. Finally, a further strategy for assisting peer assessment is to start now or never. The advantage of peer assessment is that it gives the students time to process the briefs and rubrics effectively and enables them to learn better because it demands them to think critically in a non-threatening atmosphere and friendly environment. This is true when some of previous research studies have been conducted in non-friendly environments, which caused the students to face embarrassment and even humiliation when their works were harshly criticised by their peers or the tutors. Therefore, promoting a friendly environment for peer feedback and assessment will be necessary to create a more conducive and innovative architectural studio environment in this new century. In essence, this chapter emphasises the principles of the S.O.L.E model through lecture-sharing-assessment to contribute to the formulation of a new theory in studiogogy for the architecture-related fields.
Studiogogy emphasises the co-creation of a design module, paragogy, and cybergogy as parts of the objective and learning outcomes for the design studio subject. Conclusion This chapter has argued that although student centred learning (SCL) in the architectural studio has been implemented in studio modules, it still dismisses certain significant features that could make it more effective. The research has introduced the S.O.L.E model to enhance the teaching, learning, and assessment orientation in studio-based modules. S.O.L.E provides a more systematic way of providing peer assessment in studio teaching and brings SCL to another level. To advance this further, the students finally can see from the meta-level how the process of design in the studio could be more collaborative, support the sharing ideas, and help them to evaluate in order to understand the requirements of briefs better through understanding the rubrics themselves. Nevertheless, the next step for S.O.L.E is to incorporate peer reviews with I.o.T (internet of things) to provide easy assessment for both students and lecturers, answering the challenge towards architectural education for industry 4.0. References Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415 Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2007). Learning to write in higher education: Students’ perceptions of an intervention in developing an understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 77–89. doi: 10.1080/13562510601102180 Butler, D., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback as self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Review, 65, 245-281. Cifuentes, B. L., Mercer, R., Alverez, O., & Bettati, R. (2010). An architecture for casebased learning. TechTrends, 54(6), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528010-0453-9 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801 Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003287 Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Alt-J, 3(2), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968776950030202 Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372. doi: 10.3102/003465430303953 Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M., & Lee, E. (2014). Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (pp. 641-651). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_51 Herlo, D. (2014). Paragogy. A new theory in educational sciences. Journal Plus Education, 10(1), 35–41. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/sm2uWz Kim, A. K., & Davies, J. (2014). A teacher’s perspective on student centred learning: Towards the development of best practice in an undergraduate tourism course. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 14(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2013.12.001 Kuhn, S. (2001). Learning from the architecture studio: Implications for project-based pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4&5), 349–352. Retrieved from http://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol17-4and5/Ijee1214.pdf Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5 Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582 Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631– 645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172 Wang, M., & Kang, M. (2006). Cybergogy for engaged learning: A framework for creating learner engagement through information and communication technology. In D. Hung, & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 225–253). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/1-40203669-8_11
CONTRIBUTORS OF CHAPTERS Chapter
Authors (*Corresponding author)
Affiliation
1
Mas Nida Md. Khambari
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
2
*Lai Mei I Eusni Rahayu Mohd Tohit Faridah Idris Sabariah Md Noor Zainina Seman
3
* Sharifah Norkhadijah Syed Ismail 1 Umi Raihana Abdul Rahman 1 Sarya Mangala Praveena 1 Emilia Zainal Abidin 1 Irniza Rasdi 2 Mas Rina Mustaffa 1
[email protected] Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
*
[email protected] 1 Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Department of Multimedia, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia 2
* 4
5
*Norhayati Mohd Ali Novia Indriaty Admodisastro Sa’adah Hassan Mohammed Sadeq Abdullah Saeed Mohd Zairul Mohd Noor
[email protected]
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia *
[email protected]
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia m_zairul2upm.edu.my
6
* Jon Mason 2&3 Wong Su Luan 4 Eunice Sari 1
School of Education, Charles Darwin University, 0909 Darwin, NT, Australia 1
Centre of Academic Development, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia 2
Department of Science and Technical Education, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. 3
UX Indonesia, 12910 Jakarta, Indonesia.
4
* 7
* Mohd Rushdan Mohd Jailani 2 Nurul Ashikin Ahmat Miskam 1
[email protected]
Faculty of Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Bandar Baru Nilai, 71800 Nilai Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia 1
Centre of Research in Drug Abuse (ACREDA), Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Bandar Baru Nilai, 71800 Nilai, Negeri Sembilan,Malaysia 2
*
[email protected] 95
Chapter 8
9
Authors (*Corresponding author) *Roshafiza Hassan Mohd Majid Konting Ramli Basri Soaib Asimiran * Abbas Sani Dahiru 2 Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie 1
Affiliation Department of Foundations of Education, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia *
[email protected] 1 Department of Educational Foundations, Federal University Gusau, Nigeria Department of Science and Technical Education, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. 2
* 10
Ho Yuek-Ming
[email protected]
Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
[email protected]
96
This e-book is intended to be accessible to individuals with a special interest in the field of higher education. The 10 chapters presented provide a glimpse of the realities facing higher education today. The trends and issues highlighted by the authors indicate that the stakeholders are responding well to the current developments in higher education. It is also hoped that readers will gain insights into the future trends in higher education by extrapolating from the present trends.
About the Editors Wong Su Luan is a Professor at the Department of Science and Technical Education, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). She is currently the Deputy Director at the Centre of Academic Development, UPM. She holds a Bachelor of Education degree in Agricultural Science from UPM, a Master of Science degree with distinction in Information Technology from Loughborough University, UK and a PhD degree in Educational Technology from UPM. Zalina Mohd Kasim is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of English, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, UPM. She holds a Bachelor of Education degree from the University of Exerter, UK, a Master of Arts degree in Linguistics from Universiti Malaya, and a PhD degree in Linguistics from the University of Lancaster, UK.
1