Scenario Study Report: Interactive Learning Module

  • 578 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
578
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
71
Comments
0
Likes
3

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Se ai Su y e ot cn r td R p r o Itrci Lcue d l neat e etr Mo ue v
  • 2. 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 Advancement Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 2012
  • 3. Background InformationIntroductionThe 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 thatfocuses on the development of quality human and intellectual capital. This is to realize thecountry’s aspirations to become a developed, prosperous, and competitive nation. To ensurethat the implementation of the PSPTN is according to the set phases, the Ministry of HigherEducation (MOHE) has developed 21 Critical Agenda Project or CAPs. Each of these CAPshas strategic objectives, indicators, and targets to be achieved through various plannedactivities. 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 ResultArea (KRA) of MOHE, besides a study on e-Learning implementation in Malaysian highereducation institutions conducted by MEIPTA 2011, a scenario study on Interactive Lecture iscommissioned by AKEPT (Akademi Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia) to provide a baseline data forthe development of a Training of Trainers Module in the area of Interactive Lecture.Research ObjectivesIn 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 StudyOn 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 implementingInteractive Lecture, and (v) current needs and future directions for training related toInteractive Lecture in Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).
  • 4. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture ModuleMethodologyThis is a survey study using an online developed and delivered questionnaire known asthe AKEPT Interactive Lecture Survey (see Appendix 1). The sample involves 1022 lecturersfrom 58 Malaysian IHLs, comprising 20 public ILHs, 8 private IHLs, 25 polytechnics and 5community colleges as follows:Public ILHs1. 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 AbidinPrivate IHLs1. Multimedia University2. International Medical University3. UniKL4. Wawasan Open University5. Taylor’s College6. International College of Yayasan Malacca7. AlBukhary International University8. Kolej Universiti Islam SelangorCommunity Colleges1. Kolej Komuniti Hulu Langat2. Kolej Komuniti Selayang3. Kolej Komuniti Kuala Langat4. Kolej Komuniti Hulu Selangor5. Kolej Komuniti Sabak Bernam 4
  • 5. Background InformationPolytechnics1. 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 SelangorResearch InstrumentA set of questionnaire was developed and used for this study. The instrument consists of 13items 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 calledSurveryMonkey.Research TeamThe research team comprised six members of the Malaysian Public IHLs e-LearningCoordinators (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) 5
  • 6. FindingsBackground InformationA total of 1022 lecturers took part completing the online questionnaire. Figure 1 shows thatthe majority of the respondents (81.7%) are from the public Malaysian IHLs. This is followedby the polytechnics (15.2%), private IHLs (2.3%) and community colleges (0.8%). Figure 1: Distribution of respondents by IHLsFigure 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 Sciencearea (42.8%). Only 12.3% of the respondents are from the Medical and Health background. Interms 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.
  • 7. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module Figure 2. Field of study/disciple of the respondents Figure 3. Years of service8
  • 8. FindingsIn terms of formal training on how to teach, one third of the respondents (37.3%) indicatedthat 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 teachConception of Teaching & Interactive LectureIn the open-ended question of the online survey, the respondents were required to brieflydescribe their conception of teaching and Interactive Lecture. A total of 1022 responseswere recorded with varying conceptions of teaching and Interactive Lecture. Figure 5 showsthe respondents’ conception of teaching categorized according to the 28 most importantkey words/phrases. In general, data shows that the main key words used like ‘deliveringknowledge’, imparting knowledge’, and ‘giving knowledge’ reflect the traditional conceptionof teaching. In a similar fashion, Figure 6 shows the responses analyzed according to 28 mostimportant 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 normallyconduct a one hour lecture. Some of the key words include ‘discussion’, ‘questions/Q&A’ and‘PowerPoint’. 9
  • 9. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module Figure 5. Key words/phrases used to describe teaching10
  • 10. FindingsFigure 6. Key words/phrases used to describe Interactive Lecture 11
  • 11. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module Figure 7. Key words/phrases used to describe how an hour lecture is conducted12
  • 12. FindingsInteractive Lecture TechniquesData displayed in Figure 8 shows Interactive Lecture techniques reported to be used by therespondents. Results show that the most common technique used is lecturing followed byquestions (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 teachingFamiliarity, Competencies & Frequency of Application of Learning TheoriesData displayed in Figure 9 shows how much the respondents are familiar with the mainlearning theories. In general, more than half of the respondents (53.5%) are very familiarBloom 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, 13
  • 13. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Modulemore than half of the respondents (52%) are unfamiliar with Andragogy; while nearly halfof them (42.6%) are unfamiliar with Instructional Design Principles. Data displayed in Figure10 shows how much the respondents are competent with the main learning theories. Ingeneral, 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 thanhalf of the respondents (56.4%) are not competent with Andragogy; while nearly half ofthem (47.1%) are not competent with Instructional Design Principles. Data displayed inFigure 11 indicates the frequency of learning theories application by the respondents. Datashows that only Behaviourism (55.8%) and Learning Style (41.8%) are always applied by therespondents; whereas, Andragogy (53.8%) and Instructional Design Principles (44.4%) arenot at all applied in teaching. Figure 9. Familiarity with learning theories 14
  • 14. Findings Figure 10. Competencies on learning theoriesFigure 11. Frequency of application of learning theories 15
  • 15. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture ModuleFamiliarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of Interactive Lecture TechniquesData in Figure 12 shows the familiarity of the respondents with three Interactive Lecturetechniques. Majority of the respondents (85.5%) are unfamiliar with the Muddiest Point andmore 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 techniquesData in Figure 13 shows the respondents’ competencies for three Interactive Lecturetechniques. Majority of the respondents (85.6%) are not competent with the Muddiest Pointand more the two third (70.94%) are not competent with One Minute Paper; whereas, nearlytwo third of them (63.8%) are not competent with Think-Pair-Share. Figure 13. Competencies of Interactive Lecture techniquesData in Figure 14 show the respondents’ frequency of usage of the three Interactive Lecturetechniques. Majority of the respondents (87%) never use the Muddiest Point and more thetwo third (71.7%) never use One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly two third of them (64.9%)never use Think-Pair-Share. 16
  • 16. Findings Figure 13. Frequency of usage of Interactive Lecture techniquesFamiliarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of Interactive Learning ToolsData in Figure 14 shows the familiarity of respondents with the main interactive learningtools. 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 familiarwith Google Docs (48.3%), Skype (45%), Blogger (43.1%). Data also shows that two third ormore 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%) 17
  • 17. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module 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%). 18
  • 18. Findings 19
  • 19. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module Figure 14. Familiarity with interactive learning toolsData in Figure 15 shows the level of competency of the respondents with the main e-learningtools. In general, most respondents are very competent with PowerPoint (80%). Nearly half ofthem are competent with Facebook (54.6%) and YouTube (47%). In addition, nearly one thirdof the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%), Skype (35.5%) and GoogleDocs (35.1%). Data shows that two third or more of the respondents are not competent withthe following interactive Web 2.0 tools: 20
  • 20. 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%). 21
  • 21. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module22
  • 22. Findings 23
  • 23. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module Figure 15. Competencies on interactive learning toolsData in Figure 16 shows respondents’ frequency of usage the main interactive learningtools. In general, most respondents always use PowerPoint (87.3%). Nearly half of themalways use Facebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%). Data shows that two third or more of therespondents never use the following interactive Web 2.0 tools: 24
  • 24. 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%). 25
  • 25. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module26
  • 26. Findings 27
  • 27. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module Figure 16. Frequency of usage of interactive learning toolsIssues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of Integrating InteractiveLectureData displayed in Figure 17 shows that more than half the respondents felt that lack of timeto 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%) arethe 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%), 28
  • 28. Findingslack of facilities (43.5%), students’ preference for teacher-centered lesson (36.4%) and poormaintenance (34.8%) as other main constraints/hindrances. Figure 17. Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of integrating e-LearningFuture Training on Interactive LectureData displayed in Figure 18 shows areas of knowledge the respondents felt important foreffective teaching. The majority of the respondents believe that knowledge on TeachingStrategies (80.2%), Educational Technology (70.2%) and Educational Psychology (62.5%)are important for effective teaching. More than half of them also indicated that knowledgerelated to Instructional Design (55.1%) and Learning Theories (54.6%) are also crucial foreffective teaching. When asked what topics should be included in future training onInteractive Lecture, the majority of the respondents (78.3%) would like to know more aboutInteractive Lecture Strategies, Tools for Learning (74.5%) and Active Learning (72.9%) (seeFigure 19). Nearly half or more of the respondents would like topics such as CollectingFeedback on Understanding/Learning (54%), Andragogy (52.3%) and Learning Theories(51.8.4%) to be included in training related to Interactive Lecture. 29
  • 29. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module Figure 18. Knowledge important for effective teaching Figure 19. Topics that should be included in training related to Interactive Lecture30
  • 30. Summary of Findings & Implications for Development of Training ModuleSummary of FindingsFrom the analysis conducted on the data collected from 1022 lecturers from 58 MalaysianIHLs, comprising 20 public ILHs, 8 private IHLs, 25 polytechnics and 5 community collegesusing the AKEPT e-Learning Survey, the following of the key findings of the InteractiveLecture 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%).
  • 31. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module9. 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. 32
  • 32. Summary of Findings & Implications for Development of Training Module24. 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 ModuleGenerally, the findings of this Scenario Study support the needs for developing a trainingmodule on Interactive Lecture for Malaysian Institutions of Higher Learning. In addition, thefollowing 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. 33
  • 33. Appendices 35
  • 34. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module36
  • 35. Appendices 37
  • 36. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module38
  • 37. Appendices 39
  • 38. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module40