Activ(e)-Learning for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions by Alwyn Lau, Manager, Teaching and Learning Centre KDU University

College, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia 13 Oct 2011 Teaching and learning in Malaysia is experiencing an exciting time of transition. Our countrys educational system is gradually moving away from the conventional spoon-feeding ethos to one characterised by learner-centeredness, self-regulated learning (Azlina, 2007), and e-learning. It may be surprising to note that as early as 1979, the government had already introduced educational reforms which sought to shift the focus of education from the teacher to the student and today the KBSR and KBSM system openly advocates learner-centred education for Malaysian schools. We can, however, cautiously conclude that active learning is not as regularly practised in Malaysian educational institutions as one would like (Zakaria & Iksan, 2007; Neo & Neo, 2003).

This paper modestly proposes that an emphasis on active e-learning, a concept which combines active learning supported by the latest in Web technology, will go a long way towards establishing Malaysian as an educational leader in the region. The following will then briefly discuss collaborative (or cooperative) learning, peer assessment, Web 2.0 and outcome-based education, all the while recognising that active learning and e-learning themselves are by their very nature prone to evolving expressions (the now-classic text on active learning is Bonwell & Eison 1991; Graeff, 2010; see also Jackson & Matthews, 2011 for a timely assessment of the concept).

The primacy of collaborative learning deserves continued emphasis, if only because of its relative newness in the Malaysian education system with its largely individualistic bent. Our students have not been exposed to concepts and practices like team-learning, online collaboration and peer-assessment, all of which are not only emerging trends in higher education but are also of paramount importance in todays globalised world. When students work together, as opposed to working alone, it can be said (albeit cautiously) that results normally improve. The benefits include positive inter-dependence, faceto-face promotive interaction, individual and group accountability, inter-personal skills and group

processing and reflection (Frusher et al, 2010). Nevertheless, teachers are usually concerned of the drawbacks that come with enabling collaborative learning e.g. loss of control, loss of syllabus coverage and the overall lack of familiarity. These reservations notwithstanding, signs are good that small-group discussions and presentations, guided discoveries, team-teaching, buzz groups, studentled discussions, dramas and role-playing and many more collaborative learning activities are being adopted by more Malaysian teachers (Nayan et al, 2010).

Closely related to the idea of collaborative and cooperative learning is that of peer-assessment. Without drawing entirely from reality TV programs, its nevertheless instructive to note how major offerings like Survivor, Apprentice, Hells Kitchen and so on rely extensively on the contestants evaluating each other. If nothing else, peer assessment cultivates cooperative behaviour, political skills and friendship-building. Education can no longer be merely about the learner; it must also include the learners relationships. Playing well may soon become a non-negotiable, both inside and outside the classroom (Lau 2010, Churches 2007).

The explosive growth of the Internet and social networks represents an invaluable tool for educational development. Beyond ubiquitous Facebook (itself part of the phenomenon known as Personal Web i.e. Web technologies that allow users to manipulate, reorganise and re-create instead of merely use - data) lies technologically enabled options like mobile-learning, cloud-computing, geo-locational technology and gamification (Cohen, 2011), especially with the rise of creative industries in Malaysia (Synovate Business Consulting, 2009). To take one example, mobile-learning learning via mobile devices like smartphones and Personal Digital Assistants have already hit Malaysian primary schools, with at least one study reporting that the use of these devices produced better results (Saipunidzam et al, 2008). It is also now relatively commonplace to see many students in a typical higher-education classroom surfing the Web with their i-phones, black-berries and iPads. These is thus an urgent need to ensure our higher education facilitators develop a working knowledge related to the use of mobile devices in the classroom (Chong et al, 2011).

Mobile devices, if nothing else, entrench social networking deeper into educational institutions. It has become imperative for higher-education providers to engage and exploit the potential for innovating with learning afforded by such Web 2.0 applications as Twitter, blogging, Facebook, YouTube and so on. Our students practically live on the Internet; we can surely assist them in learning on the Web, too. To this extent, teaching and learning should begin intensifying its Web 2.0 form e.g. via the use of online assessment, e-forums (including popular tools like Moodle and various other learning portals), open courseware (i.e. the making available for free of previously copyrighted educational material), the cultivation of digital skills of lecturers to facilitate the embedding of the cyber into the very taxonomy of education (Lau, 2010; Churches, 2010). Our lecturers must be more gallant in becoming experimenters of the very tools their students are often experts at. Web tools reflect not only fresh androgogies, theyre also often integral to student identity and form the preferred learning environment (Firth, 2010; Seng & Mohamad, 2002).

This is not to say, obviously, that e-learning (especially in a form which takes into account the latest in Web technologies) will be an easy affair. Puteh & Hussin (2007) reported a number of problems encountered by selected Malaysian universities hoping to implement virtual learning practices as an integral part of their institutional philosophy and vision. Chief among the obstacles (which include a lack of educational content, student-focus and interactive materials) is the difficult transition of students mindset from a spoon-feeding culture to one where independent thinking is the norm and where student reliance on the facilitator is greatly reduced. In a word, e-teaching cannot take off if a culture of e-learning isnt first cultivated. It is thus an urgent prerogative of the private sector to, on one hand, train our facilitators to be more Web-savvy and yet, on the other, to encourage our students to be self-learners.

Not directly tied to either active learning or e-learning, yet critical in the design phase of learning, is outcome-based education (OBE). In 2000, the Malaysian Engineering Education Model (MEEM) adopted OBE as a means of producing more industry-capable graduates. The idea behind OBE is to set the outcomes of the programs as a base by which to subsequently plan learning approaches. In this

way, all delivery and assessment methods would ideally be tied to the program objectives and outcomes, curriculum structure, course objectives and course outcomes. By keeping outcomes in mind, program leaders and facilitators could both ground and continually improve their academic offerings in a systematic and consistent way (Hashim & Mohd Din, 2009; Aziz et al, 2005).

In Malaysian entrepreneurial education at least, a correlation between active teaching and learning and intention and interests has already been documented (Shariff et al, 2010); it is certainly conceivable that this could apply to other disciplines as well, even more so once the Web factor has been included. This paper thus concludes on a bright yet urgent note that we never stop incessant enhancement of teaching and learning given that - as per the anonymous quote which found its way into a speech by former U.S. President Bill Clinton - Teaching creates all other professions.

References Aziz, A., Megat Mohd Noor, Abang Ali, A.A. and Jaafar, M.S. (2005), A Malaysian Outcome-Based Engineering Educational model, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, No.1, 2005, pp. 14-21 Azlina, M.K. (2007) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement in Malaysian undergraduates International Education Journal, 2007, 8(1), Shannon Research Press. Bonwell, C.; Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass Chong, J., Alain Yee-Loong, C., Keng-Boon, O., & Binshan, L. (2011). An empirical analysis of the adoption of m-learning in Malaysia. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(1), 1-18. Churches, A. (2010), Blooms Digital Taxonomy, Educational Origami (Wikispaces), accessible at http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy Cohen, A. M. (2011). The Gamification of Education. Futurist, 45(5), 16-17 Erlauer, L. (2003) Brain-Compatible Classroom : Using What We Know about Learning to Improve Teaching. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development Firth, Miriam (2010), Can Facebook engage students in critical analysis of academic theory? A review of preparations for and research into the first year learner with integration of the HEA Shock Absorber Project, As. J. Education & Learning 2010, 1(1), 10-19 Frusher, S., Bonner, P. and Cambiano, R. (2010) Hands-on instructional strategies for the 21st century, As. J. Education & Learning 2010, 1(1), 2-9 Graeff, T. R. (2010). Strategic Teaching for Active Learning. Marketing Education Review, 20(3), 265-278 Hashim, R., & Mohd Din, M. (2009). Implementing Outcome Based Education Using Project Based Learning at University of Malaya. European Journal of Scientific Research, 26(1), 80-86 Jackson, S., & Mathews, M. (2011). The Risk of Active Learning in the Classroom: Negative Synergy and its implications for Learning. International Journal of Business & Social Science, 2(14), 42-48. Lau, A. (2010), Web 2.0 as a Catalyst for Teaching & Learning: A Case Study of KDU College, 6th International Conference on e-Learning, USM, Penang. Nayan, S., Latisha A.,Mansor, M., Maesin, A., Osman, Na. (2010), The Practice of Collaborative Learning among Lecturers in Malaysia, Management Science & Engineering, Jun2010, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p115-123 Neo, M. & Neo, K. (2003) Developing a Student-Centered Learning Environment in The Malaysian Classroom A Multimedia Learning Experience, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET January 2003 volume 2 Issue 1 Article 3 Puteh, M. & Hussin, S. (2007) A Comparative study of E-learning practices at Malaysian private universities. In: 1st International Malaysian Educational Technology Convention 2007, 2 - 5 November 2007, Sofitel Palm Resort, Senai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Saheed A.R. (2010), Educational Excellence and Learner Diversity: Can the Teacher Achieve Excellence in All Students? Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia 35(2)(2010): 71-76. Sam, H., Ngiik, T., & Usop, H. (2009). Status of mathematics teaching and learning in Malaysia. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 40(1), 59-72 Seng, L., & Mohamad, F. (2002). Online learning: Is it meant for science courses?. Internet & Higher Education, 5(2), 109. Shariff, A. D., Hasan, N., Mohamad, Z., & Jusoff, K. (2010). The Relationship between Active Teaching and Learning with Graduate's Entrepreneurial Intention and Interest. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(1), 283-294 Synovate Business Consulting, From Manufacturing Hub to Creative Industries, Periscope Letter (2009) accessible at http://www.synovate.com/businessconsulting/insights/periscope/issues/200912/ Thang, S., Hall, C., Murugaiah, P., & Azman, H. (2011). Creating and maintaining online communities of practice in Malaysian Smart Schools: challenging realities. Educational Action Research, 19(1), 87-105. doi:10.1080/09650792.2011.547724 Zakaria, E. & Iksan, Z. (2007) Promoting Cooperative Learning in Science and Mathematics Education: A Malaysian Perspective, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2007, 3(1), 35-39