1. Se aiSu y e ot cn r td R p r oeLan g d l - ri Mo ue n e

2. 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 Malaysia2012 3. BackgroundInformationIntroductionThe 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 thecountrys 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 agencylevel, 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 aKey Result Area (KRA) of MOHE, besides a study on e-Learning mplementation in Malaysianhigher education institutions conducted by MEIPTA 2011, a scenario study on e-Learningis commission by AKEPT to provide a baseline data for the development of a Training ofTrainers Module in the area of e-Learning.Research ObjectivesIn general, the objectives of this research are to1. identify the Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges) lecturerslevel 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 inMalaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).Scope of the StudyOn 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) levelof 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). 4. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning ModuleMethodologyThis is a survey study using an online developed and delivered questionnaire known asthe AKEPT e-Learning Survey (see Appendix 1). The sample involves 1022 lecturers from 58Malaysian IHLs, comprising 20 public ILHs, 8 private IHLs, 25 polytechnics and 5 communitycolleges 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. Taylors 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 Bernam4 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 Instrument A set of questionnaire was developed and used for this study. The instrument consists of 10items 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 calledSurveryMonkey.Research TeamThe research team comprised six members of the Malaysian Public ILHs e-LearningCoordinators (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) 5 6. FindingsBackground InformationA total of 1022 lecturers responded to the online questionnaire. Figure 1 shows that themajority of the respondents (81.7%) are from the public Malaysian IHLs. This is followed bythe 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 - e-Learning ModuleFigure 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 e-LearningIn the open-ended question of the online survey, the respondents were required to brieflydescribe their conception of e-Learning. A total of 1022 responses were recorded withvarying conception of e-Learning. Figure 5 shows the responses analyzed according to 28most 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 mostimportant 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. 9 9. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning ModuleFigure 5. Key words/phrases used to describe e-Learning10 10. FindingsFigure 6. Key words/phrases used to describe how e-Learning is integrated into teaching11 11. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning ModuleFamiliarity, Competencies & Frequency of Application of Learning TheoriesData displayed in Figure 7 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,more 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 Figure8 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 9 indicates the frequency of application of learning theories 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 7. Familiarity with learning theories12 12. FindingsFigure 8. Competencies on learning theories Figure 9. Frequency of application of learning theoriesFamiliarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of e-Learning ToolsData 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 Docs13 13. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module(48.3%), Skype (45%), Blogger (43.1%). Suprisingly, only about one third of them are veryfamiliar with Learning Management Systems. Almost two thirds of the respondents areunfamiliar 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 mostof 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 twothird 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%).14 14. Findings 15 15. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module16 16. Findings 17 17. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module Figure 10. Familiarity with e-Learning toolsData in Figure 11 shows the level of competency of the respondents with the maine-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%), LearningManagement Systems (36.6%), Skype (35.5%) and Google Docs (35.1%). Almost more thantwo thirds of the respondents are not competent with Open Resource Initiatives (73.3%) andOpen Educational Resource (65.8%). As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the18 18. Findingsrespondents 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 notcompetent 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%).19 19. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module20 20. Findings 21 21. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module Figure 11. Competencies on e-Learning toolsData in Figure 12 shows respondents frequency of usage the main e-learning tools. Ingeneral, most respondents always use PowerPoint (87.3%). Nearly half of them always useFacebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%). Suprisingly, only about one third of the respondentsusually use Learning Management Systems (35.7%). Almost about two thirds or more of therespondents 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 mostof 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 twothird or more of the respondents never use the following Web 2.0 tools:22 22. FindingsCrocodoc(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%).23 23. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module24 24. Findings 25 25. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module Figure 12. Frequency of usage of e-Learning toolsIssues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of Integrating e-LearningData displayed in Figure 13 shows that more than half the respondents felt that lack of timeto 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%), lackof resources (39%) and lack of knowledge (43%) as the main constraints/hindrance.26 26. Findings Figure 13. Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of integrating e-LearningFuture Training on e-LearningWhen asked what topics should be included in future training on e-Learning, the majority ofthe 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 asWeb 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 LearningPreferences (44.4%) to be included in training related to e-Learning.27 27. Figure 14. Topics that should be included in training related to e-Learning 28. Summary ofFindings &ImplicationsforDevelopment ofTraining 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 e-LearningScenario Study:1. The majority of the lecturers involved in this study are from the Science, Engineering andTechnology 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 ofservice 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 afterbecoming a lecturer.4. When asked to conceptualize e-Learning, not much is said by the respondents aboutsocial 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 familiarwith Behaviorism (49.7%), Constructivism (47.7%), Cognitivism (47.1%) and LearningStyle (46.1%); whereas, nearly half or more (52%) are not familiar with Andragogy andInstructional Design Principles (42.6%).6. In terms of the respondents competencies of learning theories, nearly half of them arequite 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 competentwith Andragogy and Instructional Design Principles (47.1%).7. In term of usage of the learning theories, only Behaviourism (55.8%) and LearningStyle (41.8%) are always applied by the respondents; whereas, Andragogy (53.8%) andInstructional Design Principles (44.4%) are not at all applied by them.8. In terms of the respondents familiarity with e-Learning tools, most respondents arevery familiar with PowerPoint (92.5%), Facebook (72.5%) and YouTube (69%). 29. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module9. 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)30 30. (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 ModuleGenerally, the findings of this Scenario Study support the needs for developing a trainingmodule on e-Learning for Malaysian Institutions of Higher Learning. In addition, thefollowing considerations should be considered:1. Training should include the current conceptualization of e-Learning that include socialmedia 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 DesignPrinciples.3. Training should include exposure to Open Resource Initiatives and Open EducationalResource.4. Trainees should also be introduced to authoring tools available in the market fordeveloping 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 shouldalso be included in training related to e-Learning.8. In encouraging the application of Andragogy theories, activities, tasks and projects inthe modules need to be related to trainees work and institution.9. The training need to encourage collaborative effort among the trainees across theIHLs in line with the concepts of interactive and collaborative learning espoused in themodules.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. 31. Appendices 33 32. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module34 33. Appendices 35 34. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module36 35. Appendices 37