Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment 2013

Published by:The Educational Technology DivisionMinistry Of Education MalaysiaPersiaran Bukit Kiara50604 Kuala LumpurTel: 03 2081 8001Fax: 03 2081 7788

Copyright BTP 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

These papers and slides were presented during the International Conference On Virtual Learning Environment (ICVLE) 2013 organised by The Educational Technology Division, Ministry Of Education from the 20th to 22nd November 2013 at The Royale Bintang Seremban, Negeri Sembilan.

Perpustakaan Negara MalaysiaCataloguing-in Publication Data

ISBN 978-967-5100-50-5

3CONTENTSOVERVIEW / CONFERENCE BACKGROUND 8

MESSAGE 10-21

PROGRAMME 14-21

KEYNOTES

MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES (MOOCS), OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES (OERS) AND OTHER DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 24Marcus D. Childress, Ph.D.SOCIAL INTERACTION WITHIN GROUP LEARNING 103Wan Mohd. Fauzy Wan Ismail1BESTARINET: LEVERAGING VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN TEACHING AND LEARNING 118Dr. Soon Seng ThahLEVERAGING THE EDUCATIONAL LANDSCAPE WITH OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES (OER) 142Rozhan M. IdrusCLOUD TECHNOLOGY : EMPOWERING & ENABLING 21ST CENTURY LEARNING | THE NExT GENERATION OF TOOLS FOR SCHOOLS 163Suan YeoTHE MAGELLAN PROJECT: A SHOWCASE OF TRANSFORMATIVE EDUCATION POLICIES 174Joice FernandesVIRTUALITY OF LEARNING: IS IT ACHIEVABLE? 175Abtar Kaur, PhD

PARALLEL PRESENTATIONS

SAFETY NET: GROWING AWARENESS AMONG MALAYSIAN SCHOOL CHILDREN ON STAYING SAFE ONLINE (A NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT 2013) 186Philip Ling & Aaron Ikram Mokhtar

TRANSFORMING EDUCATION AND DRIVING ECONOMIC GROWTH: THE CONTINUAL EVOLUTION - EDUCATION 3.0 198Khidhir Zakaria

LEAPING WITH VLE: THE SMK TAMAN TASEK ExPERIENCE 205Ms. Roiamah Basri

SOCIO TRANSFORMATIVE CONSTRUCTISM IN VLE IMPLEMENTATION IN MALAYSIA SCHOOLS 211Nor Fadzleen Sa'don (co-author: Halina Mohamed Dahlan)

VLE USAGE BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS TO IMPROVE TEACHING 217Dr. Kamarul Azman Abdul Salam (co-author: Ahmad Rizal Madar, Ph.D (UTHM) & Badrul Hisham Md. Keling (UTHM))

DRIVING FORCES BEHIND MODERNIZING THE DESKTOP FOR A DYNAMIC VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

4CONTENTS(VMWARE INC) 240Paul Tay

DIGITAL GAME-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: PROMOTING PROBLEM SOLVING AND METACOGNITION SKILLS 241Dr. Rosnaini Mahmud

IMPLEMENTING VLE IN SCHOOLS: WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PAST? 254Dr. Mahizer Hamzah, Noraini Mohamed Noh & Norazilawati Abdullah

21ST CENTURY LEARNING: TEACHERS AND STUDENTS INVOLVEMENT IN FROGVLE 256Noor Haslin Moksin

THE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVESS OF CIRCOM TOWARDS MOTIVATION, CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN SEKOLAH MENENGAH PERTAMA 267Mahdum Adanan

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOLS LIBRARIANS AND IN SUPPORT OF THE VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 284Dato Prof. Dr. Hj. Raja Abdullah Raja Yaacob

GETTING STARTED WITH JAVA USING ALICE 308Boon Hui Seng

CONCEPTS, APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH OF VIRTUAL REALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 309Prof. Madya Dr. Haji Mohd Arif Haji Ismail

THE CRITICAL ROLE OF SCHOOL LIBRARIES IN A VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 310Dr. Diljit Singh

THE EFFECTS OF PERSUASIVE VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (PVLE) TOWARDS LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT AMONG STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES 329Abdul Hadi bin Mat Dawi , Ph.D, Ridza Ahmad Nizam bin Abd Raof & Zain Hazmi bin Zain Baharin

CONFERENCE SUMMARY 356

CLOSING REMARKS 363

CREDITS 369

5ICVLE2013 especially would like to acknowledge the kind support from our contributors:

TEKNOLOGIPENDIDIKAN

PERSATUAN

MALAYSIA

The International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment was jointly organized by

Sponsored by

6CONFERENCE BACKGROUNDThe International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment 2013: Infinite Possibilities for Learning serves as a platform for local and international educators, academia and industry players to share information, knowledge, research findings, experiences and best practices regarding virtual learning environment (VLE).

ICVLE 2013 is jointly organised by the Educational Technology Division and Educational Technology Association Malaysia. The collaborative effort between Educational Technology Division and Educational Technology Association Malaysia ensures greater involvement and participation from local and international public and private organisations, thus optimising the exchange of knowledge, views and experiences among participating delegates.

The ICVLE 2013 aims to achieve the following objectives: provideaplatformforallparticipants togainknowledgeand

insights on virtual learning environment via plenary and parallel sessions;

increaseawarenessonchallenges,threatsandsafetymeasuresin a virtual learning environment;

share best practices on teaching and learning in a virtualenvironment, and

enhancetherolesandresponsibilitiesofschooladministratorsascatalysts and change agents in optimising ICT so as to transform education and escalate quality learning in the country.

OVERVIEWThe theme International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment 2013: Infinite Possibilities for Learning corresponds to one of the aspirations cited in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025, which is to leverage ICT to scale up quality learning across Malaysia.

VLE is a learning platform that facilitates teachers and students to experience teaching and learning anytime, anywhere. It provides the opportunity for students not only to experience learning in a formal and conventional classroom environment at school but also repeatedly at the comfort of their homes.

Thus, the International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment (ICVLE 2013) is the best platform for educators, academia and industry players to collaborate innovatively in ensuring the effective optimisation and implementation of VLE.

WELCOME

8Greetings and welcome to all delegates,

It is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to welcome everyone participating in the International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment (ICVLE) 2013 at The Royale Bintang Seremban, Negeri Sembilan. I extend my warmest greetings and send my well wishes to all the participants.

Malaysia has long recognised the transformative potential of ICT in education. One of the most capital-intensive investments the Ministry has made is the newly launched Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 which includes the importance of harnessing the potential of ICT to enhance the depth and improve the overall quality of education.

1BestariNet is a project initiated in Wave 1 of the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 whereby 10,000 primary and secondary public schools in Malaysia will be equipped with 4G Internet access and a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). The high-speed internet connectivity and access to a world-class Integrated Learning Solution will be the catalyst for the inculcation of ICT skills in the Ministrys day-to-day operations, and could position Malaysia to move forward to the forefront of ICT innovation in education.

I commend the Educational Technology Divisions continuous effort for spearheading the development of VLE ever since the launch of the Educational Radio and TV services in 1972. Since then, VLE has come in various forms, evolving with the advancement of technology. Therefore, ICVLE 2013 is yet another milestone and should be looked upon as an impetus for the success of the 1Bestarinet initiative.

Thank you to all the organising committee for their dedication, professionalism and resilience in preparing for ICVLE 2013. I sincerely hope that the conference is beneficial to educationists, professionals and enthusiasts in the field. Selamat datang to all delegates and I hope your experience is a great success.

DATO MARY YAP KAIN CHINGDeputy Education Minister IMinistry of Education Malaysia

MESSAGE

9Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

Alhamdulillah, I am grateful to ALLAH Almighty , with His permission and mercy, International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment 2013 is successfully conducted as planned .

The Ministry of Education Malaysia is committed to improving student achievement through the optimum use of ICT in teaching and learning and school administration. This effort is aligned with the countrys policy to achieve economic growth and social progress through education, especially in the development of the ICT sector by the year 2020. Schools are provided with quality access of ICT including high speed internet known as 1BestariNet and a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE).

The implementation of VLE via 1BestariNet serves as an e-learning platform not only for teachers and students to share learning resources and run interactive lessons but also for parents to communicate virtually with the school community so as to keep up-to-date with news about the school, school activities as well as their childrens academic performance. These facilities also enable educators the opportunity to utilize instructional technology in improving the quality of delivery . A more creative teaching approach through technology will attract students in learning in todays trend of social media wave . Combination of ICT with teaching and learning strategies will result in a learning environment that is more meaningful and conducive in preparing students for a successful and flourishing future in an increasingly challenging global world.

Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude and congratulate all parties for their high commitment in ensuring the success of this Conference . Hopefully the International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment Conference 2013 will prevail innovative and creative ideas for the sake of education as a whole .

DATUK DR. MADINAH BINTI MOHAMADSecretary General of Education MalaysiaMinistry of Education Malaysia

MESSAGE

10

Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

It gives me great pleasure to warmly welcome you to the International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment (ICVLE) 2013. ICVLE 2013 is held at a time when virtual learning is constantly becoming a more familiar learning platform. The present digital era expands teaching and learning beyond the constraint of schooling hours and physical restriction of a classroom. With current updates on information and communication technology (ICT) in education, the teaching and learning process advances to a new dimension that enables students and teachers to access education anytime and anywhere with internet connectivity. This new dimension is crucial to fulfill the needs of students who are the new generations of digital natives.

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) is part of the highlights in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 which was launched on 6 September 2013. The Ministry of Education has identified eleven shifts that will need to transpire in order to transform the current Malaysian education system. Each shift will address the five system outcomes of access, quality, equity, unity and efficiency. Shift seven outlines the need to leverage ICT to scale up quality learning across Malaysia.

I would like to take the opportunity to wish all participants a fruitful conference and I am sure your deliberations will lead to an even stronger role for ICT in education. I wish the visitors from abroad an enticing experience and an enjoyable stay in Malaysia.

I would also like to congratulate the organizing committee for making ICVLE 2013 a success. The efforts to bring together experts, practitioners and enthusiasts in the field of VLE are absolutely commendable for the benefit of the conference delegates.

TAN SRI ABD. GHAFAR BIN MAHMUDDirector-General of Education MalaysiaMinistry of Education Malaysia

MESSAGE

11

Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

It is my great pleasure to welcome all participants to The International Conference on Virtual Learning 2013. The theme for this years conference which is Infinite Possibilities for Learning provides opportunities for us to explore every possibility made available through the World Wide Webin I am pleased to be able to lead a team of committee members who have worked hard and make meaningful contributions in ensuring the success of this conference. We are committed to continually improving the quality of education so as to fulfill the dreams of Malaysians and the vernments noble intention of developing capable human capital of the 21st Century.

The challenges in education that we face in todays global society are complex. Furthermore, technology is playing a crucial role in changing how we perceive education. Fortunately, our understanding of integrating technology in education has grown and continues to grow considerably. We now know more about the ways technology is creating both opportunities and challenges for schools. The opportunities include greater access to rich, multimedia content, the availability of mobile computing devices that can access the Internet and the expanding role of social networking tools for learning and professional development. Thus, The International Conference on Virtual Learning Environment is organized at the most appropriate time to provide exposures and sharing of experience to participants who are among educators. Through this conference we hope to provide insights into a wide range of virtual learning environment setting to our participants.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Ministry of Education and all our sponsors who fully support and assist us in making this conference a success. To all the participants, may your presence in this Conference be memorable and useful to you and your undertakings.

ROSNANI BINTI MOHAMED ALIDirector of Educational Technology DivisionMinistry of Education Malaysia

MESSAGE

12

PROGRAMME

2.00 PM

2.00 PM - 4.00 PM Registration of Delegates (Hotel Lobby)

Registration: Hotel check-in

5.00 PM Brieng to Presenters (Labu Room)

7.30 PM

WELCOMING DINNER FOR DELEGATES

Arrival of Honoured Guests / VIPs

10.30 PM Session Ends

Traditional Dance Performances by SK Gelang Patah

8.30 PM Welcome Address Ms. Rosnani binti Mohamed AliDirector,Educational Technology Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia

Dinner

8.00 PM Negaraku and Transformasi Pendidikan

Recitation of Doa

Welcome Dance by SK Gelang Patah

Time Event

DAY 1: 20 NOVEMBER 2013 (WEDNESDAY)

13

PROGRAMME

DAY 2: 21 NOVEMBER 2013 (THURSDAY)

9.15 AM 9.45 AM

8.30 AM 9.10 AM

9.50 AM 10.20 AM

Time Event

Featured Keynote Speaker

Prof. Dr. Marcus D. Childress, PhD Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)President for 2013

Title: Changing Learning Environment: Reality and Virtuality

Chairman : Dr. Soon Seng Thah Educational Technology Division

Keynote 1

Prof. Wan Mohd Fauzy bin Wan IsmailUniversiti Sains Malaysia

Title: Social Interaction within Group Learning

Chairman: Mr. Shamsuddin bin Hassan Educational Technology Division

Keynote 2

Dr. Soon Seng ThahEducational Technology Division

Title: 1BestariNet: Leveraging Virtual Learning Environment in Teaching and Learning

Chairman : Dr. Haji Mohd Arif Haji Ismail Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Tea Break10.20 - 10.40 AM

14

PROGRAMME

DAY 2: 21 NOVEMBER 2013 (THURSDAY)

2.30 PM 3.00 PM

10.40 AM 12.15 PM

Time Event

PARALLEL SESSION I

Keynote 3

Prof. Dr. Rozhan bin IdrusUniversiti Sains Malaysia

Title: Leveraging the Educational Landscape with Open Educational Resources (OER)

Chairman: Dr. Qhamariah binti Samu Educational Technology Division

3.05 PM 3.35 PM

Keynote 4

Elizabeth LopezFrogAsia Sdn Bhd

Suan YeoGoogle Enterprise

Title: 1BestariNet: Leveraging Virtual Learning Environment in Teaching and Learning

Chairman : Datin Che Normadiah Che Abbas Educational Technology Division

3.45 PM 4.05 PM

PARALLEL SESSION II

4.05 PM 4.30 PM

Tea BreakEnd of Day 2

12.15 PM 2.30 PM

LUNCH BREAK

15

PROGRAMME

Seri Negeri BallroomTime Ampangan 1 Ampangan 3 Labu Room

PARALLEL SESSION I

10.40 11.00 AM

11.10 11.30 AM

Session 10

Mahdum Adanan

Universitas Riau, Pekan-baru, Indonesia.

The Development and Assessment of the Eectiveness of Circom toward Motivation, Critical Thinking, Social Skills and the Achievement of English Language Learners in Sekolah Menengah Pertama

Session 7

Dr. Rosnaini Mahmud, Yusri Abdul-lah,Dr. Shae Mohd Daud & Dr. Habibah Ab. Jalil

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Digital Game-Based Learning Environment:Promoting Problem Solving and Metacognition Skills

BreakSession 1

Philip Ling &Aaron Ikram Mokhtar

DiGi

Safety Net: Growing Awareness Among Malaysian School Children on Staying Safe Online (A National Survey Report 2013)

Session 2

Khidhir Zakaria

Microsoft Malaysia

The Continual Evolution - Education 3.0

Session 5

Dr. Kamarul Azman Abdul Salam

Educational Technology Division

VLE Usage By Primary School Teachers To Improve Teaching

Session 8

Dr. Mahizer Hamzah

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Implementing VLE in Malaysian Schools: What can we learn from the past?

Break

16

PROGRAMME

Seri Negeri BallroomTime

Ampangan 1 Ampangan 3 Labu Room

PARALLEL SESSION I

YBhg. Datin Che Normadiah Che Abbas

Mr. Abdullah Yussof

Moderator Mr. Mohammad Yusof K. Mohamad

Ms. Gina Lammert

11.40 - 12.00 PM

Session 11

Dato Raja Abdullah Raja Yaacob

Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)

Role and Responsibilities of School Librarians and In Support of The Virtual Learning Environment

Session 6

Paul Tay

VMware

Modernizing the Desktop

BreakSession 3

Roiamah bt. Basri

SMK Taman Tasek Ampang

Leaping with VLE: The SMK Taman Tasek Experience

12.10 - 12.30 PM

Session 9 Noor Haslin bin Moksin

SMK Felda Jelai, Negeri Sembilan

21st Century Learning: Teachers and Students Involvement in FrogVLE

Session 4

Nor Fadzleen Saadon

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Knowledge Management in Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Implementation in Malaysian Schools

Break Break

17

PROGRAMME

Seri Negeri BallroomTime Ampangan 1 Ampangan 3 Labu Room

PARALLEL SESSION 2

Dr. QhamariahSamu

Mr. Brian de Rozario

Moderator Ms. Shirini Mastura Zulkii

Mr. Mohd Razip Ismail

3.45 - 4.05 PM

Session 15

Dr. Abdul Hadi bin Mat Dawi

IPGM Kampus Ipoh

The Eects of Persuasive Virtual Leaning Environment (PVLE) Towards Learning Achievement Among Students With Dierent Cognitive Styles

Session 14

Associate Prof. Dr. Diljit Singh

UniversitiMalaya

The Critical Role Of School Liabraries In A Virtual Learning Environment

Session 13

Dr. Haji Mohd Arif Haji Ismail

National PERMATA Pintar CentreUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Concepts, Applications, and Research of Virtual Reality Learning Environments

Session 12

Boon Hui Seng

Oracle Academy

Getting Started With JAVA Using Alice(Hands-on Training)

18

PROGRAMME

DAY 3: 22 NOVEMBER 2013 (FRIDAY)

9.15 AM 9.45 AM

8.30 AM 9.00 AM

9.45 AM 10.15 AM

Time Event

Keynote 5

Joice Fernandes Microsoft Corporation

Title: The Magellan Project: A Showcase of Transformative Education Policies

Chairman : Ms. Roslawati binti Abdul Wahab Educational Technology Division

Keynote 6

Prof. Dr. Abtar KaurOpen University Malaysia

Title: Virtuality of Learning: Is It Achievable?

Chairman: Mr. Sanusi Saseetharan Abdullah WPKL State Educational Technology Division

Tea Break

10.15 AM 12.00 PM CLOSING CEREMONY

12.00 PM Luncheon

1.00 PM End of ICVLE 2013

19

PROGRAMMECLOSING CEREMONY ITINERARY

Date : 22 November 2012 (Friday)Place: Seri Negeri Ballroom I & II

10.15 AM Arrival of Honoured Guests

10.20 AM Arrival of YB Datuk Mary Yap Kain Ching Deputy Minister of Education I Ministry of Education Malaysia

10.25 AM Negaraku and Transformasi Pendidikan Recitation of Doa

10.30 AM Conference Summary Ms. Rosnani binti Mohamed Ali Director Educational Technology Division Ministry of Education Malaysia

Presentation of Mementos

Commemorative Group Photography Session Closing Speech YB Datuk Mary Yap Kain Ching Deputy Minister of Education I Ministry of Education Malaysia

11.30 AM Luncheon

12.00 NOON End of ICVLE 2013

KEYN

OTES

22

FEATURED KEYNOTE

MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES (MOOCS), OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES (OERS) AND OTHER DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Marcus D. Childress, Ph.D.PresidentAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)Professor and ChairDepartment of Instructional Design and TechnologyEmporia State UniversityEmporia, KS [email protected]

Dr. Marcus D. Childress is professor and chair of the Instructional Design and Technology Department within The Teachers College at Emporia State University (Kansas), where he directs an online and face-to-face Master of Science degree program in Instructional Design and Technology. Dr. Childress teaches courses in instructional design, multimedia design, and online learning. Having received his Ph.D. from Virginia Tech, Dr. Childress research interests include online learning, using virtual worlds for training and education, heutagogy, and using technology integration as a catalyst for school reform. Dr. Childress has made over 200 conference presentations at the national/international level. His research has been documented in publications such as Distance Education, Journal of Research on Computers in Education, International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, Globalized e-Learning Cultural Challenges, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, Academic Leadership Journal, and the Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, Teaching, Technologies, and Applications. In addition to his higher education experience, Dr. Childress training experience includes consulting with the Intel Corporation, the Peoples Bank of China, SchwindTEC, Virginia Modeling and Simulation Center, and the United States Joint Training Analysis and Simulation Center. He is a past-president of the Research and Theory Division of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). As immediate past-president of AECT, he serves on the executive committee and board of directors of AECT, and was the convention chair/planner for the 2012 AECT International Convention in Louisville, KY.

Abstract

Among disruptive technologies, massive open online courses (MOOCs) and open educational resources (OERs) have garnered worldwide attention.The MOOC experiment has now moved from an exploration in open course delivery to a distance education movement. Institutions of higher education are embracing MOOCs as the platform of the future and as a way to create brand extension and broader education access. In a similar vein, the OER movement is transforming the way we author, publish, and deliver academic content. Like MOOCs, OERs institutions of higher education are considering OERs as a way to make educational resources openly accessible, while reducing the overall cost of textbooks to students. From the viewpoint of instructional design, the typical MOOC lacks proven instructional design elements. In addition, standard MOOCs violate many principles of instruction. This paper will

23

address the brisk rise in popularity of MOOCs and OERs. Instructional challenges of MOOCs and OERs will be explored through the lens of instructional design. The paper will conclude by recommending ways to improve MOOCs, adopt OERs, and embrace other disruptive technologies.

Introduction

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have captured the attention of educators throughout the world, since Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvigs 160,000 student Introduction to Artificial Intelligence MOOC (Udacity, Inc., 2013). Many higher education officials have tagged MOOCs as the future of education, citing MOOCs as 1) a way to provide access to education on a massive, international scale, and 2) a vehicle for brand extension and increasing an institutions reach, reputation, and image of being innovative (EDUCAUSE, 2012). Of special importance to higher education leaders is the business model for MOOCs. While there is no standard model for how MOOCs will generate revenue, opportunities include:

Datamining:Sellstudentinformationtopotentialemployersoradvertisers. Cross-orup-sell:Coursematerials (e.g., videos)are freelyavailable,butancillary

services like assignment grading, access to the social networks, and discussions are fee-based.

Advertisingmodel:Courseshavenamedsponsors. Tuitionmodel:Studentspaytheoriginatinginstitutionforcoursecredit. Spinoff/licensingmodel:Sellthecourse,partsofthecourse,orcustomizedversions

of the course to institutions or businesses for their internal use; license institutional use of the MOOC platform itself. (EDUCAUSE, 2012, p.2).

Unfortunately, many higher education leaders seem less concerned with the effectiveness and appropriate use of MOOCs than their potential for publicity, reach, and increased income. This issue that is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be best addressed in another paper. Like all instruction, face-to-face and online, there are well-designed, effective MOOCs and poorly-designed, ineffective MOOCs. This paper will concentrate on applying the ADDIE instructional design framework to the common MOOC, focusing on the design flaws that seem to burden the majority of MOOCs.

Applying the ADDIE Framework to MOOCs

The ADDIE model is a common framework used by instructional designers and trainers. The generic five-phase model presents a guide for building effective training and performance support tools. The ADDIE phases are: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. This section will weave its way through each of the phases, giving a short explanation of each phase, detailing how MOOCs may (or may not) exhibit each phases prominent features.

MOOCs and the Analysis Phase

The analysis phase of instructional design clarifies the instructional problems and objectives, and identifies the learning environment and learners existing knowledge and skills. The ADDIE framework for instructional design prescribes that the designer should ask the following questions before designing instruction (Analysis): Who are the learners and what are their characteristics? What are the desired new behaviors? What are the delivery options? What are the pedagogical considerations?

24

Because of their inherent massive quality, MOOCs tend to assume that all learners come to the table with the same background and experiences. Little consideration is given to the learners characteristics (i.e., motivation, goals, interests, prior knowledge, and prior experiences). It is important to note that cognitive styles, learning styles, and learning preferences are NOT considered when analyzing the learners characteristics, as cognitive and learning styles have not proven to be robust foundations on which to customize instruction to accommodate individual differences (Clark & Feldon, 2005, p. 105). Knowing about the learners and their characteristics is critical to designing efficient instruction. With information about the learners and their characteristics, designers can better address what needs to be taught and determine what pedagogical/instructional strategies might be enlisted. Unfortunately, assuming that all learners are the same means using the same instructional objectives and strategies for learners at all levels. Overlooking these features may be related to the poor completion rate of MOOCs.

MOOCs and the Design & Development Phases

The design and development phases address learning objectives, assessment instruments, exercises, content, subject matter analysis, lesson planning, media selection, and graphics/video development. In the design phase, developers: Apply instructional strategies according to intended behavioral outcomes. Design the user interface and user experience. Apply visual design (graphic design). Develop graphics and/or video to support the instruction.

While MOOC design typically considers learning objectives and content, there appears to be a shortfall of appropriate assessment instruments, exercises/activities, and media selection. The key phrase when designing MOOCs seems to be content, content, and more content. Large amounts of content delivered mostly as text, online lecture, and YouTube video. Once again, content is provided with little regard given to quality of content or learner characteristics. The expression that best-captures MOOC design is more is better.

Although some MOOCs are designed using HTML/web pages, the user interface of MOOCs is commonly dictated by the learning management system (LMS) of the institution hosting the MOOC. While using an LMS has its advantages, drawbacks include the way an LMS lends itself to the use of text and limited images. Likewise, when applying visual/graphic design, the LMS often dictates what can and cannot be done.

MOOCs and the Implementation Phase

The implementation phase develops procedures for instructors and learners. Instructors address the course curriculum, learning outcomes, method of delivery, and testing procedures. The common MOOC presents a traditional lecture method for instruction, using online text lectures, video lectures, PowerPoint presentations, readings, and quizzes. Students are presented with a plethora of content and are left to their own devices for mastering it. Merrill (2008) aptly calls online courses with such an overabundance of content, shovelware; information is simply shoveled to the learner.

All instruction involves interaction (Thurmond & Wambach, 2004; Yacci, 2000). Interaction may be between the learner and the content, or interaction can be designed into the course to encourage interaction between the learner and: An instructor, facilitator, grader or content expert; other learners; the instructional context; his or her own self (Larson & Lockee, 2014). In the case of MOOCs, the most common interaction is between the learner and the content. As stated above, content is shoveled to the learner in mass quantities. Students have described the content to learner interaction of MOOCs like trying to drink from a fire hose. If learners survive the fire hose experience, they are typically left to their own isolated interaction (interaction with his or her own self ). Once again, because of the massive of

25

students in MOOCs, there is little if any interaction between the learner and the instructor/grader. Although interaction between learner and other learners is often touted as a positive feature of MOOCs, amount and quality of interaction can be somewhat inconsistent.

Practice and feedback are other important instructional/assessment strategies commonly missing from MOOCs. In their meta-analysis of research studies identifying effective instructional strategies that support learner achievement, Marzano, et al. (2001) listed practice and feedback as two effective strategies (out of nine categories). Again, because of the massive quality of MOOCs and insufficient support for practice and feedback, learners are left to their own mechanisms for determining where they are in their understanding and performance.

MOOCs and the Evaluation Phase

The evaluation phase consists of two parts: formative and summative. Formative evaluation is present in each stage of the ADDIE process. Formative evaluation should be iterative and ongoing. Formative evaluation in MOOCs most commonly takes the form of short quizzes, generally 10 items or less. Unfortunately, quizzes are most commonly used for quick checks of student comprehension and are rarely used to redesign the MOOC. Summative evaluation of student learning and evaluation of the overall design of the MOOC can be as anemic as the formative evaluation. Summative student evaluation (if any) usually involves taking an online final exam or a certification test at the end of the course. Alternative forms of assessment and evaluation such as projects, portfolios, and other creative forms of assessment are difficult at best in the MOOC environment.

How can we make MOOCs better?

Many of the instructional design and delivery issues mentioned in this paper are not unique to MOOCs. Indeed, the same issues arise in traditional face-to-face and online courses. A quick look into most university lecture classrooms will highlight the same problems and perhaps more problems. With the increased emphasis on the accountability of online courses (and hiring of trained elearning designers), it appears as though more and more online courses use good instructional design. In addition, quality assurance services such as Quality Matters provide research-supported principles and standards on which online courses can be designed (MarylandOnline, 2013). So, how do we make MOOCs better? I suggest six ways:

1) Enlist the help of trained instructional designers to assist in the design and development of all aspects of MOOCs.

2) Use quality assurance programs such as Quality Matters to drive good MOOC design.

3) Conduct sufficient learner analysis, paying close attention to the motivation, goals, interests, prior knowledge, and prior experiences of the learners.

4) Use formative and summative evaluation (including alternative forms of student assessment) to improve MOOC quality.

5) Build interactive activities into MOOCs that enlist interaction between the learner and the instructor/facilitator/grader and most importantly between the learner and other learners.

6) Design MOOCs with practice and feedback as integral parts of the course.

Conclusion

While it may appear that I am being overly critical of MOOCs, I do find that MOOCs are an interesting experiment for online instruction. Regardless of the future of MOOCs, I am

26

confident that academics and practitioners will use the lessons learned from MOOCs to inform research and practice in the field of online learning. What does the future hold for MOOCs? MOOCs will likely change and evolve with the technology. As delivery systems (LMSs) improve, so with the capabilities and quality of MOOCs. But, only with the integration of sound instructional design principles and sufficient learner support will MOOCs and all online learning reach their potential.

References

Clark, R.E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 97-115). New York: Cambridge University Press.

EDUCAUSE (2012, December 20). What campus leaders need to know about MOOCs. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB4005.pdf

Larson, M. B. & Lockee, B.B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York: Routledge.

MarylandOnline. (2013). QM Research. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/research

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollack, J.E. (2001). Classroom instructional that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Merrill, M.D. (2008, August 11). Merrill on instructional design. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/i_TKaO2-jXA

Thurmond, V., & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 9-26. Retrieved from: http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_04/article02.htm

Udacity, Inc. (2013). Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.udacity.com/course/cs271

Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition for distance education and instructional CBT. Educational Technology, 40(4), 5-16.

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Presentation

The presenter started by stating why online learning is all the rage today, mostly because it crosses borders and is cost effective compared to the traditional way of long distance learning.

His main concens were the over-exposure of the technology, media content and OER has created a significant divide between the digital immigrants and the digital natives today, as well as the dropping cost of established technology and emerging technology due to the abundance of resources available online / on cloud; and the emerging technologies have reached a peak of the hype cycle; now we are beginning to stabilize towards a series of more productive technologies such as 3D printing, augmented reality, etc.

According to presenter, among the flaws of the current OER and MOOCs are content overload, ironically limited or insufficient usage of text and images in LMS and overwhelming amount of contents available within a restricted time limit. He recommended some of the ways to improve these situations by properly implementing instructional design in developing MOOCs, use high quality or the best forms of MOOCs, conduct sufficient analysis before conducting teaching and learning using MOOCs and use the correct form of activities and evaluation methods (formative & summative).

Dr. Childress concluded that the future of MOOCs and OER development and implementation will change for the better if educators and content developers readjust their focuses back towards the basics of instructional design as their blue print rather than being carried away by the overwhelming wave of todays the futures technology.

When inquired on the future of Instructional Technology, Dr. Childress explained that the educators need to work together with companies to build educational tools. MOOC should be able to give a variety of content to students of diverse background in distinguishing the right learning style to students with diverse background.

57

KEYNOTE 1

SOCIAL INTERACTION WITHIN GROUP LEARNING

Wan Mohd. Fauzy Wan IsmailSenior LecturerCentre for Instructional Technology & MultimediaUniversity Sains Malaysia (USM)

Professor Wan Mohd. Fauzy, is a senior lecturer at the Centre for Instructional Technology & Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). He was the Director of this centre from 2005-2009, and is now a panel auditor for the Malaysian Qualification Agency, Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia and Academic Program Auditor for USM. Prior to this he has held numerous administrative duties at USM and has been involved in various committees involving the use of technology for Instruction and Training at USM and other national bodies. He was part of the team formulating the transformation plan (Nurturing and Learning) based on the Blue Ocean strategy to help USM be the current recipient for the Accelerated Program in Excellence (APEX), awarded in the last quarter of 2008. Besides administrative duties, he teaches graduate courses in Instructional Technology and has successfully supervised students for their Master and Doctoral degrees. He has just recently returned from his Sabbatical at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University in Boston focusing on the area of Peer Instruction and the utilization of Learning Catalytics by Professor Eric Mazur. His interest and research involves the successful integration of technology for nurturing and learning or as he refers to himself - a Human Technology Interface.

Abstract

An environment has many definitions and functions depending on the perspective used. A generic definition: the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates. For an Educator the main focus would be the design and influence of these surroundings and/or conditions that would improve or promote learning among learners. Manipulating the environment of how these learners may interact would definitely influence how efficient or chaotic these learners learn a body of knowledge. Instructional designers would emphasize the conditions and strategies used to help provide a positive outcome to learning. These challenges are in themselves unique depending on many factors ranging from the source of the information to the learners characteristics. Interactions between learners are inevitable and if well coordinated can result in a satisfying and stress less environment for learning and evaluation. As in the real world, group work is inevitable and an accepted form of completing a project or report. Therefore it is essential to expose and foster these experiences in an educational setting as the benefits outweigh the challenges of implementing this approach effectively. The presentation of these ideas and an ongoing novel approach will be presented and discussed, issues that have emerged and identified are now being investigated. Educators need to be aware of how far these issues affect the social interactions and influence the learning outcomes. If these issues are better understood then the learning process can be designed to help learners to really understand and apply any new knowledge they gained regardless if the environment is real or virtual.

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Presentation

In his presentation, the speaker encouraged teachers to use or try out different methods of engaging interactions from students / audiences - such as polling by using gadgets, sign languages, etc.

The floor commented that Gen Y is more engaged with their gadgets than communicating with their peers. The speaker responded that a certain amount of force them would be necessary, such as group interaction through tasks. A suggested method is to break them from their usual friends, or use different methods in forming groups (change group members).

70

KEYNOTE 2

1BESTARINET: LEVERAGING VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Dr. Soon Seng ThahDeputy Director Educational Technology DivisionMinistry of Education Malaysia

Dr. Soon Seng Thah is the Deputy Director of Technology Development, Educational Technology Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia. His interest is in instructional technology, research, programme evaluation and statistical analysis. He has published a number of scholarly articles and presented papers at international and national conferences in ICT, instructional technology, research and statistical analysis. He is a subject matter expert in advanced research methodology and advanced statistical analysis in several universities including being a supervisor and external examiner at the masters and Ph.D levels in a number of local and overseas universities. Dr. Soon had served as a consultant in the Philippines, Brunei, South Africa, UNESCO, World Bank and had led several international comparative studies such as TIMSS and PISA. He had been a training specialist and Head of the Information technology Section of SEAMEO INNOTECH, Manila. Dr. Soon was a Past President of the SPSS Users Association and is currently the Vice President of Advanced Analytics and SPSS Users Association of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. He graduated with a Ph.D in instructional technology from Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Abstract

This paper outlines the basis for implementing the 1BestariNet initiative, specifically the need for introducing a virtual learning environment (VLE) in leveraging teaching and learning in Malaysian schools. It discusses the state of current literature associated with the use of VLE. In addition, it articulates the need for programme evaluation as a means for decision-makers to plan and take necessary corrective action to better implement VLE among teachers and students in schools. To sustain the implementation of this endeavour, a formative-summative evaluation paradigm was used to research into the use of Frog VLE among teachers and students and determine critical success factors which leverages on teaching and learning. This survey research was undertaken using a sample comprising 426 teachers and 223 students from primary and secondary schools through the country. Reliability computations show Cronbach alpha values greater than .90 for the various constructs in the scaled items of the teachers and students questionnaires. The key findings of the study show significantly different perceptions (p < .05) in the use of Frog VLE as a learning tool between primary pupils and secondary students with significantly higher perceptions from secondary students on all aspects ranging from ease of use of Frog VLE to using Frog VLE as a collaborative tool for interaction within and outside the classroom. Factor analysis via the Principal Component Analysis method shows 3 critical success factors cited by teachers in the use of Frog VLE. The first factor concerns the functionality of VLE as a pedagogical tool; the second is associated with the user-friendliness of the VLE; and the third concerns the VLE as a tool for collaboration. An analysis of ranks derived from the mean computations of the variables within the first factor shows the VLE provides a platform for teachers to share ideas and opinions being ranked first. This is followed by VLE being used by students to obtain learning materials which is ranked second. Third, the VLE being used by teachers to source

71

for new teaching materials. Other major findings include issues associated with slow and unstable internet connectivity where secondary schools fared worse compared to primary schools and that rural schools tended to have more problems in connectivity as compared to urban schools. This paper puts forth a proposition that educational technology needs continuous monitoring and evaluation and effective change management is imperative to attain success in its implementation.

Introduction

Malaysia introduced the 1BestariNet initiative in 2012 to leapfrog technology-based teaching and learning in sync with the needs of the 21st century knowledge and skills. 1BestariNet comprises three components: i. broadband connectivity, ii. virtual learning environment (VLE), and iii. management. Under the broadband connectivity component, all schools are provided with either broadband access of between 2 to 4 Mbps using VSAT technology or between 4 to 10 Mbps via 4G technology. VSAT technology schools are mostly located in rural areas while 4G technology schools are located in urban and sub-urban areas. On the other hand, the virtual learning environment is provided for all schools through the use of Frog VLE. Every head teacher/principal, teacher, student and parent is provided with an ID to access Frog VLE. The third component, i.e. management concerns the setting up of a project management office entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the 1BestariNet initiative as a whole.

The 1BestariNet Initiative

The need to undertake a quantum leap in Malaysias education system necessitates a paradigm shift in the approaches towards teaching and learning. The Malaysia Education Policy Review conducted by UNESCO (2012) noted the following:

Malaysia is in fact lagging behind in this area (ICT in education) in comparison to many other economies in the region (e.g. Singapore, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong SAR) even in terms of student : computer ratio. The ICT infrastructure standard for schools has not improved since the launch of the Smart School programme. In fact the situation for many of the early starters have become worse because of the aging equipment. Further, most of the cases have not gone much beyond the use of ICT as an instructional tool, using programs such as PowerPoint. There is little evidence that ICT is being used to foster students creativity, problem solving, critical thinking and communication skills. p.105

Against this evidence, MOE Malaysia incorporated ICT in Education under Shift 7 in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013 2025 (2013). Shift 7 emphasises on leveraging ICT to scale up quality learning across all 10,000 schools in the country by providing internet access and a virtual learning environment via the 1BestariNet Initiative. This would augment online content to share best practices starting with a video library of the best teachers delivering lessons in science, mathematics, Bahasa Malaysia and English language. This shift also entails maximising the use of ICT for distance and self-paced learning to expand access to high quality teaching regardless of location or student level.

The 1BestariNet Initiative is an integrated solution to use ICT to leverage teaching and learning. It comprises 3 components, i.e. i. Technology, ii. Pedagogy, and iii. Management. The technology component provides high speed internet broadband connectivity to all schools. Schools in urban areas are connected using 4G technology with broadband speed of between 4 to 10 Mbps and schools in the rural areas are connected using VSAT with speed

72

of between 2 to 4 Mbps. In addition to this, the Educational Technology Division, State Education Technology Divisions, Division Technology Centres and Teacher Activity Centres are also provided with high speed broadband to oversee the implementation of the 1BestariNet initiative. The pedagogy component concerns the use of Frog Virtual Learning Environment to leverage teaching and learning culminating into a new realm of experiential learning whereby school administrators, teachers and parents interact in a virtual environment to collaborate with one another. The management component concerns the establishment of a Programme Management Office to oversee the overall implementation of this initiative at the Ministry level.

Broadband Connectivity to Schools

The Ministry of Education initiated broadband connectivity to all schools prior to the implementation of 1BestariNet. However, these schools were provided with 1 to 2 Mbps broadband connectivity. Having a low-level broadband connectivity was not ideal for technology-driven teaching and learning, hence the need for better broadband internet connectivity to leverage teaching and learning via ICT. It is with this in mind that the MOE felt the need to implement a national programme to connect all schools with fast internet access to address issues related to access, equity, and quality education. By providing all schools, whether urban, rural or interior schools with fast internet access, this will lead to narrowing of the digital divide and bringing rural and interior schools to be on par with their urban counterparts. This will address the issue of access to digital services and ensuring equity in educational opportunities between the rural-urban schools. In this respect, MOE hopes to provide quality education in all schools irrespective of location.

Under the 1BestariNet programme, a major challenge is to provide the necessary broadband infrastructure to all schools. While urban schools are definitely easier to develop as they have better accessibility to good physical infrastructure, the rural schools are frequently more difficult to develop due to their isolation in certain circumstances and lack of telecommunication infrastructure. The issue is how can the MOE bring about equittable development in both rural and urban schools? The solution lies in using VSAT technology in rural schools and 4G technology in urban and sub-urban schools. While VSAT technology has certain limitations such as the need for a configured contention-ratio in terms of accessibility, 4G schools can only be provided when there is a good fibre backhaul and availability of a sufficient number of transmission towers to ensure sufficient broadband coverage in these schools. In Malaysia, the construction of transmission towers in some cases faced objections from the community and schools. In addition, the cost of building a sufficient number of towers is costly. There is a need for planning to take place at the central level and appointment of a vendor to undertake a coordinated planning effort towards realising the objective of ensuring quick internet connectivity in all schools. At the moment, approximately 90% of schools in the country have been provided with Customer Premise Equipment to allow school administrators, teachers, students and parents to access the VLE.

The Frog Virtual Learning Environment

The virtual learning environment under the 1BestariNet Initiative uses Frog VLE as a teaching and learning platform in schools. Frog VLE was chosen for its proven ability in leveraging teaching and learning among teachers and students in many countries, specifically the United Kingdom. MOE Malaysia chose Frog VLE for implementation in Malaysian government schools due to its proven and effective platform in allowing teachers to deliver instruction in a physical or virtual classroom environment. In addition, students can learn collaboratively and effectively within the virtual learning evironment. Frog VLE brings this collaborative learning environment one step further by involving parents to participate directly in the education pursuits of their children.

73

The Frog VLE (Frog Asia, 2013) is a web-based learning system that replicates real-world learning by integrating virtual equivalents of conventional concepts of education. For example, teachers can assign lessons, tests, and marks virtually, while students can submit homework and view their marks through the VLE. Parents can view school news and important documents while school administrators can organise their school calendars and disseminate school notices via the Internet.

According to Wikipedia (2013), a virtual learning environment, or learning platform, is an e-learning education system based on the web that models conventional in-person education by providing equivalent virtual access to classes, class content, tests, homework, grades, assessments, and other external resources such as academic or museum website links. It is also a social space where students and teachers interact through threaded discussions or chat. Through a VLE, virtual learning can take place synchronously or asynchronously i.e. in synchronous systems, participants meet in real time and teachers conduct live classes in virtual classrooms.

Learning virtually is a key to ensuring no child is left behind. MOE Malaysia is of the opinion that schools must be provided with a VLE to enable learning to take place anywhere and anytime in line with the concept of ubiquitous learning. The virtual learning environment must be able to take cognisance of this ubiquitous paradigm and provide the necessary driving force for effective instruction to take place thats paramount in ensuring access, equity and quality education, the cardinal principles enshrined in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013 2025. To facilitate ubiquitous learning, there must be sufficient mobile devices and for this reason MOE Malaysia is providing Mobile Labs for both primary and secondary schools via the Chromebook programme currently being implemented throughout the country. Chromebooks being portable and linked to the internet can be used as a repository of knowledge where teachers and students are able to get that knowledge via Frog VLE.

Literature on Virtual Learning Environment in Teaching and Learning

The currrent literature review points to the VLE being a tool with multifarious applications in the teaching and learning. Hanna (2003) describes the impact of the Internet and virtual learning on distance education as follows:

The development and deployment of the Internet has radically altered the technological environment for distance learning, opening up many new possibilities for connecting learners and teachers. The Internet has enabled an efficient way of distributing information and sharing knowledge globally, which has led to virtual interactions among people. The interactions first began with simple e-mail, added power with the growth of listservs, and have since evolved into numerous strategies for creating powerful new opportunities for online interaction. [...], there is little disagreement that its arrival has opened up many new possibilities for delivering education. pp. 73-74

Volery & Lord (2000) stated that this technological progression serves as a means for interactive learning where course materials are more widely and effectively distributed. Researchers further believe that the current method of online learning easily brings participants together as a networked community through the use of the Internet and multiple technologies, thereby enhancing interaction with course content and communication with fellow class members. Wilson (1996) described the online learning environment as a relatively open system that facilitates access to resources and encounters with other participants. In addition, learners can access content on their own time and follow different paths to get through the academic materials, and online learning extends the ability for participants to communicate through interactions and discussions (Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006).

74

Amongst the many benefits cited by researchers, a major reason for the growth in virtual learning has been due to its ability to transcend the boundaries of time and place. Students have the benefit of retrieving learning materials at their convenience in terms of when, where, which content, and how much (Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006; Liaw, 2007).

Virtual learning is no longer an individual endeavour as the learner takes advantage of the widely available network infrastructure to leverage the many-to-many relations among learners and with instructors (Piccoli, Ahmad & Ives, 2001). Virtual learning allows students to have more time to reflect on the materials at hand and collect their thoughts (King, 2002). This makes discussions more succinct and focused, with opportunities to collaborate and easily share information (Capper, 2001). According to Naidu (2003), students in online learning and other flexible learning environments often work independently with self-instructional study materials.

A major characteristic of virtual learning environment is that it follows the Self-Directed Learning (SDL) Process Model. SDL originated from the research of John Dewey, focusing on the experience of the learner. SDL is a learning process where students develop skills to take ownership of their learning activities. The distinguishing characteristic of SDL is that students play a significant role and accountability for their own learning. SDL serves as a means to illustrate the phases of learning activities thereby facilitating an active learning process that improves self-management and self-monitoring of activities to meet individual learning goals.

Kim (2010) puts forth a theroretical model of virtual learning via a number of phases. The first phase, known as establishing learning goals, involves the learner identifying what he or she hopes to accomplish from a given learning experience and their participation in a course. The learner's goals may include earning a good grade, mastering course content, and learning information relevant to one's career goals. The second phase is known as locating and accessing resources this phase involves the student identifying what resources he or she may need, and accessing them for use as part of the learning activity. Resources may include textbooks, learning materials from the instructor, the Internet, the library, online discussions with peers, and interactions with the instructor. The third phase, called adopt and executing learning acitivities involves the student deciding on a specific plan of action that is aligned with the established goals and use of available resources. The fourth phase, called monitoring and evaluating performance entails the student tracking and measuring actual performance of results to previously established learning goals. The fifth and last phase is called reassessing learning strategies and involves the learner self-reflecting and re-examining the various phases completed to determine ways in which the student can improve his or her learning experience. Kims five-phase process can be seen as an iterative flow of activities to fit the learner's needs. The primary concept of the model is based on research findings that students must be proactive in managing their learning processes rather than wait for learning to be passed on by the instructor.

The literature on the role of parents in fostering learning via VLE varies. Henderson & Mapp (2002) assert that parental involvement has a myriad of stellar outcomes, including greater standardized test scores, higher grades, better attendance, improved social skills and a greater likelihood of admission to postsecondary institutions. p. 9 Strom & Strom (2003) highlight the role of parents within the context of home-school communications, i.e. when parents and teachers fulfill complimentary roles, they can improve student social development and academic achievement. p. 2 Kallis (2004) notes that studies consistently show that parent involvement raises the achievement of children, improves the childs attitude toward school, and enables parents and children to communicate by letting parents understand and support the work of the school. p. 3

75

Survey on the use of Frog VLE in Malaysian Schools

Methodology

A survey was undertaken by the Educational Technology Division, Ministry of Education to study the use of Frog VLE among teachers and students in primary and secondary schools. The sample comprised 426 teachers of which 254 were primary school teachers and 172 secondary schools teachers. In addition, 223 students, comprising 134 primary school pupils and 89 secondary school students were also included in the survey sample. A stratified random sampling method was used to select respondents from all states in Malaysia. Two questionnaires were administered, i.e. i. Teacher questionnaire, and ii. Student questionnaire. The teacher questionnaire comprised 9 sections: i. School information, ii. School dashboard, iii. Login ID, iv. Departmental sites, v. School VLE usage analytics, vi. Characteristics of Frog VLE, vii. Usage of Frog VLE, viii. Development of web sites for teaching and learning, and ix. Problems related to the use of VLE. The student questionnaire comprised 3 sections: i. Student demographics, ii. Use of Frog VLE, and iii. Characteristics/features of VLE.

A Likert scale was used to elicit responses from both students and teachers on the use of VLE via a 5-point rating scale with 1 corresponding to Strongly Disagree, 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Agree; 4: Agree and 5: Strongly Agree.

Cronbach alpha reliability statistics show the scale items from the teacher questionnaire attained a reliability coefficient (alpha) of .973 (24 items) for the 5-point rating scale construct pertaining to characteristics of Frog VLE . The student scale items in the questionnaire on characteristics of Frog VLE attained a reliability coefficient of .918 (8 items).

Evaluation Framework

The study used a program evaluation conceptual framework based on the constructs outlined above and following the Scriven (1967) evaluation paradigm as used in formative - summative evaluation classification. The primary purpose of formative evaluation is to provide information for programme improvement. On the other hand, summative evaluation is concerned with providing information to serve decisions or assist in making judgments about programme adoption, continuation, or expansion. This study follows the framework used in formative evaluation.

Scriven put forth a list of concerns and checklists related to the formative-summative paradigm and outlined the criteria for evaluating educational product as comprising: i. Evidence of achievement of important educational objectives, ii. Evidence of achievement of important non-educational objectives (e.g. social objectives), iii. Follow-up results, iv. Secondary and unintended effects (e.g. effects on teachers, school, other students), v. Range of utility (e.g. for whom it will be useful), vi. Moral considerations (e.g. controversial content), and vii. Costs.

Scriven (1967) defines evaluation as judging the worth or merit of something. Others such as Fitzpatrick, Sanders & Worthen (2004) define evaluation as the identification, clarification, and application of defensible criteria to determine an evaluation objects value (worth or merit) in relation to those criteria.

Basically, the evaluation uses inquiry and judgment methods such as: i. Determining standards for judging quality and deciding whether those standards should be relative or absolute, ii. Collecting relevant information, iii. Applying the standards to determine value, quality, utility, effectiveness, or significance, iv. Evaluation leads to recommendations intended to optimize

76

the evaluation object in relation to its intended purpose(s) or to help stakeholders determine whether the evaluation object is worthy of adoption, continuation, or expansion.

Findings from the study

The findings are divided into two sections, i.e. i. students perceptions, and ii. Teachers perceptions. The study shows a generally successfully implementation of Frog VLE. Only key elements are presented in this paper. For the teachers perceptions, factor analysis was used to ascertain salient factors of teachers perceptions with regard to the use of Frog VLE. Other pertinent issues are also discussed such as the broadband connectivity, user IDs, school dashboard, and learning sites.

Students Peceptions of VLE

From the students perspectives, secondary students tended to perceive significantly higher than primary school pupils. Table 1 shows the mean value of the construct on VLE use for secondary students is higher (mean = 4.18; S.D. = .713; n = 89) compared to primary pupils (mean = 3.81; S.D. = .789; n = 134). The Levene statistic shows equality in the variances between the two groups of respondents. The finding shows that the means for primary and secondary pupils are significantly different at a confidence interval of 95%. From Table 2, it can be concluded that the the 2 groups means are significantly different (t= -3.593; df=211; p < .05). The question is why is there a significant difference? The ratings for secondary students are significantly higher as compared to primary pupils because VLE is more profoundly used by secondary students, hence the higher mean values. This can also be attributed to VLE being better utilised at the secondary school level as the construct is based on the use of VLE as a learning tool.

Differences in the perceptions of primary and secondary students in use of VLE are shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1 : Descriptive Statistics of Primary and Secondary Students Perceptions

Type of Schools N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error MeanPrimary Schools 134 3.8110 .78930 .06819Secondary Schools 89 4.1844 .71345 .07562

Table 2: t-test Computations for Differences between Primary and Secondary Students

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variancest-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed)Mean

DifferenceStd. Error

Difference

Equal variances assumed

2.699 .102 -3.593 221 .000 -.37336 .10392

77

Table 3 shows the statistical computations comparing the mean ratings of primary and secondary students for each item in the construct. Of the key elements, students perceived highest in the VLE being an interesting tool for learning (mean=4.29; n=223; SD=.788) while collaboration among peers in doing assignments both within the classroom and outside the classroom is rated lowest, i.e. with mean=3.79 (n=223; SD=1.02) for collaboration within classroom and mean = 3.79 (n=223; SD=1.03) respectively.

Table 3 : Students Perceptions in Key Areas of Frog VLE

Stat

istic

s

Inte

rest

ing

Easy

to u

se

Easy

to u

pdat

e

Use

d fo

r Soc

iety

& C

lub

activ

ities

As

a re

sour

ce re

spos

itory

Colla

bora

tion

with

pee

rs in

do

ing

assi

gnm

ents

in th

e cl

assr

oom

Colla

bora

tion

with

pee

rs in

do

ing

assi

gnm

ents

out

side

th

e cl

assr

oom

Use

d fo

r com

plet

ing

hom

ewor

k

Prim

ary

Scho

ols

Mean 4.172 3.873 3.806 3.686 3.964 3.648 3.633 3.707

N 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134

Std. Dev. .8274 .9689 .9922 .9208 .9047 1.0348 1.0295 1.1021

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

s

Mean 4.475 4.225 4.281 4.169 4.304 4.011 4.034 4.112

N 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89

Std. Dev. .6908 .8223 .8117 .9322 .8171 .9593 .9937 .8718

Tota

l

Mean 4.293 4.014 3.995 3.878 4.100 3.793 3.793 3.869

N 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223

Std. Dev. .7883 .9275 .9515 .9532 .8848 1.0189 1.0321 1.0337

Critical Success Factors cited by Teachers in the use of Frog VLE

Factor analysis was used to determine the critical success factors cited by teachers. The data structure is tested for suitability for factor analysis via the Principal Component Analysis method. The appropriateness of using factor analysis is tested using Bartletts test of sphericity which is a statistical test for the presence of correlations among the variables. This test determines the statistical significance for correlations among the variables. The Bartletts test of sphericity shows a significance level of less than .05 (chi-sq=10156.698; df=276; p

78Figure 1 : Scree Plot of Components/Factors

The findings also show that the percentage of variance criterion jives well with the latent root method in the extraction of factors. The variance criterion method is an approach used for achieving a specified cumulative percentage of total variance extracted by successive factors. The purpose is to ensure practical significance for the derived factors by ensuring that they explain at least a specified amount of variance. Using the percentage of variance criterion, the first factor is labelled as Functionality of VLE as a pedagogical tool and this contributes 62.60% to the variance, the second factor is labelled as Physical attributes of VLE and it contributes 5.11% and the third factor is labelled as Tool for collaboration and this contributes 4.21% of the variance. Specifically, an analysis for the congruence of factors indicates that the first factor concerns the development of resources, curriculum management and ubiquitous learning. The second factor concerns user-friendly graphical user interface leading to ease use and it must be interesting. The third factor concerns communication among teachers, parents and students in a collaborative virtual environment.

An analysis of ranks in the mean values derived from the factors is shown in Tables 4 (a) and 4 (b) below. Within items in the first factor, the first rank goes to VLE providing a platform for teachers to share ideas and opinions (mean = 3.79). The second rank goes to VLE as a portal for students to obtain learning materials (mean = 3.71). Third on the rank is the item VLE is used by teachers to recommend teaching resources (mean = 3.67). For the second factor (see Table 5), rank 1 concerns the Resources in VLE are interesting (mean = 3.80). The second rank concerns VLE being used by teachers for sharing lesson plans and resources (mean = 3.76). Third is Teaching and learning occurs any where and any time (mean = 3.68) which is synonymous with the ubiquitious nature of VLE. For the third factor (see Table 6), the item which is ranked first is Parents find VLE easy to use (mean = 3.57), the second rank is Parents feel they are a part of the school community (mean = 3.49). The third rank goes to Parents can monitor progress of children (mean = 3.28).

79

Table 4 (a) : Items within the First Factor

Use

Fro

g VL

E fo

r ho

mew

ork

Stud

ents

can

obt

ain

revi

sion

mat

eria

ls

Stud

ents

can

col

labo

rate

w

ith fr

iend

s in

doi

ng

hom

ewor

k af

ter s

choo

l

Serv

es a

s a

port

al fo

r st

uden

ts to

obt

ain

lear

ning

mat

eria

ls

Stud

ents

can

col

labo

rate

w

ith fr

iend

s in

doi

ng

hom

ewor

k du

ring

scho

ol

Stud

ents

can

per

sona

lise

self-

lear

ning

Allo

ws

shar

ing

of id

eas

Mean 3.5078 3.6293 3.5844 3.7050 3.5607 3.5857 3.7857

N 426 426 426 426 426 426 426

Std. Deviation .78774 .73386 .73840 .69107 .75000 .68924 .61398

Rank 11 5 8 2 9 7 1

Factor Loading .788 .786 .758 .750 .747 .736 .683

Table 4 (b) : Items within the First Factor

Teac

hers

can

re

com

men

d te

achi

ng

reso

urce

s

Mon

itor t

each

ing

&

lear

ning

qua

lity

Allo

ws

self-

eval

uatio

n

Hel

p te

ache

rs a

sses

s st

uden

ts

Man

age

soci

etie

s an

d cl

ubs

Teac

hers

can

invo

lve

stud

ents

in c

lass

Teac

hers

can

pe

rson

alis

e le

sson

s

Teac

hers

can

dis

cuss

w

ith s

tude

nts

in a

se

cure

env

ironm

ent

Mean 3.6667 3.4625 3.6120 3.5141 3.6438 3.4437 3.5857 3.5298

N 426 426 426 426 426 426 426 426

Std. Deviation .63121 .73493 .65668 .69568 .70525 .83594 .69264 .69531

Rank 3 11 6 12 4 13 7 10

Factor Loading .659 .659 .650 .617 .593 .553 .542 .531

Table 5 : Items within the Second Factor

Easy

to u

pdat

e m

ater

ials

Easy

to u

se

Reso

urce

s in

VLE

are

in

tere

stin

g

Shar

ing

of le

sson

pl

ans

and

reso

urce

s

Can

be u

sed

in

mul

tiple

dev

ices

and

m

obile

pho

nes

Teac

hing

and

le

arni

ng o

ccur

any

w

here

and

any

tim

e.

Mean 3.5483 3.5745 3.7950 3.7571 3.2759 3.6770

N 426 426 426 426 426 426

80

Std. Deviation .74755 .78021 .70037 .69332 .86735 .76759

Rank 5 4 1 2 6 3

Factor Loading .852 .793 .730 .629 .582 .522

Table 6 : Items within the Third Factor

Parents can monitor progress of children

Parents feel they are a part of the school

community

Parents find VLE easy to use

Mean 3.2808 3.4860 3.5745N 426 426 426Std. Deviation .79707 .78843 .78021Rank 3 2 1Factor Loading .867 .785 .730

Findings on Broadband Connectivity

From the teachers responses, it is obvious that connectivity in schools is an important issue which must be resolved quickly. Using a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 means No Connectivity and 4 means Stable Connectivity, the findings (as shown in Table 7) show an average of 2.04 (n=254; SD=.975) for primary schools and 1.97 (n=172; SD=.982) for secondary schools giving an overall mean of 2.01 (n=426; SD=.977) for all schools. Based on the frequency counts as shown in Table 8, 4.2% (18) indicated No Connectivity, 29.8% (127) indicated Not Stable, 30.8% (131) indicated Fairly Stable, another 30.8% (131) indicated Stable and 4.5% (19) indicated Very Stable.

From the perspectives of urban-rural schools in terms of broadband connectivity (see Table 9), the findings show that urban schools have slightly better stability, i.e. 2.05 (n=162; SD=.951) as compared to rural schools with mean of 1.99 (n=264; SD=.994). Overall, the mean is 2.01 (n=426; SD=.977). Table 10 shows the frequency counts based on the stability index. A total of 4.2% (18) teachers indicated No Connectivity, 29.8% (127) indicated Not Stable, 30.8% (131) indicated Fairly Stable, 30.8% (131) indicated Stable and 4.5% (19) Very Stable. It can be seen that most of the responses are clustered around the 3 response points, i.e. No Connectivity, Less Stable and Fairly Stable.

Table 7 : Broadband Connectivity by Type of Schools

Type of Schools Mean N Std. DeviationPrimary Schools 2.04 254 .975Secondary Schools 1.97 172 .982Total 2.01 426 .977

81

Table 8 : Frequency Distribution of Broadband Connectivity by Type of Schools

Type of Schools

Rating Scale

Total

1 2 3 4 5

No

Conn

ectiv

ity

Not

Sta

ble

Fairl

y St

able

Stab

le

Very

Sta

ble

Primary Schools Frequency 10 73 79 80 12 254

% 3.9% 28.7% 31.1% 31.5% 4.7% 100.0%

Secondary Schools Frequency 8 54 52 51 7 172

% 4.7% 31.4% 30.2% 29.7% 4.1% 100.0%

Total Frequency 18 127 131 131 19 426

% 4.2% 29.8% 30.8% 30.8% 4.5% 100.0%

Table 9: Broadband Connectivity by School Location

School Location Mean N Std. DeviationUrban 2.05 162 .951Rural 1.99 264 .994Total 2.01 426 .977

Table 10 : Frequency Distribution of Broadband Connectivity by School Location

School Location

Rating Scale Total

1 2 3 4 5

No

Conn

ectiv

ity

Not

Sta

ble

Fairl

y St

able

Stab

le

Very

Sta

ble

Urban SchoolsFrequency 0 60 43 50 9 162

% .0% 37.0% 26.5% 30.9% 5.6% 100.0%

Rural SchoolsFrequency 18 67 88 81 10 264

% 6.8% 25.4% 33.3% 30.7% 3.8% 100.0%

TotalFrequency 18 127 131 131 19 426

% 4.2% 29.8% 30.8% 30.8% 4.5% 100.0%

Table 11 shows the contents created in the school dashboard. Majority of school teachers indicated that they had uploaded contents which were useful for those who had access to their school websites. Of the contents created, a large majority of schools had school address and telephone contacts (87.1%) and also mission and vision statements of the school (83.6%). School song (55.2%) and school Heads remarks (57.5%) seemed to be the least emphasis given by the schools.

82

Table 11 : Contents Created in School Dashboard

ContentsFrequency

Yes No1 Opening Remarks by School Head 245 (57.5%) 181 (42.5%)2 School Address and Telephone Number 371 (87.1%) 55 (12.9%)3 School History 295 (69.2%) 131 (20.8%)4 Mission and Vision 356 (83.6%) 70 (16.4%)5 School Song 235 (55.2%) 191 (44.8%)6 Organisational Chart 279 (65.5%) 147 (34.5%)7 School Events 294 (69.0%) 132 (31.0%)8 Booking Calendar 261 (61.3%) 165 (38.7%)

Under the VLE component of 1BestariNet, a total of 10 million unique IDs had been given to school administrators, teachers, students and parents. The school community needs to log-in onto the VLE using their individual IDs to access the VLE. The findings of this study (see Table 12) show that a significant number of teachers had received thier IDs (396 (93%)). However, many students and parents did not receive their IDs. The percentage of students who did not receive their IDs is 45.1% (192) as against 54.9% (234) who indicated they had received their IDs. The findings from parents seem rather disappointing, i.e. only 25.1% (107) of the parents had received their IDs as compared to 74.9% (319) of parents who had not.

Table 12 : IDs Received by Teachers, Students and Parents

GroupsFrequency

Yes No1 Teachers 396 (93.0%) 30 (7.0%)2 Students 234 (54.9%) 192 (45.1%)3 Parents 107 (25.1%) 319 (74.9%)

The creation of subject-based sites is an important feature of Frog VLE. The study shows that majority of teachers had indeed created sites (> 60%). Malay/Bahasa Malaysia had the most number of departmental sites, i.e. 296 (69.5%) of teachers indicating Yes for this subject. This is followed by Mathematics comprising 279 (65.5%). Table 13 below shows the frequencies and percentages of departmental sites created.

Table 13 : Departmental Sites in VLE

GroupsFrequency

Yes No1 Malay 296 (69.5%) 130 (30.5%)2 English 269 (63.1%) 157 (36.9%)3 Mathematics 279 (65.5%) 147 (34.5%)4 Science 266 (62.4%) 160 (37.6%)

Majority of the teachers indicated that the departmental sites had been created to serve as a channel for the dissemination of information. Findings from the study reveal that 75.1% (320)

83

of the teachers stated Yes for this purpose as compared to 24.9% (106) who responded No. As to the question of whether students could view these departmental sites which had been created, again the majority i.e. 73% (311) indicated Yes while 27.0% (115) indicated No.

Use of VLE for Teaching and Learning

Findings from the study show varying degree of uses for VLE for teaching and learning. The majority of teachers (65.2%; n=208) stated that they use VLE for teaching and learning while 34.8% (111) stated they did not. Only 47.5% (152) of teachers stated they used VLE as a medium to send homework to students as compared to 52.5% (168) who stated they did not. The majority of teachers, i.e. 67.1% (214) stated that students did not use the VLE to send assignments as compared to only 32.9% (105) who stated they did. In relation to the question whether teachers checked the assignment of students using VLE, a majority i.e. 68.6% (218) stated No while only 31.4% (100) indicated Yes. The survey also studied whether teachers used the teaching and learning resources in Frog Store for teaching and learning and a majority i.e. 51.7% (164) teachers stated they did not while 48.3% (153) stated they used resources in Frog Store for teaching and learning.

Website Development within Frog VLE

The development of websites is important in virtual learning. Websites provide the opportunity for teachers to develop their instructional materials and upload them for use by students and other teachers. From the study, it is noted that 88.5% (285) of teachers continuously updated their personal dashboard while 11.5% (37) did not. The majority of teachers, i.e. 77.6% (250) had used the VLE to develop resources in Frog VLE as compared to 22.4% (72) who did not. On the sharing of sites, 64.8% (208) teachers indicated that they shared teaching and learning sites with others in the school as compared to 35.2% (113) who did not. As to the question whether teachers shared their sites in Frog VLE through the MOE repository, a large number of the teachers, i.e. 72.4% (233) said they did not while only 27.6% (89) said they did.

Discussion

The findings support previous research in this area, indicating that functionality and usability of the VLE (as shown by good VLE attributes) and the ability to faciliate collaborations are what a VLE should be. For the implementation of VLE to be successful, it is important that a good broadband connectivity be provided. Resources within the VLE must be plentiful for teachers and students to leverage on teaching and learning.

The Educational Technology Division is aware of the need to provide good Internet connectivity as the Frog VLE is cloud-based. Resources need time to develop and at the moment about 3,000 sites have been uploaded by teachers. The survey shows that both teachers and students are accessing these materials which from an instructional technology perspective lead to effective teaching and learning. These materials must be vetted to ensure quality and fitness for purpose. The fact that many of these resources have been developed by teachers is a positive development and this will build up a community of practitioners.

To successfully implement a hugh project such as the VLE, it is very important that there is buy-in from all stakeholders. Very frequently change management is not implemented effectively, resulting in poor adoption and buy-in. But the Frog VLE has a change management component built into its implementation. Carnivals, briefing sessions, hand-holding activities and promotions on a nation-wide basis are imperative to disseminate the use of Frog VLE as teaching and learning portal.

84

Another important issue is motivation. How can we motivate teachers and students in using the VLE? Continuous professional development must take place in phases. The MOE implements training in phases and create a core group of Champion Schools which serve as catalysts schools for others to emulate.

Therefore, it is imperative that a VLE must be effective, reliable, operable, functional, learnable, memorable, and efficient. Students and teachers must feel comfortable with the system in order to focus on learning the contents. Since usability was found to be a significant contributor to teachers needs, it is of utmost importance for schools to consider leveraging virtual learning environments in teaching and learning. The MOE is planning for the establishment of virtual schools to leverage on ICT in education and upscale teaching and learning. Indeed the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013 2025 emphasises the need to upscale teaching and learning through ICT.

Conclusion

Learning needs to be placed in the correct social context - educational methods must be socially relevant in order to be effective and this means using current communication technologies to leverage teaching and learning. In other words, students need to see that education is keeping up with their culture. If education is perceived as consisting of old ideas and old ways of learning, and have little or no relevance to what is happening in the contemporary world, then students are less likely to engage with them. The 1BestariNet is expected to result in fundamental shifts in the provision of a technologically-endowed and innovative way of delivering instruction.

References

Bouhnik, D. & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in Distance-Learning Course