E-Learning: Global Perspectives, Challenges and Educational Implications 1685076041, 9781685076047

Citation preview

Education in a Competitive and Globalizing World

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Education in a Competitive and Globalizing World E-Learning: Global Perspectives, Challenges and Educational Implications Donnie Adams (Editor) Chuah Kee Man (Editor) 2022. ISBN: 978-1-68507-604-7 Teacher Identity Development Within a Community of Practice Ronél Ferreira (Editor) 2022. ISBN: 978-1-68507-487-6 (Hardcover) 2022. ISBN: 978-1-68507-511-8 (eBook) School Leadership in the 21st Century: Challenges and Coping Strategies Adam E. Nir, PhD (Editor) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-68507-368-8 (Hardcover) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-68507-423-4 (eBook) Parents and Teachers: Perspectives, Interactions and Relationships Francesco Arcidiacono (Editor) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-68507-358-9 (Hardcover) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-68507-418-0 (eBook) Handbook of Homework: Theoretical Principles and Practical Applications Susana Rodríguez Martinez, PhD (Editor) Antonio Valle Arias, PhD (Editor) Isabel Piñeiro Aguin, PhD (Editor) Bibiana Regueiro Fernandez, PhD (Editor) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-68507-380-0 (Softcover) 2021. ISBN: 978-1-68507-395-4 (eBook)

More information about this series can be found at https://novapublishers.com/product-category/series/education-in-a-competitiveand-globalizing-world/

Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man Editors

E-Learning Global Perspectives, Challenges and Educational Implications

Copyright © 2022 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52305/QGNZ7440 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN. For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact: Copyright Clearance Center Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470

E-mail: [email protected].

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Adams, Donnie, editor. | Kee Man, Chuah, editor. Title: E-learning: : global perspectives, challenges and educational implications / Donnie Adams (editor), Chuah Kee Man (editor). Other titles: E-learning (Nova Science Publishers : 2022) Description: New York : Nova Science Publishers, 2022. | Series: Education in a competitive and globalizing world | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2022003500 (print) | LCCN 2022003501 (ebook) | ISBN 9781685076047 (paperback) | ISBN 9781685076511 (adobe pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Web-based instruction. | Internet in education. | Distance education--Computer-assisted instruction. Classification: LCC LB1044.87 .E15 2022 (print) | LCC LB1044.87 (ebook) | DDC 371.33/44678--dc23/eng/20220216 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022003500 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022003501

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Contents

Preface

.......................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... ix Chapter 1

E-Learning and Cross-Border Higher Education: Post-Pandemic Potentials and Challenges .......................1 Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man

Chapter 2

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning in Science Education............................13 Zainun Mustafa, Nadrah Harith Fadzilah and Norazilawati Abdullah

Chapter 3

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning Tools in the Attitude Domain: A Fuzzy Delphi Method...................................35 Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

Chapter 4

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online Teaching and Learning ..................................61 Selvakumar Selvarajan, Selvamalar Selvarajan and Agelyia Murugan

Chapter 5

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rasch Model Analysis ...........83 Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono, Nuniek Herdyastuti and Dedi Kuswandi

vi

Contents

Chapter 6

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms: A Study on Public Sector Universities of Pakistan .................................................107 Muhammad Mujtaba Asad, Syeda Sumbul Shah, Fahad Sherwani and Prathamesh Churi

Chapter 7

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability: Identification of Barriers for the Member States .......125 Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

About the Editors ......................................................................................149 List of Contributors ..................................................................................151 Index

.........................................................................................157

Preface

As the world recovers from the unprecedented outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the field of education continues to cushion the impacts of school closures and teaching disruption through various measures. E-learning, while not new, has taken a greater role in mitigating the effects of the pandemic. This book, E-Learning: Global Perspectives, Challenges and Educational Implications, is not only a collection of chapters shared by researchers and academics but also a manifestation of the dedication of those involved in the pursuit of providing equitable and quality education through the support of elearning tools and platforms. The book begins with an outlook on the post-pandemic potentials and challenges of utilising e-learning for cross-border education. The chapter by Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man focuses on the necessary measures that can be taken to fully maximise the use of e-learning in promoting cross-border education in higher education institutions. It is indeed timely for higher education institutions to re-examine the concept of cross-border education through the lens of e-learning and virtual mobility especially when physical presence is costly or not feasible. Several innovative pedagogical approaches and ideas are also presented in enhancing learning experience via e-learning. In Chapter 2, Zainun Mustafa and colleagues offered their perspectives on using creative pedagogy through e-learning for the purpose of science education. They explain the distinctive components of creative pedagogy that can be incorporated through various elearning tools in order to foster meaningful learning in science classrooms. In Chapter 3, Vinothini Vasodavan and colleagues focus on developing students’ attitude domain via online collaborative learning tools. They propose a framework, which was derived through the fuzzy Delphi method. Their model serves as a guide in selecting the most suitable collaborative learning tools to develop the attitude domain of the students. In the next chapter, Selvakumar Selvarajan and colleagues introduce the concept of interactive digital storytelling assignment in online teaching and

viii

Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man

learning that could help teachers foster higher order thinking skills among their students. In addition, studies that measure the impact of online learning in different settings are also included in this book. In Chapter 5, Mustaji and colleagues reported the outcomes from their study on online learning engagement among Indonesian university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using Rasch model analysis, their study highlighted the Indonesian students’ level of engagement and readiness in coping with online learning. In Chapter 6, Muhammad Mujtaba Asad and colleagues shared their findings on a study conducted on university students in Pakistan, which examined the challenges that they faced dealing with online learning during the pandemic. Finally in Chapter 7, Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan described MOOCs implementation in the ASEAN region, specifically on the barriers faced by the member states. They also offered their review of issues to be addressed in creating a homogeneous ecosystem for MOOCs in ASEAN.

Acknowledgments

We’re thankful to the many scholars from Universiti Malaya, University Science Malaysia, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Taylor’s University, AIMST University Malaysia, American University of Phnom Penh, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Universitas Negeri Malang, Sukkur IBA University, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, NMIMS University, SMK Mengkuang, Pulau Pinang, Politeknik Tuanku Sultanah Bahiyah, Kedah, and Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Seksyen 9 who have contributed to the development of this book. These chapters were selected based on a thorough process of review. Our appreciation to Associate Professor Dr Dorothy DeWitt, Associate Professor Dr Mah Boon Yih, Associate Professor Dr. Fitri Suraya Mohamad, Dr Vinothini Vasodavan, Ts. Dr. Savita K. Sugathan, Dr Viji Ramamuruthy and Dr. Muhammad Mujtaba Asad who provided a detailed evaluation and suggestions for improvement for all the manuscripts.

Chapter 1

E-Learning and Cross-Border Higher Education: Post-Pandemic Potentials and Challenges Donnie Adams1, * and Chuah Kee Man2 1Faculty

of Education, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia of Language and Communication, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia 2Faculty

Abstract The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on higher education goes beyond campus closures and disruption in programme delivery. The crisis has indirectly allowed higher education institutions to re-examine their existing programme structure in order to be more flexible and accessible to students both locally and internationally. Such need has triggered a new interest in assessing the use of e-learning in enhancing cross-border higher education, which was traditionally restricted mainly to campusbased physical experience. This chapter discusses the challenges and potentials of implementing cross-border higher education through elearning mode in the context of post-pandemic higher education ecosystem. The transition to online learning during the pandemic as faced by higher education institutions has elevated the interest in maximizing the roles that e-learning could play in higher education. While e-learning has the potential to allow more cross-border programmes to be offered internationally via virtual mobility, issues surrounding quality assurance, *

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

In: E-Learning Editors: Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man ISBN: 978-1-68507-604-7 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

2

Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man infrastructure and diversity remain critical to be addressed. Higher education institutions should not emphasize solely on penetrating new markets without taking measures to deal with the issues mentioned. On the whole, this chapter would serve as a good reference to relevant stakeholders in uncovering the hidden potentials of e-learning in crossborder higher education and evaluating its challenges.

Keywords: cross-border higher education, e-learning, pandemic, international mobility

1. Introduction Cross-border higher education (CBHE) has been shifting the organizational boundaries of higher education institutions (HEIs) due to globalization (Amaral, Tavares, Cardoso, & Sin, 2016). In general, CBHE refers to the movement of persons, courses, providers, curricula, and research in higher education across national jurisdictional borders (Vincent-Lancrin, 2007). As a subset to educational internationalisation, cross-border education is part of academic exchange programmes, industrial initiatives, and expansion of cooperation projects. It is not restricted to academic programmes as CBHE could also cover collaboration in terms of research and strategic partnerships (Waterval, Frambach, Pool, Driessen, & Scherpbier., 2016). CBHE also allows HEIs with limited funding to supplement their revenues with for-profit education services across borders such as franchising or twinning their education programmes or forming double and joint degrees agreements with other institutions in other countries (Knight, 2006). This refers to situations where two or more HEIs from different countries come together to develop courses, modules and curricula offered in partnership and leading to recognized joint degree. CBHE are often acclimated by a country’s policy and influenced by its institutional identities (Amaral et al., 2016). Cross-border education plays an important role in the process of learning and teaching in HEIs. Alaoutinen and Voracek’s (2004) comparative study of traditional and e-learning techniques between three Finnish and seven Russian universities in a cross-border higher educational environment gave a potential view on how collaboration between different systems could offer attractive study programmes and various educational services worldwide benefiting both systems and HEIs. Despite the trends of CBHE within HEIs, there are still limited efforts to examine the potentials and challenges of e-learning in relation to cross-border

E-Learning and Cross-Border Higher Education

3

higher education. This chapter highlights the rise of cross-border education and its contributing factors. It also includes a discussion on the roles of elearning in CBHE, its post-pandemic challenges and potentials. This chapter would serve as a good reference to relevant stakeholders in uncovering the hidden potentials of e-learning in cross-border higher education.

2. The Rise of Cross-Border Higher Education The provision of higher education abroad, through student mobility, franchising, academic partnerships, and opening of a branch campus has grown significantly. These trends benefit education stakeholders in both advanced and developing countries. Rooted in different motivations (Knight & de Wit, 1995), CBHE could be driven by a country’s role in the world (political), the usage of a common language, and the collaboration with former colonies (cultural), or based on the aims of its higher education sector such as international standards in education and research (academic). The global education industry has seen a vast development in recent years. The movement of students across local and international HEIs is gaining in popularity (Ashour, El-Refae, & Zaitoun, 2021; Yıldırım, Bostancı, Yıldırım, & Erdoğan, 2021) and CBHE now plays a vital role in a system’s capacity building process. In the study by Lane, Owens and Kinser (2015), the number of postsecondary students enrolled in HEIs outside their country of citizenship doubled to 4.5 million, showing an annual average growth rate of 7% from 2.1 million previously. CBHE has emerged as a new strategy for HEIs, especially those seeking access to global-wide markets. The collaboration between HEIs can stimulate new research ventures, boost academic mobility and international students’ enrolment, fostering mutual understanding and academic collaboration between HEIs. Vincent-Lancrin (2007) postulated that CBHE also contributes towards capacity building in HEIs with the movement of staff and students abroad to access good quality programmes or courses, and research facilities, and later returning with enhanced knowledge, skills, and experiences benefitting the domestic tertiary education provision. In addition, with the improvement and availability of educational technologies, cross-border education has enabled educational courses to be delivered through e-learning or distance learning (Larsen, Momii, & VincentLancrin, 2005). For students, CBHE can stimulate new ways of thinking, expose them to diverse learning and teaching methods, and enable them to

4

Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man

learn new languages and cultures. Such learning experiences can broaden their intellectual horizons and professional perspectives. As for HEIs, CBHE can enhance their reputation, offer opportunities to gain knowledge about policy and practices in other education systems, and allow the combination of resources to develop innovative educational programmes.

3. The Roles of E-Learning in Cross-Border Higher Education The rise of CBHE has prompted many HEIs to re-examine their programmes not only by focusing on the curricular aspect but also on the delivery methods. E-learning or online learning is regarded as the catalyst in allowing CBHE to flourish as it can connect HEIs with prospective students efficiently. As emphasized by Knight (2006), the rapid advancement of online learning technology, its increasing affordability and access, as well as its massive adoption due to the pandemic have turned online delivery into the most promising delivery method in the new normal of education across borders. The demand for CBHE has also made open and distance learning (ODL) programmes even more widespread and not restricted to open universities. HEIs can capitalise on their resources related to online learning and design programmes that are well-suited for ODL mode. The existing programmes with its in-person appeal could be offered in hybrid or blended mode that accommodate distance learners (Chen & Yamashita, 2020; Youssef, 2014). This e-learning implementation was apparent during the pandemic closures of campuses across the globe in which the usual in-person courses are conducted either in ODL or hybrid modes. International students who were back at their home countries were still able to continue their study fully online (Dhawan, 2020). Such shift suddenly offers a new outlook to HEIs in terms of utilising e-learning methods for CBHE programmes. Another role played by e-learning in CBHE is its cost effectiveness in allowing virtual mobility to be carried out. Virtual mobility allows students to interact globally with peers and instructors through e-learning platforms and tools (Bedenlier & Marin, 2021). The use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in promoting virtual mobility has increased over the last year due to the fact that learners are not required to be on campus physically. Poce et al. (2020) in their study on MOOC learners experience, showed that through a MOOC design that promotes openness, virtual mobility can be more effective. Despite the initial concern about e-assessment, the findings from their study indicated the importance of making the MOOC structure clear and

E-Learning and Cross-Border Higher Education

5

explicit in supporting self-regulated learning. By doing this, HEIs can attract more learners from outside of their own country to enrol. As MOOCs have been around for more than a decade, adjusting its content and structure to meet the CBHE requirements would not be as challenging as creating a new programme that is solely meant for CBHE. HEIs can also offer mini-MOOCs that serve to evaluate learners’ readiness before they enter the university physically (Buchem et al., 2020). The mini-MOOCs or micro-MOOCs are linked to the rising concept of micro-credentialing via e-learning. To enhance the offering of CBHE programmes, HEIs need to ensure prospective students’ credentials are verified. Instead of depending on the conventional testing, students can be required to register for mini-MOOCs, which are specifically designed for micro-credentialing purposes (Farrow et al., 2021). HEIs would be able to utilise their e-learning resources to promote micro-credential courses (be it at undergraduate or graduate levels) since it would not require international students to travel. Moreover, as more governments around the world are aligning micro-credentials with existing qualification frameworks, it would be more appealing to international students (Brown, Mhichil, Beirne, & Mac Lochlainn, 2021) as shown during the COVID-19 pandemic period when travel was restricted. These roles played by e-learning in increasing CBHE are pivotal in shaping post-pandemic development of academic programmes. HEIs are now posed with the dilemma of following the tried-and-tested model of conventional programmes or venture into a new ecosystem of flexible academic programmes mediated by e-learning. The following sections will describe some of the most pertinent challenges and potentials of utilising elearning for the purpose of CBHE.

4. Post-Pandemic Challenges Despite the roles of e-learning in spearheading CBHE, HEIs continue to face the issue of developing a solid integrated system for quality control and verification. This concern implies the establishment of processes for the recognition of academic and professional qualifications obtained through domestic or international education institutions. As reiterated by Waterval et al. (2016), there is an urgent need to examine this issue given the growth in academic mobility and the rising mobility of the employment. For students, scholars, and other stakeholders, the validity of higher education programmes

6

Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man

and credentials is crucial. Additional efforts are needed to educate stakeholders about developing prospects for education and professional mobility at the institutional, national, and worldwide levels especially when these programmes are to be offered fully in ODL mode. Additionally, HEIs should be alerted on external threats such as rogue providers, diploma and certification mills, and the incapability of partnering institutions in ensuring quality delivery (Waterval et al., 2016; Varghese, 2013). The most pressing issue, however, is ensuring that the education and credentials awarded are credible and will be recognised for employment and future education prospects globally and not restricted to the home country of the HEIs. This is a significant issue for both the local and international higher education businesses, and further research is essential (Varghese, 2017). To support the successful implementation of CBHE programmes through e-learning, necessary infrastructures should also be in place. Educational materials and laboratory equipment should adhere to international standards and be regularly maintained or enhanced. Such effort to ensure top-notch infrastructures would be able to attract more international students. This was particularly evident during the epidemic, when students were primarily looking for more effective solutions to their distance learning issues (Rajkhowa, 2013). Those with financial resources were able to pick and transfer to another college that offered a high-quality online education. Those who cannot afford it would face challenging circumstances and might not promote the school to their peers. Eventually, that institution's cross-border mobility and reputation as CBHE provider would decline (Medeiros et al., 2021). As a result, it is critical for institutions to pay attention to this area as well, particularly when overseas students pay a greater tuition than domestic students. In fact, local students would benefit from high-quality infrastructure as they could enhance their skills by engaging in projects or research works done virtually overseas (Smith & Smith, 2020). Another possible challenge would be the issue of diversity within CBHE programmes. Its successful implementation will necessitate a higher level of acceptance by HEIs. Fegan and Field (2009) emphasised the interconnectedness of numerous diversity issues ranging from linguistic differences to political beliefs, which are normally not managed well by HEIs. Due to this concern, HEIs would need to carefully identify possible partners, appropriate programmes and curriculum, and conduct thorough student and staff screening. Because cross-border schooling typically includes people moving from one country to another, geopolitical differences may also provide a dilemma for all parties concerned (Cantwell, 2016; Tyne & Ruspini, 2021).

E-Learning and Cross-Border Higher Education

7

As e-learning permit access to learners across the globe, they may bring with them different ideologies that would pose problems in the learning environment. This would produce tensions, and HEIs that are not cautious in the process may eventually find themselves in unnecessary conflict. Furthermore, intercultural awareness is critical not just for avoiding disputes but also for ensuring institutions can create win-win policies and collaborative programmes.

5. Post-Pandemic Potentials The COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift from traditional (face-to-face) approach to online learning for students (Mishra, Gupta, & Shree, 2020). Students are required to transition to a remote learning mode of instruction (Adams & Dewitt, 2021). Various mitigation efforts such as alternative assessment and flexible course plans were implemented to cushion the impact of the pandemic on teaching activities and student learning (Rapanta, Botturi, Goodyear, Guàrdia, & Koole, 2020). International student mobility, which is an integral part of CBHE has been severely affected by the pandemic. However, digital mobility or virtual mobility is expected to gather pace due to growing trends in the digitalization of learning (Jagannathan, 2021). There is a growth in the offering of fully online degree programmes (Ashour et al., 2021). The growth of online and distance learning programmes may reduce physical mobility but enable virtual mobility, paving the way for CBHE recognition of e-learning courses. HEIs could take the opportunity to devise a new mechanism in structuring their programmes and align to the accreditation framework so as to ensure the programmes are relevant not only for local needs but also attract foreign students. As CBHE is now a necessity for HEIs in order to remain relevant and competitive, there should be a more systematic efforts in addressing the challenges outlined in the previous section. In addition, business models of HEIs needs to be re-calibrated to provide optimal learning benefits to students (Yıldırım et al., 2021). Equitable access to international education is needed as greater virtual mobility for students will strengthen cross-cultural ties and strategic partnerships between HEIs (Jagannathan, 2021). HEIs should reflect the current fee structure of all programmes as CBHE through e-learning may require a more attractive fee since students are not utilising physical infrastructures on campus. HEIs will need to develop a new value proposition that reassesses the quality of learning

8

Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man

and delivery mechanisms of education across borders. They must also address the needs of an international student population that may be less willing to cross borders for the sole purpose of studying (Aristovnik, Keržič, Ravšelj, Tomaževič, & Umek, 2020). Furthermore, joint education programmes will enable the sharing of e-learning infrastructure and infostructure and encourage the formulation of academic credit transfer agreements between institutions (Nizam, 2020). As the pandemic continues to transform the future of CBHE in diverse ways, HEIs are presented with a range of new global student markets. The pandemic has opened opportunities for HEIs to position themselves as innovation leaders. As Jørgensen and Claeys-Kulik (2021) forecasted, the future universities will be new and hybrid organizations, ones that combines physical and virtual facilities and embraces CBHE.

Conclusion The post-pandemic world for HEIs would be a challenging one but filled with vast potentials for the greater flexibility in offering CBHE programmes. The demands of the globalised market and the e-learning implementation during the pandemic have shown that HEIs should consider redesigning their programmes to be more relevant for CBHE. There is substantial evidence that demand for higher education will outpace certain countries’ ability to meet local need during the next two decades (Varghese, 2017). As a result, CBHE will continue to expand in popularity and significance particularly through the assistance of e-learning solutions. HEIs will be able to make use of CBHE to increase its global prominence while exporting various quality programmes abroad and increasing international student mobility. However, it also poses new challenges that may lead to unexpected consequences. The issues ranging from quality assurance and strategies to cope with learner diversity are important for HEIs to address. While e-learning has made it more convenient and cost-effective to offer CBHE programmes than the conventional delivery methods, HEIs should not take these issues lightly. The concern on the quality and recognition, for example, is a double-edged sword that can either increase or decrease the HEI’s reputation. Necessary measures should be taken by ensuring programme quality is upheld though it is offered through the ODL mode. All in all, e-learning has a significant role to play in promoting CBHE after its potentials were drastically intensified during the pandemic period.

E-Learning and Cross-Border Higher Education

9

References Adams, D. & Dewitt, D. (2021). Innovative practices of technology-enhanced learning. Perak, Malaysia: Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. Alaoutinen, S. & Voracek, J. (2004). Combining traditional and virtual teaching techniques in cross-border higher education. Electronic Journal of eLearning, 2(1), 2-11. Amaral, A., Tavares, O., Cardoso, S. & Sin, C. (2016). Shifting institutional boundaries through cross-border higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 48-60. Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N. & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), e8438. Ashour, S., El-Refae, G. A. & Zaitoun, E. A. (2021). Post-pandemic higher education: Perspectives from university leaders and educational experts in the United Arab Emirates. Higher Education for the Future, 8(2), 219-238. Bedenlier, S. & Marín, V. I. (2021). Engaging students through virtual mobility: A systematic mapping review. In S. Chang & C. Gomes (Eds.), Digital experiences of international students: Challenging assumptions and rethinking engagement (pp. 85-105). Abingdon, OX: Routledge. Buchem, I., Amenduni, F., Michaescu, V., Andone, D., Tur, G. & Smitek, B. (2020). Integrating mini-MOOCs into study programs in higher education during COVID-19. Five pilot case studies in context of the open virtual mobility project. In Proceedings of the Human and Artificial Intelligence for the Society of the Future EDEN 2020 Annual Conference, Timisoara, Romania: European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN). Retrieved from https://www.eden-online.org/proc-2485/index.php/PROC/article/view/ 1057/924. Brown, M., Mhichil, M. N. G., Beirne, E. & Mac Lochlainn, C. (2021). The global micro-credential landscape: charting a new credential ecology for lifelong learning. Journal of Learning for Development, 8(2), 228-254. Cantwell, B. (2016). The geopolitics of the education market. In E. Hazelkorn (Ed.), Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society (pp. 333-347). London: Routledge. Chen, N. & Yamashita, Y. (2020). A study on the applicable methods of flipped classroom for cross-border education. In T. Matsuo, K. Takamatsu, Y. Ono, & S. Hirokawa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 9th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI) (pp. 322-327). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

10

Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man

Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22. Farrow, R., Ferguson, R., Weller, M., Pitt, R., Sanzgiri, J. & Habib, M. (2021). Assessment and recognition of MOOCs: The state of the art. Journal of Innovation in Polytechnic Education, 3(1), 15-26. Fegan, J. & Field, M. H. (2009). Education across borders: Politics, policy and legislative action. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Jagannathan, S. (2021, June 23). How post-pandemic education systems can welcome back international students [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://blogs.adb.org/blog/how-post-pandemic-education-systems-canwelcome-back-international-students. Jørgensen, T. & Claeys-Kulik, A. L. (2021, February 6). What does the future hold for Europe’s universities? University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/. Knight, J. (2006). Higher education crossing borders: A guide to the implications of the general agreement on trade in services (GATS) for cross-border education (A report prepared for the Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO). Vancouver, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning. Knight, J. & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalization of higher education. A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe, and the United States (pp. 5-32). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: European Association for International Education (EAIE). Lane, J., Owens, T. & Kinser, K. (2015). Cross border higher education, international trade, and economic competitiveness: A review of policy dynamics when education crosses borders. Toronto, Geneva, and Brighton: ILEAP, CUTS International Geneva and CARIS. Larsen, K., Momii, K. & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2005). Cross-border higher education: an analysis of current trends, policy strategies and future scenarios. London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE). Mishra, L., Gupta, T. & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, e100012. Nizam, A. (2020). Evaluation and improvement of the credit transfer models in the student exchange process. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37(1-2), 1-13. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L. & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923945.

E-Learning and Cross-Border Higher Education

11

Smith, R. & Smith, N. N. (2020). Cross-border development–The long-term role of universities. ASEAN Journal of Community Engagement, 4(1), 235-258. Tyne, H. & Ruspini, P. (2021). International student mobility as transnationalism. In R. Mitchell & H. Tyne (Eds.), Language, mobility and study abroad in the contemporary European context (pp. 13-21). New York: Routledge. Varghese, N. V. (2013). Globalization and higher education: Changing trends in cross border education. Analytical Reports in International Education, 5(1), 7-20. Varghese, N. V. (2017). Globalization and cross-border mobility in higher education. In T. R. Dash & M. Behera (Eds.), Educational Access and Excellence: 2015 Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning (ASAIHL) Conference (pp. 9-24). New Delhi: Allied Publishers. Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2007). Developing capacity through cross-border tertiary education. In OECD & The World Bank (Eds.), Cross-border tertiary education: A way towards capacity development (pp. 47-108). Paris: OECD Publishing. Yıldırım, S., Bostancı, S. H., Yıldırım, D. Ç. & Erdoğan, F. (2021). Rethinking mobility of international university students during COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 15(2), 98-113. Youssef, L. (2014). Globalisation and higher education: from within-border to cross-border. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29(2), 100-115. Waterval, D. G., Frambach, J. M., Pool, A. O., Driessen, E. W. & Scherpbier, A. J. (2016). An exploration of crossborder medical curriculum partnerships: balancing curriculum equivalence and local adaptation. Medical teacher, 38(3), 255-262.

Chapter 2

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning in Science Education Zainun Mustafa1,, Nadrah Harith Fadzilah2 and Norazilawati Abdullah1 1Southeast

Asian Ministers of Education Organisation, Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics, Malaysia 2Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Seksyen 9, Malaysia 3Pusat Penyelidikan Perkembangan Kanak-Kanak Negara, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia

Abstract The emergence of electronic devices and digital gadgets as the products of scientific advancement has led to the development, application and integration of such technology in the educational landscape. Even though the pitfalls of ‘e-learning’ especially among young learners are widely discussed, the advantages of such technology in the educational process are commendable. Consequently, the use of electronic mediated learning has been imbibed and is being widely employed in schools and universities, besides other learning institutions. As the product of scientific advancement, the use of ‘e-learning’ in science education is attuned to the aims and objectives of developing scientific thinking and creativity. Sensing the ‘e-learning’ in science education with sheer advantages, the creative pedagogy potentially nurtures students’ scientific thinking and serves as an essential forum for the generation of creative minds. Therefore, this article describes the basic concept of the 

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

In: E-Learning Editors: Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man ISBN: 978-1-68507-604-7 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

14

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah definition of e-learning, creative pedagogy and creative pedagogy in elearning. Based on the literature, the discussion of this article leads towards the establishment of distinctive components of creative pedagogy in science education through e-learning. Later, the snapshot of creative pedagogy in e-learning is also elaborated by referencing several practical instances. In a nutshell, this article converges upon the premise that ‘infusing the creative pedagogy into e-learning must account the environment, strategy, interaction and tools of teaching and learning science.’

Keywords: blended learning, education research, internet, information science, software, online learning, creativity, digital creativity

1. Introduction E-learning is not a new trend in the Malaysian education system and has already been introduced in adult education for more than three decades (Azhari & Ming, 2015). The e-learning platform provides the access to quality education targeted for working adults through remote learning and mobile learning. Recently, e-learning has also gained popularity in schools. The Cambridge Assessment International Education (2018) reported widespread use of e-learning in primary and secondary education. However, the report emphasised that the use of e-learning is limited to teacher material preparation, one-way teaching tools and content deliveries. As the report was prepared before the pandemic, the role of e-learning has also changed as it is highly encouraged with several initiatives to facilitate remote learning. As a response to the pandemic, the Ministry of Education has promoted the Digital Learning Platform (MOEDLP), which has been the top option for teachers and students since it has become freely available in 2019. Aside from the MOEDLP, elearning is supported through EduWeb TV, CikgooTube, the e-Guru Portal as well as terrestrial educational television and radio (UNESCO 2020). From Malaysia’s report on the situational scenario of education during the pandemic, UNESCO (2020) highlighted that it is prevalent that the use of elearning in pedagogy has surpassed the role from supporting teaching aids to learning resources, a platform for engagement and assessment tools. On the other hand, given the relatively recent widespread use of e-learning in schools, the contemporary discussions of creative pedagogy in science education have largely focused on traditional teaching and learning. For science lessons, the theoretical content knowledge and the way the knowledge is connected

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

15

through practical lessons require a creative pedagogical approach whether by devising e-learning or not. However, with the endless spill over effects of elearning into pedagogy and the benefits of creative pedagogy in science education, this review serves as a bridge between the two; e-learning and creative pedagogy. By consolidating the previously known knowledge, this review was aimed at capturing the component of creative pedagogy and elearning in science education. This narrative would also benefit the teachers in pedagogical planning by manipulating the advantages of e-learning features as aspired in Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan (FPK) and 21st Century Learning.

2. Purpose The effectiveness of creative pedagogy in encouraging interest in science subjects has been generally acknowledged and the importance of creativity is expressed in national policy (Curriculum Development Division, 2014; Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, 2012). As a consequence, science teachers should employ creative pedagogy to delve into the challenges posed by elearning and provide quality education for all students. The first part of this article examines Malaysia’s overall science education in Malaysia, e-learning and creative pedagogy. Having established the conceptual lens, the second part of the article consolidates the practices of the creative pedagogy in science education through e-learning from four pedagogical dimensions: environment, strategy, interaction and tools. In addition, this article also clarifies the most common advantages of e-learning theoretically and practically through several creative pedagogical instances. The perspectives in this article are expected to contribute to the shift in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, which is to maximise students’ potential by developing creative and innovative students, as well as succeeding in the Eleventh Malaysia Plan’s 3rd core, which is human capital development through the promotion of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) development.

3. The Overall View of Science Education in Malaysia Starting in 2017, the Secondary School Standard Curriculum (KSSM) replaced the Integrated Secondary School Curriculum (KBSM). The new

16

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

curriculum design is based on six pillars, namely communication, physical and aesthetic development, humanities, self-skills, STEM Science Technology, engineering and Mathematics (STEM), as well as spirituality, attitudes and value (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia 2019). In contrast to the prior curriculum’s outcome-based evaluation, the newly implemented curriculum is process-based and more closely resembles the aspirations of Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan (FPK). According to the curriculum specification, the KSSM Science is dedicated to developing human resources in science and technology to meet the needs of the twenty-first-century learning agendas. Another important signposting from the newly implemented curriculum is the three additional cross-curricular elements compared to the KBSM, namely creativity and innovation, entrepreneurship and global sustainability. KSSM Science contents for Years 1 to Form 5 comprise three embedded components. The first is the cognitive component, which is thematically arranged into 1) scientific methodology, 2) living things and non-living things, 3) energy and sustainability and 4) exploration of earth and outer space. The body of knowledge includes theories and concepts arranged according to the cognitive maturity and scaffolds into depth. This means that the students will revisit similar topics in the subsequent year with a much in-depth understanding of those topics. The second is the psychomotor components or skills training. Students will be taught scientific, communication, collaboration and critical and creative skills. The third is the affective component or value. Two important values focused on in this curriculum are scientific values and noble values. Therefore, the science curriculum is designed to encourage cognitive, affective and psychomotor development of the student through theory and practical sessions in the classroom. The students are expected to understand the scientific content knowledge, synthesise and apply scientific knowledge in lab works and daily life, and finally communicate and collaborate with other individuals to devise problemsolving and decision-making. Another important criterion of the Malaysian science curriculum is that it is structurally designed to be implemented in a classroom of the same age group, allowing for physical interaction and periodical assessment with one teacher being the main facilitator of a subject. As a trained professional, the teacher could use any possible measures to use as pedagogy to ensure that the objectives of the lesson can be achieved at the end of a lesson.

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

17

4. The Progress of E-Learning in Malaysia Bakar (2009) analysed the policy related to e-learning and discovered that the proliferation of the use of electronic devices in the Malaysian learning ecosystem started when The National IT Agenda (NITA) was launched in December 1996 by the National IT Council (NITC). In the commandment to drive Malaysia as a developed country in line with Vision 2020, NITC launched five strategic thrusts areas namely ‘e-community,’ ‘e-public services,’ ‘e-learning,’ ‘e-economy,’ and ‘e-sovereignty.’ Specifically, for elearning, there were concerns about a shortage of skilled teachers, infrastructure and student readiness at that time. However, due to the flexibility, accessibility to a broader audience and long-term potential that elearning could offer, e-learning had gained momentum in tertiary education (Azhari and Ming 2015). In general, e-learning in higher education is intended to provide a just and high-quality education to those who are unable to attend classes full-time. As the years go by, the purpose of e-learning in higher education has been broadened to accommodate all students whether full-time university students or distance learners. However, the concept of e-learning is subsided as the complementary aspect of teaching and learning in primary and secondary education. In contrast to adult learning, the teaching and learning process at school is more inclined towards establishing basic knowledge in the subject matter. Therefore, teachers could incorporate e-learning for science education if it seems appropriate in terms of content knowledge, technical aspect and the socio-demographic profiles of the students in their class. As the concept of e-learning is already in policy for more than 25 years, the literature about e-learning always refers to a wide range of technologymediated learning purposes. In general, there is no single definition of elearning that can be universally accepted. Literally, ‘e’ stands for electronic, and ‘learning’ is the process of acquisition of knowledge. The device and networks related to e-learning are vast, such as LAN, WAN, Internet, Internet, Intranet, satellite, audio/videotapes, interactive TV and electronic whiteboards. Since the devices are diversified and dynamically changed over time, the term ‘e-learning’ is also interchangeably termed as ‘blended learning, ‘distributed learning,’ ‘mobile learning,’ ‘online learning,’ ‘Internet-based learning,’ ‘technology-based learning,’ ‘computer-based learning,’ ‘webbased learning,’ ‘virtual learning’ and ‘u-learning.’ The other mixed-up phrases of e-learning abbreviation are LMS, Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle, MyGuru and MyLMs.

18

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

Yusup Hashim (2012) listed and reviewed 11 definitions of e-learning. He mentioned that all the definitions of e-learning revolve around two criteria: technology and pedagogy. In the context of e-learning, technology refers to electronic-mediated technology, whereas pedagogy is a teaching approach involving the use of electronic devices. This means that teachers use their pedagogical knowledge to plan, execute and assess the students’ progress through e-learning at any part of the teaching and learning process or wholesomely. As such, in this article, it is perceived that e-learning could be any knowledge acquisition, either in-situ and/or remote, online and/or offline, solitude and/or interactive, synchronous or asynchronous as long as the learning process takes advantage of electronic devices. The progress of elearning is also spearheaded by the advancement of information communication technology and mobile devices (Sung, Chang, and Liu 2016). The evolving features of electronic devices for the feasibility of learning have led to students’ autonomy for learning (Dolenc and Aberšek 2015) to learn at anytime and anywhere, which suits their learning styles with whoever by choosing their peers to interact with (Cárdenas-Robledo and Peña-Ayala 2018). Even though e-learning is an important advancement to make learning more flexible, research on e-learning also reported several setbacks, especially among young learners. According to Berninger and Winn (2006), literacy and narrative for young learners are a multifaceted process in which three components use the same working memory resources: (a) low-level transcribing abilities (handwriting, keyboarding, and spelling), (b) executive functions (planning and reviewing) and (c) high-level text production skills (formulating sentences and discourse). However, the ability of young learners in literacy has been restricted as the students tend to swipe the screen or use voice search instead of reading, writing and typing (Kukec, Ljubic, and Glavinic 2013). Besides the negative effect of the use of touch screens in language cognition, the linguist and health experts (Ashton and Beattie 2019) also claimed that the lack of face-to-face interaction and classroom discussion are significant barriers that hinder students from cognitively interact with each other in the case of asynchronous learning (Straker et al. 2018; Straker, 2018). In another study conducted by Zhao et al. (2020), the parents and teachers revealed that the students have a lower interest in academics and possess emotional or behavioural problems during remote e-learning. The negative effect of e-learning is also counted for the features of the long, unattained use of electronic devices. Studies on the use of electronic devices without specifically related to e-learning also reported several

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

19

alarming issues for young learners. The adverse impact of screen time on the physical and physiological aspects including sleep deprivation (Baiden, Tadeo, and Peters 2019), binge eating and adverse effects on cardiovascular fitness (Vanhelst et al. 2021) led to the mental health issue. Another study found that the long screen time negatively impacted students’ receptive vocabulary, math skills, executive functioning, science understanding and social skills (Hu et al. 2020) and motor skills (Webster, Martin, and Staiano 2019). In addition to these factors, a longitudinal study reported that students seemed to have higher levels of depression and anxiety (Hamdallah, Ozovehe, and Dyaji 2014) related to long screen time. Besides the psychological impact, another concern is related to socioeconomic issues. The limited availability of computers and internet access in schools has formed the digital gap in knowledge acquisition. The digital gap is now preventing certain students who belong to certain demographic profiles from receiving a high-quality education. Besides the sociodemographic, the digital gap is also resembled by the technical issues. To illustrate, Spiteri et al. (2016) demonstrated that one of the most significant drawbacks of e-learning with information technology is its failure to adapt to users’ technical platforms, broadband quality and devices used to access the online system. Similarly, Wang and Tahir (2020) and Bohmer et al. (2018) reported that technical issues are major challenges in an e-assessment. On top of that, several studies on e-learning reported that teachers are not prepared to employ e-learning in their classroom (Sung, Chang, and Liu 2016), reflecting the insufficient digital competencies (Puška et al. 2021). Teachers also claimed that the e-learning resources are not aligned with learning objectives, pedagogies and evaluation rubrics as set by the national education system; therefore, the co-operative development of these technologies requires collaboration between teacher, curriculum provider and the e-learning developer (Glegg and Hoens 2016; Al-Abri et al. 2017; Khan and Joshi 2006).

5. Creative Pedagogies Science is the systematic study of natural events that enable students to participate in the inquiry, critical and logical thinking, as well as the demonstration of scientific process skills. Science learning is exciting and challenging, hence demanding a creative approach to teaching them. Even though creativity is often linked with literary fields, research into creative science teaching and learning starts to gain traction in science education (Craft

20

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

et al. 2016). Whereas, pedagogy is referred to as the “study of the teaching process,” and specifically, creative pedagogy is the “science and art of creative teaching” (Aleinikov 2013). Creative pedagogy is a subfield of pedagogy that focuses on inventing new teaching techniques or refashioning existing teaching strategies for more effective learning. Creative pedagogy is also interchangeably used with other terms such as ‘creative practice,’ ‘creativity in the classroom,’ ‘creative teaching,’ and ‘teaching creatively,’ which are related to creative pedagogy (Cremin and Chappell 2019). The past studies consistently reported the potential of creative pedagogy in fostering positive outcomes in education by providing the environment to be utilised during the pedagogy. In science lessons, the students are formally taught in classrooms and laboratories for theoretical and practical classes for a science lesson in school. Another formal venue for science education might involve field works and take-home projects outside of the school compound. The third space is the combination of two; home and school (Quigley and Hall 2014). The use of e-learning in all three mentioned spaces occurs if the teacher decides to do so. However, the emergence of e-learning also prompted the fourth learning space known as the virtual environment (Calandra and Puvirajah 2014). The repertoire of the strategy of content delivery and outcome formats in creative pedagogy is now enriched by the use of e-learning. Creative pedagogy in e-learning could be in the knowledge-acquiring process, knowledgedelivering process and assessment using electronic tools. Among the electronic devices used are radio, terrestrial television, projector, printers, smartphones and tablets (UNESCO 2020; United Nation 2020; Cambridge Assessment International Education 2018). The electronic devices could be used in pivot or mobile, which in turn offers the teachers flexibility and dynamics to use the devices suited with the learning objectives. The learning content could be delivered through non-digital electronic devices such as television and radio, or digitally such as via augmented reality (Reeves et al. 2021), interactive software (Abdullah 2017), and gamification (Toth and Kayler 2015; Laurillard 2016), virtual visit (Johansson 2001) and digital experimentation (Kearney, Starkey, and Miller 2020), to name a few. As e-learning becomes integral in our education system, teachers should be encouraged to be creative and upgrade their pedagogy on the verge of elearning. The teachers could gradually customise the electronic devices into their preferred way of teaching to minimise their time spent on formulating new ideas and performing iterative trial-and-error procedures (Penuel, Roschelle, and Shechtman 2007). Therefore, since the current use of e-

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

21

learning requires digital competencies, teachers must reconcile e-learning hardware and software, lesson material, instructional methods and educational goals to stay put with the growth and dynamic of education through creative pedagogy (Puška et al. 2021; Patricia et al. 2020; Barber 2020). From the literature, the concept of creative pedagogies in e-learning could establish integrated components of teaching practices that contribute to science learning of four dimensions of teaching and learning; environment, strategies, interactions and tools.

6. Methods This review adhered to the typology-driven Search-Appraisal-SynthesisAnalysis (SALSA) framework, which was initially referred to as ‘overview’ published by Grant and Booth (2009) and later adapted by Samnani et al. (2017) by being classified as ‘narrative review.’

7. Discussion Based on the literature presented in the previous sections, there are four integrated dimensions of creative pedagogy in science education that could be benefitted from e-learning. It indicates that teaching practices contribute to the development of students’ understanding of science subjects. From the established category, several instances of teacher’s practice are showcased by referring to the exemplary situation and reflection of certain circumstances.

7.1. Pedagogical Environment A pedagogical environment can be described as a complex system involving human, non-human, space and the organisational aspects of teaching and learning including the classroom area, society, and culture. The physical pedagogical environments involve the following: the classroom, laboratory, library/media centre and school compound. On the other hand, the virtual environments encompass meeting platforms, social media, homepages of related institutions and organisations, virtual libraries and different types of online resources (e-books, videos, webcasts). The pedagogical environment could be creatively designed to promote exploration and discovery in the

22

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

science teaching and learning process. Having that in mind, a pedagogical environment is more than just a classroom; it is a ‘built-in pedagogy,’ a physical manifestation that portrays educational theories, philosophies and values practised in it (Rands and Gansemer-Topf 2017; Ling, Ismail, and Abdullah 2015). In Malaysia, the Ministry of Education (Institut Aminuddin Baki, 2017) provided a guideline for the 21st-century learning environment that includes layout, design and protocols to cultivate creativity along with other essential skills by emphasising the role of e-learning. According to the guidelines, the student’s tables are arranged in groups of four to six to invite peer interaction. Whereas the position of the teacher’s table is at the corner and could be dynamically repositioned to suit the role of the teacher as a facilitator rather than pastor on stage. The guideline is also recommended to have three dedicated areas to display students’ work, a reading corner and a current or environmental issues corner. The guideline also suggests a computer with internet access in the classroom to provide students with access to conduct research. However, the implementation of the suggested features proved to be a challenge (Hassan 2020). Several studies suggested that flexibility in the use of physical space and the abandonment of specifically themed areas and corners provide greater freedom for the students’ imagination (Cremin and Chappell 2019; Davies et al. 2013). Also, minimalising the use of furniture creates a general sense of openness and spaciousness (Bancroft, Fawcett, and Hay 2008), promoting mobility and support using different areas to support the growth of ideas (Davies et al. 2013). The flexible spaces allow teachers to adjust the classroom layout according to the planned teaching strategy, from working in groups, pairs to individuals. Another essential feature of a creative learning environment is the visual displays to stimulate students’ creativity, such as decorations on the wall and students’ work in progress (Almeda et al. 2014), which may serve as means of recalling or referring to information. The optimal use of wall space will provide cognitive stimulation for students to engage their creativity relevant skills (Warner & Myers, 2010). As the research continuously focuses on the flexible, unpivoted learning environment in physical space, a similar concept could be translated into an elearning environment. For instance, as compared to wall displays as previously discussed, the student’s learning product could be displayed electronically or digitally. The use of electronic visual displays such as digital photo displays, computer screens and other multimedia such as video clips can assist students in memorising and consolidating material by providing them with vivid visual

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

23

images (Clark & Mayer, 2016). In the virtual learning ecosystem, several components of a classroom discussed previously can be found in a Learning Management System (LMS) that serves as a one-stop centre for teachers, students and parents to devise and manage learning content, student interaction, assessment tools, learning progress reports and student activities (Mohd Kasim and Khalid 2016). Some examples of widely used LMSs are Blackboard, Moodle, Edmodo and Google Classroom. LMS enables 24/7 access to all types of teaching content, developmental content and performance content, providing a centralised learning environment that ensures consistency (Pilli, 2014). The content of LMS is also up to a specific standard that helps teachers to certify that the students are meeting a minimum level of instruction and development expectations by supporting personalised learning since it can track and report users’ performance in real-time and provide suggestions for additional courses. Due to the ubiquitous, evolving social media, more educators are making a move from LMS to Social Networking Sites (SNS) such as Facebook, Google+ and Instagram. LMSs mainly support formal learning, which is class centred, institutionalised and hierarchically structured (Alfalah et al. 2017). In contrast, SNS support user-centred informal learning and non-formal learning (Lucas & Moreira, 2009). This role of SNS could be extended to facilitates networking as the teacher and students could share their experience, interests and expertise, establishing more interaction across boundaries over time. As the result, the social media platform has great potential in developing communities of practice, student-student interaction, student-teacher interaction, student-community interaction and online social presence among students, which provides a real-world application and context towards learning content, making it more meaningful. Either physical or virtual environment, the key to a supportive, creative learning environment involves flexible use of the environment, availability of learning resources and connectivity. These features convert any space into a suitable learning space for active learning. Students are more involved, encouraged to share their views and values, and required to engage in higher order thinking than memorisation (Freeman et al. 2014; Engelman et al. 2017). The rich environment minimises the barrier between teachers and students to promotes authentic learning interactions and facilitate collaborative learning activities to create a meaningful learning experience.

24

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

7.2. Pedagogical Strategies Pedagogical strategies generally refer to methods and techniques utilised by a teacher to support the teaching process that corresponds to the learning goal. For science education, the general aim of the science curriculum is to develop individuals capable of understanding and evaluating information that is scientific in nature and make decisions integrating the information appropriately (Duschl et al. 2007). To achieve this aim, the pedagogical strategies are chosen based on the content knowledge of the subject matter, level of student’s cognitive maturity and learning objectives. As for the science subjects, the creativity in pedagogical strategies provides an opportunity for students to learn and develop scientific understanding in a diverse way tailored to the context of the subject taken place. The study of pedagogical strategies continues to grow in popularity over the past decades. The creative pedagogical strategies are about the teachers’ ability to consolidate the tangible and intangible factors to create a necessary atmosphere to inspire students’ thinking and enhance comprehension (Fatin Aliah et al. 2014; Yang, 2017). The number of pedagogical strategies are diverse, considering that the way a student learns is unique, contextualised, dynamics and changing over time. Some students are better at listening, while others need to experience an idea or process through experimentation or fieldwork. Some may struggle with report writing and require peer support, while others like to write independently as everything is internalised through their imagination. While considering the significance of pedagogical strategies for teaching science, it is pertinent to determine the extent to which these strategies can be used in effective science teaching. Davies et al. (2013) identified seven features of creative pedagogies that support science learning; (1) generating and exploring ideas; (2) encouraging autonomy and agency; (3) problem-solving; (4) risk-taking; (5) co-constructing; (6) collaborating; and (7) teacher creativity. The seven mentioned features of pedagogical strategy demand the teachers to be creative. For instance, in quizzes as diagnostic assessments, the teacher could arrange the questioning technique based on timing, positioning, or cognitive levels to elicit students’ opinions, hence stimulating the different, authentic or even bizarre answers. This means that the teacher intends to pause for a while after posted the questions, choose divergent questions and challenge the students’ cognitive level, which these answers lead to acceptable solutions; those answers and solutions are considered creative (Zolfaghari, Fathi & Hashemi, 2011). Besides, the quizzes also might be adapted across

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

25

the different learning strategies, formats, types of feedback, range of material, frequencies of the test and design (Yang et al. 2021). Even though the questioning session is quite common in the classroom as prompt, lesson and evaluation, similar strategies should be considered within blended or e-learning. When choosing a virtual learning environment tool or platform, teachers must ensure that the tools used to facilitate the implementation of basic principles of questioning teaching strategies such as planning and stratifying questions provide ample waiting time besides giving prompt and relevant feedback. The combination of platforms that enables realtime interactions such as social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), LMS (e.g., Google Classroom and Blackboard), video conferencing applications (e.g., Google Meet, and Zoom) or online messaging applications (e.g., WhatsApp and Telegram) with assessment applications (e.g., Kahoot! and Pear Deck) facilitate not just verbal but also virtual non-verbal communication. The online or blended collaborative learning approach requires teachers to consider the technological and pedagogical strategies that best support the activity’s learning goals. Teachers need to choose appropriate technology that facilitates group work (e.g., platform that allows threaded discussions) and plans for student orientation and preparation of the chosen technology. Several approaches in collaborative learning during face-to-face learning sessions can still be implemented and even enhanced through e-learning. In synchronous sessions, the breakout room feature in video conferencing apps like Google Meet and Zoom facilitates small group discussions during Jigsaw Technique, Think Pair Share and group projects. Whereas in asynchronous sessions, the use of an online discussion board or online messaging app facilitates group discussion in long term collaborative work such as collaborative project-based learning and problem-solving. Throughout collaborative learning strategy, several other design principles can ensure a successful online or blended collaborative learning such as communicating clear goals for the activity, defining a clear role of students and expectations, monitoring the participation of each student and provide timely feedback, regular teacher “presence” and ensuring articulation between discussion topics and assessment.

7.3. Pedagogical Interactions Pedagogical interactions constitute an essential factor involving teacherstudents reciprocal communication in providing rich teaching and learning processes, either formally or informally. Nevertheless, the creative

26

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

pedagogical interaction requires active participation among students during the lesson for effective student-centred teaching strategies. By letting students provide their ideas and choice in class activities and knowing that their contributions are meaningful, a positive interaction in classrooms would allow the students to experience competence and autonomy that motivate them to participate in lessons and engage with the curriculum (Murayama, FitzGibbon, and Sakaki 2019). In the pivot environment, the use of electronic devices facilitates the feedback mechanism and the learning prompt for an audio and visual cue is important to creative pedagogy. However, the virtual environment presents a different challenge in maintaining a positive pedagogical interaction since teachers lack direct verbal and non-verbal feedback from the students compared to conventional classrooms. In a conventional classroom, the feedbacks enable teachers to adjust the pedagogical process in real-time towards the intended learning outcomes. To create an effective online interaction during synchronous teaching and learning sessions, teachers need to convey enthusiasm and energy as well as create opportunities to interact with students individually and in groups. Teachers should also encourage interaction via chat to provide more significant opportunities for students to communicate their opinions, especially in large classes. In a virtual environment, students need support in mitigating distractions as the students’ living contexts are diverse. Teachers can help address this issue by scheduling an off-class one-on-one session with students to discuss their progress, doubts and feedback. As such, teachers will have more opportunities to interact with their students and manage the classroom. The interactions provide meaningful information for teachers to understand each student’s development based on activities to their interests and abilities, as well as to conduct interventions or offer support when necessary (Bowne et al. 2017).

7.4 Pedagogical Tools Pedagogical strategies are teaching aids used in teaching and learning. The electric pedagogical tools refer to any electrical devices used to improve teaching methods and learning outcomes either digital or non-digital. The nonelectrical pedagogical tools include books, slate or blackboard and concrete material. The electronic pedagogical tools provide learners with a new way of interacting with information, peers and teachers through connectivity or networking, flexibility, interactivity, collaboration, virtual learning

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

27

environments, works fast and is user-friendly (Bhatia 2011; Patricia et al. 2020). When choosing the most suitable e-learning tools, teachers have to consider the suitability of the intended learning outcomes with the tools. Teachers also need to consider students’ readiness in terms of their skills, technology limitations and preferred learning needs in e-learning. For instance, when deciding on an online content delivery application, the teacher should consider the feasibility of the application to be operated on all students’ devices, such as the pricing, friendly interface, supporting platform and data usage from the students’ socioeconomic context. Thus, teachers have to prioritise ease of use from the critical examination of the students’ scenario. Teachers also need the capabilities in handling the tools for designing lessons and implementing them to ensure the effectiveness of an e-learning tool integrated lesson. To further assist teachers, e-learning tools should also afford assessment of students’ performance. Multimedia tools such as interactive smartboard, LCD projector and radio can present students’ understanding of the content in a physical classroom. In contrast, digital tools like Edpuzzle, Spiral and Classkick are flexible tools that can be used in the virtual or blended learning environment.

Conclusion Creative pedagogy is a method of teaching that aims at breaking traditional teaching practices. It is important to emphasise that creative pedagogy is not isolated to science education. It has been applied in studies in many domains, such as art, language, humanities, mathematics and even sports. In this article, as we tried to project our discussion in science education, we discovered that the discipline-oriented application of creative pedagogy is blurred and trespassed by focusing on the learning goal and students’ overall development rather than the subject itself. The principle of creative pedagogy also manipulated the advantages of electronic devices, either digital non-digitally, to provide quality education for students. The four categories found to be integrated factors of creative pedagogy in e-learning include the pedagogical environment, pedagogical strategy, pedagogical interaction and pedagogical tools. To sum, either the creative pedagogy in the pivoted classroom or the virtual learning ecosystem, the teachers must integrate creative and scientific learning methods into their teaching practices to create an engaging and enriching learning experience for their students.

28

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

This review is based on a wide type of documented literature, with a lack of systematic search and subjective selection. Even though this review provides a snapshot of creative e-learning pedagogy in science education, however, we may have oversimplified certain in-depth explanations and masked the significant outcome. Another important point in terms of information in this article regarding e-learning, we acknowledged that the technology of e-learning is transcending very fast; hence, some aspects discussed in this article might be irrelevant in future. Until then, we support that integrating creative pedagogy on the verge of e-learning could provide endless possibilities in education and particularly in science education by appraising the complex human growth and development: physical, psychological, intellectual and social needs.

Acknowledgments This article is part of research outcome funded by the Fundamental Research Grants (code: 2019-0032-107-02 (FRGS/1/2018/SS109/UPSI/02/28) from the Ministry of Higher Education and the Research Management and Innovation Centre (RMIC), Sultan Idris Education University (UPSI).

References Abdullah, Norazilawati. 2017. “Development of Interactive Software for Implementing the Science Process Skills in Science Primary School.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 7 (6). https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i6/3033. Al-Abri, Amal, Yassine Jamoussi, Naoufel Kraiem, and Zuhoor Al-Khanjari. 2017. “Comprehensive Classification of Collaboration Approaches in ELearning.” Telematics and Informatics 34 (6): 878–93. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tele.2016.08.006. Aleinikov, Andrei G. 2013. “Creative Pedagogy.” In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 326–39. New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_13. Alfalah, Tasneem F., Salsabeel F. Alfalah, Jannat F. Falah, Walaa Qutaishat, Wa’ed Ishretih, and Maram Al-Zu’bi. 2017. “Learning Management System versus Social Networking Sites.” International Business Research 10 (6): 123. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v10n6p123.

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

29

Almeda, Ma. Victoria, Peter Scupelli, Ryan S. Baker, Mimi Weber, and Anna Fisher. 2014. “Clustering of Design Decisions in Classroom Visual Displays.” In Proceedins of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge - LAK ‘14, 44–48. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567574.2567605. Ashton, James J, and R Mark Beattie. 2019. “Screen Time in Children and Adolescents: Is There Evidence to Guide Parents and Policy?” The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health 3 (5): 292–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S23524642(19)30062-8. Azhari, Fahmeeda Adib, and Long Chiau Ming. 2015. “Review of E-Learning Practice at the Tertiary Education Level in Malaysia.” Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research 49 (4): 248–57. https://doi.org/ 10.5530/ijper.49.4.2. Baiden, Philip, Savarra K. Tadeo, and Kersley E. Peters. 2019. “The Association between Excessive Screen-Time Behaviors and Insufficient Sleep among Adolescents: Findings from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System.” Psychiatry Research 281 (November): 112586. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112586. Bakar, Ahmad Naqiyuddin. 2009. “Malaysian New ICT Policy: Regulatory Reform and the New Mode of Governance.” Journal of Administrative Science 6 (1): 133–60. http://jas.uitm.edu.my/images/2009_JUNE/6.pdf. Barber, Wendy. 2020. “Building Creative Critical Online Learning Communities through Digital Moments.” Electronic Journal of E-Learning 18 (5). https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.18.5.002. Berninger, Virginia W, and William D Winn. 2006. “Implications of Advancements in Brain Research and Technology for Writing Development, Writing Instruction, and Educational Evolution.” In Handbook of Writing Research., 96–114. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press. Bhatia, Ravi P. 2011. “Features and Effectiveness of E-Learning Tools.” Global Journal of Business Management and Information Technology 1 (1): 1–7. Bohmer, Cornelia, Nina Feldmann, and Michael Ibsen. 2018. “E-Exams in Engineering Education, Online Testing of Engineering Competencies: Experiences and Lessons Learned.” In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 571–76. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ EDUCON.2018.8363281. Bowne, Jocelyn Bonnes, Katherine A. Magnuson, Holly S. Schindler, Greg J. Duncan, and Hirokazu Yoshikawa. 2017. “A Meta-Analysis of Class Sizes and Ratios in Early Childhood Education Programs: Are Thresholds of Quality Associated With Greater Impacts on Cognitive, Achievement, and Socioemotional Outcomes?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 39 (3): 407–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716689489.

30

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

Calandra, Brendan, and Anton Puvirajah. 2014. “Teacher Practice in Multi User Virtual Environments: A Fourth Space.” TechTrends 58 (6): 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0800-3. Cambridge Assessment International Education. 2018. Global Education Census Report. https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/514611-globaleducation-census-survey-report.pdf. Cárdenas-Robledo, Leonor Adriana, and Alejandro Peña-Ayala. 2018. “Ubiquitous Learning: A Systematic Review.” Telematics and Informatics 35 (5): 1097–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.009. Craft, Anna, Oded Ben Horin, Menelaos Sotiriou, Petros Stergiopoulos, Sofoklis Sotiriou, Sarah Hennessy, Kerry Chappell, et al. 2016. “CREAT-IT: Implementing Creative Strategies into Science Teaching.” In Research in Science Education, 163–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22933-1_15. Cremin, Teresa, and Kerry Chappell. 2019. “Creative Pedagogies: A Systematic Review.” Research Papers in Education, October, 1–33. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02671522.2019.1677757. Curriculum Development Division. 2014. Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi: Aplikasi Di Sekolah. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Curriculum Development Division, Ministry of Education, Malaysia. [Higher Order Thinking Skills: Applications In Schools.] Davies, Dan, Divya Jindal-Snape, Chris Collier, Rebecca Digby, Penny Hay, and Alan Howe. 2013. “Creative Learning Environments in Education—A Systematic Literature Review.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 8 (April): 80– 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004. Dolenc, Kosta, and Boris Aberšek. 2015. “TECH8 Intelligent and Adaptive ELearning System: Integration into Technology and Science Classrooms in Lower Secondary Schools.” Computers & Education 82 (March): 354–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.010. Engelman, Shelly, Brian Magerko, Tom McKlin, Morgan Miller, Doug Edwards, and Jason Freeman. 2017. “Creativity in Authentic STEAM Education with EarSketch.” In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 183–88. New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017763. Fatin Aliah, Phang., Abu. Mohd Salleh, Ali. Mohammad Bilal, and Salleh. Salmiza. 2014. “Faktor Penyumbang Kepada Kemerosotan Penyertaan Pelajar Dalam Aliran.” Sains Humanika 2 (4): 63–71. [Factors Contributing to the Decline in Student Participation in the Stream. Human Science] Freeman, S., S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

31

Academy of Sciences 111 (23): 8410–15. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1319030111. Glegg, Stephanie M., and Alison Hoens. 2016. “Role Domains of Knowledge Brokering: A Model for the Health Care Setting.” Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy 40 (2): 115–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT. 0000000000000122. Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal 26 (2): 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14711842.2009.00848.x. Hamdallah, Ali, Aliyu Ozovehe, and Leo Dyaji. 2014. “Impact of Creative Teaching on Science Pupils’ Academic Perfomance.” IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSRJRME) 4 (6): 40–44. https://doi.org/ 10.9790/7388-04614044. Hassan, Fatin Nabilah Abu. 2020. “The Implementation of Higher Order Thinking Skills (Hots) in Malaysia Secondary School: Post PISA 2009.” International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 24 (5): 5510–17. https://doi.org/ 10.37200/IJPR/V24I5/PR2020258. Hu, Bi Ying, Gregory Kirk Johnson, Timothy Teo, and Zhongling Wu. 2020. “Relationship between Screen Time and Chinese Children’s Cognitive and Social Development.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education 34 (2): 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1702600. Johansson, Erik. 2001. “The Nobel E-Museum – A Modern Science Education Project on Internet.” International Journal of Modern Physics C 12 (04): 527– 32. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129183101002188. Kearney, Kevin G., Elizabeth M. Starkey, and Scarlett R. Miller. 2020. “Digitizing Dissection: A Case Study on Augmented Reality and Animation in Engineering Education.” In Volume 3: 17th International Conference on Design Education (DEC). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2020-22773. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. 2019. SPI Bil 6 Tahun 2019 Pelaksanaan KSSM Menengah Atas Dan Pakej Mata Pelajaran Tahun 2020.Pdf. https://www.moe.gov.my/pekeliling/3054-spi-bil-6-tahun-2019pelaksanaan-kssm-menengah-atas-dan-pakej-mata-pelajaran-tahun2020/file. [SPI No. 6 Year 2019 Implementation of KSSM Upper Secondary and Subject Package Year] Khan, Badrul H., and Vinod Joshi. 2006. “E-Learning Who, What and How?” Journal of Creative Communications 1 (1): 61–74. https://doi.org/10. 1177/097325860500100104. Kukec, Mihael, Sandi Ljubic, and Vlado Glavinic. 2013. Improving Students’ Technical Skills Using Mobile Virtual Laboratory: Pilot Study of Assembly

32

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

Language Input Methods for Touchscreen Devices. In, 514–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39062-3_32. Laurillard, Diana. 2016. “Learning Number Sense through Digital Games with Intrinsic Feedback.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 32 (6). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3116. Ling, Ying-Leh, Fairuz Ismail, and Abdul Ghani Kanesan Abdullah. 2015. “Feedback Environment and Creativity in Education Organizations.” International Research in Education 3 (2): 121. https://doi.org/10. 5296/ire.v3i2.7585. Malaysia Kementerian Pelajaran. 2012. Laporan Awal Pelan Induk Pembangunan Pendidikan 2013-2025. www.moe.gov.my/index/php/my/dasar/pelanpembangunan-pendidikan-malaysia-2013-2025. [Preliminary Report of the 2013-2025 Education Development Master Plan.] Mohd Kasim, Nurul Nadirah, and Fariza Khalid. 2016. “Choosing the Right Learning Management System (LMS) for the Higher Education Institution Context: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 11 (06): 55. https://doi.org/10.3991 /ijet.v11i06.5644. Murayama, Kou, Lily FitzGibbon, and Michiko Sakaki. 2019. “Process Account of Curiosity and Interest: A Reward-Learning Perspective.” Educational Psychology Review 31 (4): 875–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-01909499-9. Patricia, Munoz Escalona, Dunn Meg, Soares Filomena, Marzano Adelaide, Vichare Parag, and Lazar Irina. 2020. “E-Learning Tools: Engaging Our Students?” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON 2020-April: 1783–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020. 9125251. Penuel, WIilliam R., Jeremy Roschelle, and Nicole Shechtman. 2007. “Designing Formative Assessment Software with Teachers: An Analysis of the CoDesign Process.” Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 02 (01): 51–74. https://Doi.Org/10.1142/S1793206807000300. Puška, Edisa, Adisa Ejubović, Nataša Đalić, and Adis Puška. 2021. “Examination of Influence of E-Learning on Academic Success on the Example of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Education and Information Technologies 26 (2): 1977– 94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10343-9. Quigley, Cassie F, and Anna H Hall. 2014. Creating Space: Pedagogical Choices to Encourage a Third Space in an Urban, Kindergarten Science Classroom. Rands, Melissa L, and Ann M Gansemer-Topf. 2017. “The Room Itself Is Active: How Classroom Design Impacts Student Engagement Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Other Architecture

Perspectives on Creative Pedagogy and E-Learning …

33

Commons, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons.” Journal of Learning Spaces 6. Reeves, Laura E., Edward Bolton, Matthew Bulpitt, Alex Scott, Ian Tomey, Micah Gates, and Robert A. Baldock. 2021. “Use of Augmented Reality (AR) to Aid Bioscience Education and Enrich Student Experience.” Research in Learning Technology 29 (January). https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2572. Spiteri, Christine, Clifford De Raffaele, and Serengul Smith. 2016. “Bridging the Digital Divide for E-Learning Students through Adaptive VLEs.” In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 210–17. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE. 2016.7851796. Straker, Leon, Juliana Zabatiero, Susan Danby, Karen Thorpe, and Susan Edwards. 2018. “Conflicting Guidelines on Young Children’s Screen Time and Use of Digital Technology Create Policy and Practice Dilemmas.” The Journal of Pediatrics 202 (November): 300–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpeds.2018.07.019. Sung, Yao-Ting, Kuo-En Chang, and Tzu-Chien Liu. 2016. “The Effects of Integrating Mobile Devices with Teaching and Learning on Students’ Learning Performance: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis.” Computers & Education 94 (March): 252–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2015.11.008. Toth, David, and Mary Kayler. 2015. “Integrating Role-Playing Games into Computer Science Courses as a Pedagogical Tool.” In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 386–91. New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677236. UNESCO. 2020. “COVID-19 Education Response Policy.” International Organization. Vol. 4. United Nation. 2020. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. New York. Vanhelst, Jérémy, Laurent Béghin, Elodie Drumez, José Antonio Casajus, Stefaan De Henauw, Kurt Widhalm, Cristina Molina, Eva Karaglani, and Frédéric Gottrand. 2021. “School Time Is Associated with Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Adolescents: The HELENA Study.” Journal of Sports Sciences, May, 1– 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.1917828. Wang, Alf Inge, and Rabail Tahir. 2020. “The Effect of Using Kahoot! For Learning – A Literature Review.” Computers & Education 149 (May): 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818. Webster, E. Kipling, Corby K. Martin, and Amanda E. Staiano. 2019. “Fundamental Motor Skills, Screen-Time, and Physical Activity in Preschoolers.” Journal of Sport and Health Science 8 (2): 114–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2018.11.006.

34

Z. Mustafa, Nadrah H. Fadzilah and N. Abdullah

Yang, Chunliang, Liang Luo, Miguel A. Vadillo, Rongjun Yu, and David R. Shanks. 2021. “Testing (Quizzing) Boosts Classroom Learning: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review.” Psychological Bulletin 147 (4): 399–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309. Yang, Hao. 2017. “A Research on the Effective Questioning Strategies in Class.” Science Journal of Education 5 (4): 158. https://doi.org/10.11648/ j.sjedu.20170504.16. Yusup Hashim. 2012. “Penggunaan E-Pembelajaran Dalam Pengajaran Dan Pembelajaran Yang Berkesan Profesor Dr Yusup Hshim Asia e University Kuala Lumpur.” Konvensyen Kebangsaan Pendidikan Guru, no. October 2012. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282642078_Penggunaan_ePembelajaran_dalam_pengajaran_dan_pembelajaran_yang_berkesan_Profes or_Dr_Yusup_Hshim_Asia_e_University_Kuala_Lumpur. [“The Use of ELearning in Effective Teaching and Learning Professor Dr Yusup Hshim Asia e University Kuala Lumpur.” National Convention on Teacher Education] Zhao, Ying, Yong Guo, Yu Xiao, Ranke Zhu, Wei Sun, Weiyong Huang, Deyi Liang, et al. 2020. “The Effects of Online Homeschooling on Children, Parents, and Teachers of Grades 1–9 During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Medical Science Monitor 26 (September). https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM. 925591. Zolfaghari, Ali Reza, Davood Fathi, and Masoud Hashemi. “Role of creative questioning in the process of learning and teaching.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011): 2079-2082.

Chapter 3

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning Tools in the Attitude Domain: A Fuzzy Delphi Method Vinothini Vasodavan1,, Dorothy DeWitt2 and Norlidah Alias2 1School

of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences and Leisure Management, Taylor’s University, Malaysia 2Department of Corriculum and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, University of Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract Developing students’ attitude domain is as important as developing their cognitive strategies and motor skills, because attitude-related affective skills help students establish ways of inquiry, become active learners, build a sense of responsibility for their own learning, and promote lifelong learning. However, many higher education institutions (HEIs) have overlooked the development of students’ attitude due to difficulties designing instruction that evaluates attitude, which is perceived to be subjective. Therefore, instructors need to ensure they incorporate the attitude domain into lesson planning, activity design, lesson delivery, and assessment approaches. However, it is recognized that developing the attitude domain online is difficult compared to the face-to-face setting, given that HEIs are currently undertaking teaching activities remotely on digital platforms due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Although effective 

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

In: E-Learning Editors: Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man ISBN: 978-1-68507-604-7 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

36

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias teaching with technology includes the design of instructional strategies that are linked to the types of skills instructors wish students to learn, instructional strategies for attitude-related skills are less well-defined than those for cognitive skills. There also seems to be little to no guidance on how to support and develop attitude skills in HEIs. Hence, this study seeks to develop a framework for attitude development by employing the Fuzzy Delphi Method to obtain a consensus among 16 experts. The results reveal suitable collaborative learning tools and corresponding assessments to develop the attitude domain among students. This framework provides a guideline for instructors to plan their teaching of the attitude domain from the aspects of instructional strategies, collaborative learning tools, and assessment measures.

Keywords: attitude domain, social constructivism, collaborative learning tools, fuzzy Delphi, Merrill’s first principles of instruction

1. Introduction In the twenty-first century, graduates of higher education institutions (HEIs) are required to possess critical thinking skills, such as the ability to think analytically, synthesize, evaluate, and use cognitive techniques to create new information and solve issues (DeWitt and Koh 2020; Dick, Carey, and Carey 2014; Biasutti and EL-Deghaidy 2015). This indicates that teaching and learning in HEIs should not only focus on imparting facts and concepts as knowledge. However, it appears that the the course design in HEIs prioritizes cognitive strategies and motor skills while ignoring the attitude domain (Sitzmann 2010), despite the fact that a well-designed course should have a combination of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains (Bloom 1956). The attitude domain has remained unexplored, neglected, and underrated by the education system because this affective skill is highly subjective and difficult to assess and design (Taneri 2017; Clouston 2018). Many educational systems have also overlooked students’ attitudes and focused more on their cognitive abilities, as it is challenging to measure the achievement of attitude goals using traditional evaluation approaches (Ni et al. 2018; Putman et al. 2020). Consequently, even though students develop intellectual awareness, they lack the necessary social-emotional abilities to live in peace and harmony with others (Dar 2018). This shows that the fundamentals of effective education must be grounded in a combination of academic and socialemotional development (Dar 2018; Bleakley et al. 2020). Although cognitive

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

37

skills are important to promote active learning and critical thinking, incorporating emotions, feelings, and values is equally crucial for permanent learning to take place (Taneri 2017; Dar 2018). In this regard, effective teaching of the affective domain will assist students in examining, reflecting on, and revising their own values and beliefs, ultimately moulding individuals who are creative and innovative (Taneri 2017; Clouston 2018). Therefore, to develop the attitude domain in HEIs, instructors need to incorporate this domain into lesson planning, activity design, lesson delivery, and assessment approaches (Clouston 2018). However, it should be acknowledged that developing the attitude domain using online delivery is difficult compared to the face-to-face classroom setting. With the sudden shift away from brick-and-mortar teaching due to the Covid-19 pandemic, HEIs are currently conducting their teaching and learning remotely on digital platforms. Therefore, effective teaching with technology should include the design of instructional strategies that are linked to the types of skills instructors wish students to learn, such as attitude. However, instructional strategies for attitude-related skills are less welldefined than those for cognitive strategies (Hwang and Chang 2016; El Sakka 2019). There seems to be little to no guidance on how to support and develop attitude skills in the HEI context. Hence, in this study, a framework for teaching the attitude domain was developed to serve as a guideline for instructors in designing learning tasks that promote positive attitudes towards learning by engaging students in real-world problem-solving.

2. Literature Review 2.1. Social Constructivism According to the social constructivist viewpoint, knowledge and new ideas are created through social interactions (Vygotsky 1978). The reason for using this theory is that, in social constructivism, learning is self-directed and students share their learning experiences with peers who have the same cultural values (Vygotsky 1978; So and Brush 2008). This is in complete opposition to the traditional teacher-centered method of learning where the instructor is regarded as an expert in the transmission of information while the student is supposed to accept the information without critique (Ntshwarang, Malinga, and Losike-Sedimo 2021).

38

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

Learning is an active process; students neither learn in isolation nor passively absorb information. In the social constructivist learning environment, students learn best when collaborating with their peers through knowledge construction (Adebola, Tsotetsi, and Omodan 2020; Mpungose 2020). During these social interactions, students work together to achieve common learning goals by establishing group understanding, engaging in discussions, and applying knowledge to promote meaningful learning (Johnson and Johnson 2014). Individual learning happens when learners first internalise newly learned knowledge, then externalise it by sharing, comparing, and synthesising different viewpoints through peer interactions, and finally, create new knowledge through the collaboration process (DeWitt and Koh 2020; Palmer 2005; Xie 2013). Collaboration is significant for any online learning environment, especially in the technology-intense era where students are actively constructing knowledge in a community of practice; in this regard, social learning activities can support students’ achievement of collaboration (Orooji and Taghiyareh 2018). Therefore, it is imperative to design high-quality instruction by linking learning to students’ experiences through problemsolving. Instructors can do this through collaborative learning with tools such as discussion forums, wikis, blogs, podcasts, virtual walls, and many more.

2.2. Online Collaborative Learning and Tools in Higher Education In the context of higher education, collaborative learning is transforming the learning process into a less linear one that goes beyond the traditional classroom setting, so that students can construct knowledge by sharing, discussing, and producing various concepts in a dynamic and instantaneous manner (Garcia et al. 2015; Marhan 2006; Lee and Markey 2014). Collaborative learning is frequently regarded as important from the educational standpoint, as students must have collaborative skills before entering the workforce. Collaborative skills can develop in a face-to-face or computer-assisted context. In line with this, collaborative learning has been shown to be a successful educational approach in both traditional and online learning environments (Almareta and Paidi 2021; Özçinar 2015).

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

39

Online collaboration can be facilitated by a variety of technology tools for content creation (wikis, blogs, podcasts, Nearpod, Blendspace, Edpuzzle), social space and microblogging (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube), communication and video conferencing (instant messaging, discussion forums, Skype, Teams, Zoom), content curation (virtual walls, Padlet, Jamboard, Wakelet, Sway), and online office applications (Google Doc, OneNote) (Vasodavan, Dewitt, and Alias 2021; Sadaf, Newby, and Ertmer 2016). Collaborative learning tools are also known as Web 2.0 applications, which allow students to create rich and varied information resources to be shared and published on the internet (Liu, Wang, and Tai 2016; Biasutti 2017). Significant research has attempted to investigate how the features of Web 2.0 technologies can be leveraged to support a social constructivist learning approach. Collaborative learning tools have proven to be beneficial for learning in this context because they facilitate collaboration, engagement, and knowledge-sharing (Sadaf, Newby, and Ertmer 2016; Almareta and Paidi 2021; Sun et al. 2018), create opportunities for discussion and dialogue (Mehta, Miletich, and Detyna 2021; Duret et al. 2018), and enable authentic learning via real-world experiences (Han and Resta 2020; Chen et al. 2018). Therefore, it is vital for instructors to incorporate collaborative learning tools to promote active learning and engagement among HEI students. To achieve this, instructors need to design instructional strategies that are linked to the type of skill or task they wish students to learn, since there is not one size (i.e., learning domain) that fits all instructional tasks (Spector 2016; Jen et al. 2016).

2.3. Gagne Taxonomy of Learning Outcomes Gagne considered learning to be a continual process built on previous knowledge, as each individual student has unique prior knowledge (Gagné and Merrill 1990; Gagné 1977). Therefore, lessons should always take into account the learner’s level of complexity and processing, because different strategies are required to attain various learning objectives (Gagné 1984; Gagné and Briggs 1974). Hence, understanding learning types could assist instructors in determining and analyzing learning goals and outcomes (Smith and Ragan 2005).

40

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

Since there is no single way of measuring what has been learned, Gagne highlighted the need for learning domains to distinguish content areas through instructional methods (Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia 1964; Bloom 1956). This relates to each subject’s instructional procedure, practices, and assessments being tailored to specific skills and knowledge levels (Duan 2006; Gagné 1984). Gagne divided learning capabilities into five major domains: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitude, and motor skills. In this study, the focus is on developing the attitude domain. Attitude comprises emotions, feelings, and values that students experience as they progress through their educational journey (El Sakka 2019; Taneri 2017). This affective domain embraces not only feelings and emotions, but also ideas, standards, and beliefs that support student learning (Taneri 2017). While attitude is the reason for a student’s behaviour, it does not directly determine performance like other domains (e.g., verbal information, intellectual skills, and cognitive strategies) (Gredler 2009). Developing the attitude domain among students is crucial because it is a foundational skill that promotes active and continuous learning and cultivates a sense of responsibility for students to take control of their own learning (Taneri 2017). Permanent learning is more likely to occur when learning processes include affective skills because a positive attitude has a significant impact on students’ future behavior (Taneri 2017; Clouston 2018; Kahramanoğlu 2018). Therefore, instructors should design instruction with individual differences in mind and emphasize the emotional importance of learning using a variety of integrated support mechanisms, such as a mentor/role model or self-reported questionnaires.

2.4. Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction First Principles of Instruction is an eclectic theory that combines instructional design models and theories (Merrill 2013; Cropper, Bentley, and Schroder 2009). The theory is based on the idea that the first principles are generally relevant to any instructional program and are important for effective, efficient, and engaging instruction (Merrill 2002; 2013; Hall, Lei, and Wang 2020).

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

41

The five first principles that arose from Merrill’s synthesis state that learning is enhanced when: (1) learners address real-world issues; (2) existing information is activated to serve as a basis for new knowledge; (3) new knowledge is demonstrated to learners; (4) learners apply new skills and knowledge; and (5) learners incorporate new skills and knowledge into everyday life. Figure 1 illustrates the First Principles of Instruction framework. Students must be engaged in all four levels of performance (i.e., action, operation, task, and problem-solving) for effective instruction to take place (Merrill 2007; Cropper, Bentley, and Schroder 2009). Instruction that is too heavily focused on the action or operation levels suggests that instructors do not engage students in problem-solving because some of the problems that students must learn to solve are extremely difficult.

Figure 1. First Principles of Instruction (Merrill, 2013).

Even though the First Principles of Instruction took root in learning and instruction research over two decades ago, the theory is still able to promote learning despite the rapid change brought by modern educational tools. Using this systematic process, instructors can design and deliver instruction that incorporates different collaborative learning tools. Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a framework that serves as a guideline for teaching the attitude domain by identifying suitable instructional strategies, collaborative learning tools, and assessment measures through experts’ opinions and consensus.

42

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

3. Research Design This section discusses the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), a technique used in Design and Development Research (DDR) to obtain agreement among a panel of experts on the elements and sub-elements of instructional strategies, resources, and assessments that develop the attitude domain among students. FDM can be applied during any phase of the DDR to gain consensus from a panel of experts (Mustapha and Darulsalam 2018; Sulaiman et al. 2020; Jamil et al. 2013). FDM is not a new method, but has been improved upon to become a more effective and time-efficient measurement tool than the traditional Delphi method by introducing fuzzy set numbering and fuzzy set theory to it (Murray, Pipino, and Gigch 1985). The Delphi method is an effective measurement for decision-making since it can be used to resolve complex issues in a particular context by focusing on group decisions instead of individual opinions (Baumfield et al. 2012). However, the approach involves numerous rounds of questionnaires and interviews with experts to obtain more accurate and precise data, which is time-consuming and requires multiple repetitions (Leng et al. 2013; Saido et al. 2018). Thus, the FDM was developed to overcome the above-mentioned issues by applying fuzzy set numbering and fuzzy set theory to consolidate expert opinions using cumulative frequency and cumulative fuzzy scores (Wu et al. 2014; Ishikawa et al. 1993).

3.1. Participants The purpose of the FDM in this study was to gather the expert panel members’ views and consensus on the elements required for instructional strategies, collaborative learning tools, and assessments to develop students’ attitude domain. The number of experts involved in the FDM can range from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50 to maintain uniformity among the experts (Adler and Ziglio 1996; Jones and Twiss 1978; Damigos and Anyfantis 2011). In this study, 16 experts were selected using purposive sampling to verify the reliability of the data collected. In the FDM, experts are a reliable resource due to their ability to evaluate and assess relevant knowledge and experience pertaining to a specific subject (Mustapha and Darulsalam 2018).

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

43

As a result, involving more than 10 experts would increase the reliability of the findings. The criteria for selecting a panel of experts are crucial to ensure the data output and findings are reliable and valid (Mustapha and Darulsalam 2018; Saido et al. 2018). Therefore, the experts were chosen based on their expertise and contributions to their respective fields. Research indicates that experts are individuals with a university/professional qualification, experience, and competence in a field of study through exposure obtained from training and practice (Donohoe and Needham 2009; Manakandan et al. 2017). In this study, the experts were chosen based on specific criteria, including academic qualification, subject matter, expertise, and contributions to their respective fields. In particular, the criteria in this study were experts in educational/instructional technology who have: (1) a doctoral degree qualification in educational technology/instructional technology/continuing professional development; (2) at least 10 years of teaching experience; (3) a scholarly publication in ISI/SCOPUS; (4) hands-on experience in keeping up with current knowledge in the field as well as in conducting innovative teaching and learning using different kinds of technology tools. Table 1 shows the summary of the FDM experts’ details. Table 1. Summary of the FDM experts’ details Number of experts

Designation

Area(s) of Expertise

2 1

Professor Professor

3 1

Assoc Prof Assoc Prof

9

Senior Lecturers

Educational Technology Continuing Professional Education and Teacher Education Instructional Technology Instructional Technology; Professional and Continuing Education. Educational Technology

Teaching Experience (Years) 21-40 28 24-30 27

15-27

3.2. The Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) Instrument In this study, the instruments used for data collection were semi-structured interviews with a panel of experts and an FDM questionnaire developed based on themes that emerged from the analysis of the expert interviews. The

44

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

opinions of the experts were gathered in two stages: (1) an interview session with a selected panel of experts and (2) distribution of the FDM questionnaire, which was developed from the interview data, to the panel of experts. In the initial stage, a critical review of the literature was conducted on the use of collaborative learning tools, the taxonomy of learning (attitude domain), and Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction. The purpose of the literature review was to develop an interview protocol for the semi-structured interview. During the semi-structured interview, four experts were presented with Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction matrix and were asked for their opinion on the instructional strategies that could be used in the module, suitable collaborative learning tools, and assessment measures for developing the attitude domain among students. The interviews with these four experts were transcribed and thematically analyzed to design the items for the FDM questionnaire. The FDM questionnaire consisted of four sections containing 40 items, all of which were rated on a seven-point Likert scale. The higher the rating on the scale (seven-point) compared to the five-point fuzzy linguistic, the more precise and accurate the data; thus, the greater the reliability and validity of the FDM findings (Jamil et al. 2013; Manakandan et al. 2017; Tsai et al. 2020). In Section A, experts were mainly asked their personal details. In Section B, they were questioned about whether they agreed with the proposed instructional strategies based on Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction. In Section C, the experts were asked their agreement with the collaborative learning tools being used as a teaching resource to teach the attitude domain. Finally, in Section D, experts were asked their agreement on the assessments that could be used in the module to develop the attitude domain. Experts were free to write their opinions and remarks in the space next to each item.

3.3. Data Analysis The FDM questionnaire was distributed to the panel of 16 experts and their views were systematically analyzed by adopting the four steps in the FDM suggested by Jamil et al. (2013). Step 1 was to select the linguistic scale. The triangulation of fuzzy numbers is the process of transforming experts’ agreement from a Likert scale to fuzzy numbers. The seven-point linguistic scale was selected in this study, given the greater accuracy of the data due to the higher number of scale points (Jamil et al. 2013; Sulaiman et al. 2020). The rationale for using fuzzy numbers was to reduce the ambiguity of an

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

45

expert’s judgement that could not be evaluated on a Likert scale (Sulaiman et al. 2020). The fuzzy numbers for the seven-point linguistic scale are shown in Table 2. Step 2 entailed using the triangular fuzzy numbers to identify the average responses for every fuzzy number, which involved three mean points where (m1) indicated the average minimum value (m1) the experts agreed upon for a particular item, (m2) was the most reasonable value, and (m3) was the maximum value that the experts agreed upon. Step 3 was to determine the threshold value (d), which was important because it determined the percentage of agreement among the experts. There are two criteria for a triangular fuzzy number. First, experts are considered to have reached an agreement if the value of the threshold (d) is less than or equal to 0.2 (Sulaiman et al. 2020; Diamond et al. 2014). The second criterion is the percentage of expert agreement, where for an item to be accepted, the consensus of all experts must be more than 70%; otherwise, the FDM survey needs to be repeated until a consensus is achieved (Saido et al. 2018; Jamil et al. 2013). The value of threshold (d) was calculated using the equation below:

Table 2. Seven-point fuzzy scale Linguistic variable very strongly disagree strongly disagree disagree not sure agree strongly agree very strongly agree

Fuzzy scale m1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9

m2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0

m3 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0

Finally, Step 4 was the defuzzification process. By using a cut value of 0.5, the fuzzy (A) score value was calculated. The measured item is approved if the fuzzy score value (A) is equal to or more than 0.5, and is rejected if the value is less than 0.5.

46

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

The following equation was used to determine the defuzzification value (DV) for each questionnaire item: DV = 1/3* (m1 + m2 + m3) (Wu et al. 2014; Damigos and Anyfantis 2011). Additionally, ranking was determined in the DV process by identifying item elements that are important for developing the attitude domain among students. A greater Amax value corresponds with a higher ranking (Sulaiman et al. 2020). Elements having the highest DV were considered vital and were given top emphasis in the framework. The formula below was used to calculate the Amax value: Amax = ¼ (m1+m2+m3).

3.4. Discussion and Findings The findings from this research guide the development of a framework for teaching the attitude domain to students. Based on the FDM results, this section reports and discusses the consensus reached by 16 experts regarding instructional strategies, collaborative learning tools, and assessment measures based on real-world problems. The experts unanimously agreed that developing students’ attitude domain is important to encourage the latter’s emotional growth, such as in the form of a positive attitude and increased enthusiasm for learning.

3.4.1. Instructional Strategies for Developing the Attitude Domain Different teaching strategies can be used to develop the attitude domain among students. The proposed instructional strategies were based on four core principles centered on problem-solving. Consensus was achieved on all principles; hence, all four phases of Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction were included in the module. The threshold value (d), the DV, and the ranks for each item to develop the attitude domain, as per the experts’ consensus, are shown in Table 3. No ranking was required for the principles since the phases are arranged accordingly from the activation phase to the demonstration phase, the application phase, and the integration phase.

Defuzzification Value (DV) m1 m2 m3

Threshold value (d)

Developing a suitable attitude (affective domain) can be done by: Phase 1 Activation: 0.788 0.788 0.788 0.172 Give students a self-report survey to measure their current attitude as well to gain their attention, and make them recall prior knowledge using stories or videos. Phase 2 Demonstration: 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.217 Instructors show an appealing and credible role model through video or animation. Phase 3 Application: 0.788 0.788 0.788 0.193 Students produce content in form of vodcasts, podcasts, videos, and blogs. Phase 4 Integration: 0.813 0.813 0.813 0.167 Allow students to design and develop a product as well as share the product online Note: Conditions to be met: Triangular Fuzzy Number: Threshold value (d)≤ 0.2; Percentage of expert consensus ≥ 75%.

Questionnaire Items

Not Applicable

Ranking

Table 3. Instructional strategies based on Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction to develop students’ attitude domain

48

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

3.4.2 Collaborative Learning Tools for Developing the Attitude Domain The experts agreed that the most important collaborative learning tool that should be integrated as a teaching resource to develop students’ attitude domain is educational videos, which reported a DV of 0.800. A video is a powerful weapon to evoke and convey human emotions as it inspires learners through drama and audio-visual stories (Snelson and Elison-Bowers 2009; Celis Nova, Onatra Chavarro, and Zubieta 2017). Consequently, the most effective way of changing learners’ attitude is through human models/modelling (Bandura 1986; Gagné 1971), which can be demonstrated through the use of video. Video was followed by stories (text-based/web stories or blogs), with a DV of 0.763. By interacting and reading others’ personal experiences, students tend to be motivated and responsible for their own learning, because the writer’s voice engages them in self-reflection (Garcia et al. 2015; Novakovich 2016). The threshold value (d), the percentages of expert consensus, the DV, and the ranks for each item to develop the attitude domain, according to the experts’ consensus, are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Collaborative learning tools based on Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction to develop students’ attitude domain Questionnaire Items

Defuzzification Value (DV)

Threshold value (d)

Ranking

m1 m2 m3 Resources for teaching attitude are: Educational videos 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.191 1 Stories 0.763 0.763 0.763 0.210 2 (text-based/web story or blogs) Note: Conditions to be met: Triangular Fuzzy Number: Threshold value (d)≤ 0.2; Percentage of expert consensus ≥ 75%.

3.4.3. Assessment Approaches for Developing the Attitude Domain In determining suitable assessment approaches for developing the attitude domain, experts agreed that the most important assessment is students’ production of an e-portfolio as self-reflection, with a DV of 0.825. The eportfolio is an alternative way of assessing students’ personal achievements

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

49

and evidence of their learning (Makokotlela 2020; Slepcevic-Zach and Stock 2018). By creating an e-portfolio, students become reflective thinkers because they are aware of their own learning. This is done by frequently monitoring and documenting their progress in terms of current knowledge, achievements, and personal values (Farahian, Avarzamani, and Rajabi 2021; Douglas et al. 2019). Table 5. Assessments to develop the attitude domain among students Questionnaire Items

Defuzzification Value (DV) m1 m2 m3

Threshold value (d)

Ranking

Assessing attitude among students can be done by: Students produce an e0.825 0.825 0.825 0.158 1 portfolio as self-reflection. Students share and debate 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.172 2 among peers on content produced by vodcasts, podcasts, and blogs in forums and social media Note: Conditions to be met: Triangular Fuzzy Number: Threshold value (d)≤ 0.2; Percentages of expert consensus ≥ 75%.

Another equally important assessment which had high consensus (DV = 0.750) was the learning task where on forums or social media, students share and debate among peers regarding content produced by vodcasts, podcasts, and blogs. Students may create their own podcasts (audio on the web) or vodcasts (combination of audio and visual) to showcase their creativity in the world of digital storytelling (Moryl 2016; Efe 2015). Through blogging, students are able to express their thoughts freely and take ownership of the products they develop (Alsamadani 2017; Ifinedo 2017). The products developed via podcasts, vodcasts, or blogs can later be shared via communication channels for peer discussion and interactions, which highly motivates students to learn (Moryl 2016; Walls et al. 2010). The threshold value (d), the percentages of expert consensus, the DV, and the ranks for each item to develop the attitude domain according to the experts’ consensus are shown in Table 5.

50

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

3.5. Framework for Developing the Attitude Domain The framework for developing the attitude domain explains that learning is promoted when students’ relevant past experience is activated to be used as a foundation for new knowledge. Instructors could engage students by offering a self-report questionnaire for them to evaluate themselves and make decisions about the areas they need to improve their self-expression (Borg and Edmett 2019; İlhan-Beyaztaş and Özdemir 2018). The self-report is a non-judgmental tool that allows students to self-monitor the attitudes, emotions, and feelings that might influence their learning experience (El Sakka 2019). Instructors can also gain students’ attention by recalling prior knowledge using stories or videos. Research shows that videos are a key motivating tool that exemplify real-life practices (Celis Nova, Onatra Chavarro, and Zubieta 2017). Instructors can download readily available videos from YouTube or use digital storytelling applications such as WordPress, Blogger, or MS. Sway to embed various content (e.g., pictures, videos, articles, polls, etc.). Blog comment postings allow both instructors and students to engage and exchange ideas with one another. Thus, through blogs and MS. Sway, instructors can share personal stories and create socially interactive environments. In the demonstration phase, instructors show, rather than tell, students what is to be learned. Instructors can teach the attitude domain effectively by showing an appealing and credible role model through video or animation (e.g., YouTube, Pawtoon, Animoto). The most effective way to boost learning motivation is through modelling (Yang, Gamble, and Tang 2012; Clouston 2018). As such, instructors can use role-model strategies to explain and exhibit the desired options or actions for specific circumstances. The activation phase is stimulated when students use their newly learned knowledge or skills to solve a real-world problem. For example, students can produce content in the form of vodcasts, podcasts, and blogs, which allows them to reflect on and share what they have learned. They can also publish their own writings, such as a journal, story, or class readings, to create social bonds. This engages students in creating their own content and increases their sense of ownership and responsibility over their learning (Li and Zhu 2017; Rahimi, van den Berg, and Veen 2015). As part of assessment approaches, instructors can design learning tasks for students to produce an e-portfolio as self-reflection, which would show their actual work with personal evidence of skills or knowledge they have learned. The reflection activity enables students to share their own beliefs, perceptions, and experiences of their own learning by identifying personal

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

51

strengths and weaknesses (Chye et al. 2019; Farahian, Avarzamani, and Rajabi 2021). Finally, in the integration phase, learning is promoted when students integrate their newfound skills or knowledge into daily life. Apart from designing and developing products, students also share them online through forums and social media. The content of the self-reflective e-portfolio, for instance, can be shared and debated among peers. Instructors can further encourage students to reveal their learning artefacts to peers for comments and feedback. Notably, the forum discussion is a great tool not only to teach factual knowledge but also to promote peer-to-peer interaction and reflection (DeWitt et al. 2014; Zion, Adler, and Mevarech 2015). This indicates that collaborative learning tools enable students to contribute to the creation of new knowledge by exchanging and debating ideas (Dewitt, Alias, and Siraj 2015). The framework for developing the attitude domain is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Framework for developing the attitude domain.

Conclusion Collaborative learning and its tools have high potential for promoting affective skills among students, as they provide a platform for activities that create a positive attitude towards learning. In this study, different collaborative learning tools, such as forum discussion, blogging, podcasting, vodcasting,

52

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

educational videos, animation, and e-portfolios, were utilized to effectively develop the attitude domain. The resultant instructional strategy framework can be used as a guideline by HEI instructors to teach effectively with technology. However, instructors should determine their course’s aims and learning objectives before adopting this framework. This process will help instructors design instructions based on real-world problems that students experience after the instruction is complete. Moreover, this is the only framework that focuses on providing problem-centered instructional solutions that show the entirety of tasks students should be exploring, discovering, and learning, from the activation phase to the integration phase. This framework fosters a culture of innovative teaching with technology, as the framework consists of instructional strategies, collaborative learning tools, and assessment approaches. Instructors typically find difficult to evaluate a student’s attitude domain due to its highly subjective nature. In addressing this issue, the framework developed from the study findings offers practical applications for instructors to demonstrate their own innovative teaching by selecting suitable collaborative learning tools to teach the attitude domain. In particular, this framework helps instructors organize their lessons using the First Principles of Instruction, which promotes students’ affective domain exhibition. The findings of this study also assist instructors in integrating technology into their pedagogical practice. Instructors need to have a good understanding of how technology can be assimilated with pedagogy as well as specific skills and knowledge. Teaching in an effective way using collaborative learning tools is not just about instructors teaching well with a technology, but also about designing instructional strategies that are linked to the type of skill or task instructors wish students to learn. At the same time, students benefit from the framework because problemcentered instruction is more beneficial for novice learners than problem-based learning, which requires students to determine for themselves what a problem comprises, how it appears, and how to solve it. When instructors integrate this framework into their teaching of the attitude domain, they signify their shift away from teacher-centered learning to active learning, where students can work independently with confidence, collaborate in a group activity to achieve common goals, display positive ways of solving problems, value peers and others, and change their attitudes and beliefs according to new learning experiences.

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

53

References Adebola, Omolara, Cias Tsotetsi, and Bunmi Omodan. “Enhancing Students’ Academic Performance in University System: The Perspective of Supplemental Instruction.” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 19, no. 5 (2020): 217–30. https://doi.org/10. 26803/ijlter.19.5.13. Adler, Michael, and Erio Ziglio. Gazing Into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and Its Application to Social Policy and Public Health. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1996. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=jo1Z1JZIrKIC Almareta, Ria, and Paidi. “Biology Teachers Used Learning Management System (LMS) for Collaborative Learning.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1788, no. 1 (2021): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1788/1/012029. Alsamadani, Hashem. “The Effectiveness of Using Online Blogging for Students’ Individual and Group Writing.” International Education Studies 11, no. 1 (2017): 44. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n1p44. Bandura, Albert. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall., 1986. Baumfield, Vivienne, James Conroy, Robert Davis, and David Lundie. “The Delphi Method: Gathering Expert Opinion in Religious Education.” British Journal of Religious Education 34, no. 1 (2012): 5–19. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01416200.2011.614740. Biasutti, Michele. “A Comparative Analysis of Forums and Wikis as Tools for Online Collaborative Learning.” Computers and Education 111 (2017): 158– 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.006. Biasutti, Michele, and Heba EL-Deghaidy. “Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning: An Online Wiki Experience in Teacher Education.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 24, no. 3 (2015): 339–55. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1475939X.2014.899510. Bleakley, James, Geoff Woolcott, Tony Yeigh, and Robert Whannell. “Reflecting on Emotions During Teaching: Developing Affective-Reflective Skills in Novice Teachers Using a Novel Critical Moment Protocol.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 45, no. 10 (2020): 55–72. https://doi.org/10. 14221/ajte.2020v45n10.4. Bloom, Benjamin. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. D. McKay, 1956. https://books.google. com.my/books?id=hos6AAAAIAAJ. Borg, Simon, and Adam Edmett. “Developing a Self-Assessment Tool for English Language Teachers.” Language Teaching Research 23, no. 5 (2019): 655–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817752543.

54

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

Celis Nova, Jonnathan, Clara Onatra Chavarro, and Ana Zubieta. “Educational Videos: A Didactic Tool for Strengthening English Vocabulary through the Development of Affective Learning in Kids.” Gist: Education and Learning Research Journal 14, no. 14 (2017): 68–87. https://doi.org/10. 26817/16925777.368. Chen, Juanjuan, Minhong Wang, Paul Kirschner, and Chin Tsai. “The Role of Collaboration, Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Supporting Strategies in CSCL: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research 88, no. 6 (2018): 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584. Chye, Stefanie, Mingming Zhou, Caroline Koh, and Woon Chia Liu. “Using EPortfolios to Facilitate Reflection: Insights from an Activity Theoretical Analysis.” Teaching and Teacher Education 85 (2019): 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.002. Clouston, Teena. “Transforming Learning: Teaching Compassion and Caring Values in Higher Education.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 42, no. 7 (2018): 1015–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1332359. Cropper, Max, Joanne Bentley, and Kerstin Schroder. “How Well Do HighQuality Online Courses Employ Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction?” In Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 121–40, 2009. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-0-387-09675-9_8. Damigos, Dimitris, and Fotis Anyfantis. “The Value of View through the Eyes of Real Estate Experts: A Fuzzy Delphi Approach.” Landscape and Urban Planning 101, no. 2 (2011): 171–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan. 2011.02.009. Dar, Fatima. “Using Texts to Teach Cognitive-Affective Curriculum.” Journal of Education and Educational Development 5, no. 2 (2018): 28. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v5i2.1976. Dewitt, Dorothy, Norlidah Alias, and Saedah Siraj. “Collaborative Learning: Interactive Debates Using Padlet in a Higher Education Institution.” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2015 (2015): 88–95. DeWitt, Dorothy, Norlidah Alias, Saedah Siraj, and Abd Zakaria. “Interactions in Online Forums: A Case Study among First Year Undergraduate Students.” Frontiers in Education (FE) 2, no. 1 (2014): 6–13. http://eprints. um.edu.my/9489/. DeWitt, Dorothy, and Eric H Y Koh. “Promoting Knowledge Management Processes through an Interactive Virtual Wall in a Postgraduate Business Finance Course.” Journal of Education for Business 95, no. 4 (2020): 255– 62. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1635977. Diamond, Ivan, Robert Grant, Brian Feldman, Paul Pencharz, Simon Ling, Aideen Moore, and Paul Wales. “Defining Consensus: A Systematic Review Recommends Methodologic Criteria for Reporting of Delphi Studies.”

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

55

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67, no. 4 (2014): 401–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002. Dick, Walter, Lou Carey, and James Carey. Systematic Design of Instruction. Pearson, 2014. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=WnaKMQEACAAJ. Donohoe, Holly, and Roger Needham. “Moving Best Practice Forward: Delphi Characteristics, Advantages, Potential Problems, and Solutions.” International Journal of Tourism Research 11, no. 5 (2009): 415–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.709. Douglas, Megan, Scott Peecksen, Jordan Rogers, and Mike Simmons. “College Students’ Motivation and Confidence for EPortfolio Use.” International Journal of EPortfolio 2019 9, no. 1 (2019): 1–16. Duan, Yan. “Selecting and Applying Taxonomies for Learning Outcomes: A Nursing Example.” International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 3, no. 1 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2202/1548-923X.1154. Duret, Denis, Rob Christley, Paul Denny, and Avril Senior. “Collaborative Learning with Peerwise.” Research in Learning Technology 26, no. 1063519 (2018): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.1979. Efe, Hülya Aslan. “The Relation Between Science Student Teachers ‘Educational Use of Web 2 . 0 Technologies and Their Computer Self-Efficacy.” Journal of Baltic Science Education 14, no. 1 (2015): 142–54. Farahian, Majid, Farnaz Avarzamani, and Yusef Rajabi. “Reflective Thinking in an EFL Writing Cwriting Course: To What Level Do Portfolios Improve Reflection in Writing?” Thinking Skills and Creativity 39 (2021): 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100759. Gagné, Robert. Conditions of Learning. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston., 1977. Gagné, Robert. Learning Hierarchies. NJ: Prentice Hall., 1971. Gagné, Robert. “Learning Outcomes and Their Effects: Useful Categories of Human Performance.” American Psychologist 39, no. 4 (1984): 377–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.377. Gagné, Robert, and Leslie Briggs. The Principles of Instructional Design. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974. Gagné, Robert, and David Merrill. “Integrative Goals for Instructional Design.” Educational Technology Research and Development 38, no. 1 (1990): 23–30. Garcia, Elaine, Ibrahim Elbeltagi, Mel Brown, and Kerry Dungay. “The Implications of a Connectivist Learning Blog Model and the Changing Role of Teaching and Learning.” British Journal of Educational Technology 46, no. 4 (2015): 877–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12184. Gredler, Margaret. Learning and Instruction: Theory Into Practice. Merrill Pearson, 2009. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=JTjFHgAACAAJ.

56

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

Hall, Jacob, Jing Lei, and Qiu Wang. “The First Principles of Instruction: An Examination of Their Impact on Preservice Teachers’ TPACK.” Educational Technology Research and Development 68, no. 6 (2020): 3115–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09866-2. Han, Songhee, and Paul Resta. “Virtually Authentic: Graduate Students’ Perspective Changes toward Authentic Learning While Collaborating in a Virtual World.” Online Learning Journal 24, no. 4 (2020): 5–27. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2326. Hwang, Gwo, and Shao Chang. “Effects of a Peer Competition-Based Mobile Learning Approach on Students’ Affective Domain Exhibition in Social Studies Courses.” British Journal of Educational Technology 47, no. 6 (2016): 1217–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12303. Ifinedo, Princely. “Examining Students’ Intention to Continue Using Blogs for Learning: Perspectives from Technology Acceptance, Motivational, and Social-Cognitive Frameworks.” Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017): 189–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.049. İlhan-Beyaztaş, Dilek, and Burhanettin Özdemir. “The Effect of Case-Based Curriculum on Cognitive and Affective Characteristics of Students.” Journal of Education and Training Studies 6, no. 3 (2018): 13. https://doi.org/ 10.11114/jets.v6i3.3035. Ishikawa, Akira, Michio Amagasa, Tetsuo Shiga, Giichi Tomizawa, Rumi Tatsuta, and Hiroshi Mieno. “The Max-Min Delphi Method and Fuzzy Delphi Method via Fuzzy Integration.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 55, no. 3 (1993): 241– 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(93)90251-C. Jamil, Mohd, Zaharah Hussin, Nurul Noh, Ahmad Sapar, and Norlidah Alias. “Application of Fuzzy Delphi Method in Educational Research.” In Emergent Trends in Educational Research, edited by Saedah Siraj, Norlidah Alias, Dorothy DeWitt, and Zaharah Hussin, 86–92. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pearson, 2013. Jen, Tsung, Yi Yeh, Ying Hsu, Hsin Wu, and Kuan Chen. “Science Teachers’ TPACK-Practical: Standard-Setting Using an Evidence-Based Approach.” Computers and Education 95, no. April (2016): 45–62. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.compedu.2015.12.009. Johnson, David, and Roger Johnson. “Cooperation and the Use of Technology.” In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd ed., 785–812. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2014. https://doi.org/10. 1017/CBO9781107415324.004. Jones, Harry, and Brian Twiss. Forecasting Technology for Planning Decisions. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1978. https://books.google.com.my/books? id=QbaxCwAAQBAJ.

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

57

Kahramanoğlu, Recep. “Analysis of Changes in the Affective Characteristics and Communicational Skills of Prospective Teachers: Longitudinal Study.” International Journal of Progressive Education 14, no. 6 (2018): 177–99. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.179.14. Krathwohl, David, Benjamin Bloom, and Bertram Masia. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1964. Lee, and Alfred Markey. A Study of Learners’ Perceptions of Online Intercultural Exchange through Web 2.0 Technologies. ReCALL 26, no. 3 (2014): 281–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000111. Leng, Chin, Saedah Siraj, Zahra Naimie, Nabeel Abedalaziz, Dorothy DeWitt, and Ghazali Darulsalam. “Delphi Technique.” In Designa and Developmental Research: Emergent Trensds in Educational Research, edited by Saedah Siraj, Norlidah Alias, Dorothy DeWitt, and Zahara Hussin, 71–84. Pearson Malaysia, 2013. Lev, Vygotsky. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Li, Mimi, and Wei Zhu. “Good or Bad Collaborative Wiki Writing: Exploring Links between Group Interactions and Writing Products.” Journal of Second Language Writing 35 (2017): 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw. 2017.01.003. Liu, Chen, Pin Wang, and Shu Tai. “An Analysis of Student Engagement Patterns in Language Learning Facilitated by Web 2.0 Technologies.” ReCALL FirstView, no. February (2016): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S095834401600001X. Makokotlela, Matlala. “An E-Portfolio as an Assessment Strategy in an Open Distance Learning Context.” International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education 16, no. 4 (2020): 122–34. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2020100109. Manakandan, Sujith Kumar, Rosnah Ismai, Mohd Ridhuan Mohd Jamil, and Priya Ragunath. “Pesticide Applicators Questionnaire Content Validation: A Fuzzy Delphi Method.” Medical Journal of Malaysia 72, no. 4 (2017): 228–35. Marhan, Ana. “Connectivism: Concepts and Principles for Emerging Learning Networks.” In The 1st International Conference on Virtual Learning, 209– 216. Bucharest, 2006. Mehta, Kosha, Isabelle Miletich, and Michael Detyna. “Content-Specific Differences in Padlet Perception for Collaborative Learning amongst Undergraduate Students.” Research in Learning Technology 29, no. 1063519 (2021): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2551. Merrill, David. “First Principles of Instruction: A Synthesis.” In Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, edited by R. A. Reiser and J. V.

58

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

Dempsey, 2nd ed., 62–71. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2007. Merrill, David. First Principles of Instruction: Identifying and Designing Effective, Efficient, and Engaging Instruction. Hoboken, NJ: Pfeiffer (John Wiley & Sons). 2013. Merrill, David. “First Principles of Instruction.” Educational Technology Research and Development 50, no. 3 (2002): 43–60. Moryl, Rebecca L. “Pod Learning: Student Groups Create Podcasts to Achieve Economics Learning Goals.” The Journal of Economic Education 47, no. 1 (2016): 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2015.1106363. Mpungose, Cedric Bheki. “Are Social Media Sites a Platform for Formal or Informal Learning? Students’ Experiences in Institutions of Higher Education.” International Journal of Higher Education 9, no. 5 (2020): 300– 311. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n5p300. Mustapha, Ramlan, and Ghazali Darulsalam. Aplikasi Kaedah Fuzzy Delphi Dalam Penyelidikan Sains Sosial. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Universiti Malaya Press, 2018. [Application of the Delphi Fuzzy Method in Social Science Research.] Ni, Yujing, De Zhou, Jinfa Cai, Xiaoqing Li, Qiong Li, and Iris Sun. “Improving Cognitive and Affective Learning Outcomes of Students through Mathematics Instructional Tasks of High Cognitive Demand.” Journal of Educational Research 111, no. 6 (2018): 704–19. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00220671.2017.1402748. Novakovich. “Fostering Critical Thinking and Reflection through Blog-Mediated Peer Feedback.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 32, no. 1 (2016): 16– 30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12114. Ntshwarang, Poloko, Tumani Malinga, and Nonofo Sedimo. “ELearning Tools at the University of Botswana: Relevance and Use Under COVID-19 Crisis.” Higher Education for the Future 8, no. 1 (2021): 142–54. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2347631120986281. Orooji, Fatemeh, and Fattaneh Taghiyareh. “Enhancing Students’ Knowledge Building through Utilising Social Interactions in an Online Learning Environment.” New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 24, no. 4 (2018): 307–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2019.1568588. Özçinar, Hüseyin. “Scaffolding Computer-Mediated Discussion to Enhance Moral Reasoning and Argumentation Quality in Pre-Service Teachers.” Journal of Moral Education 7240, no. September (2015): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1043875. Palmer, David. “A Motivational View of Constructivist-Informed Teaching.” International Journal of Science Education 27, no. 15 (2005): 1853–1881.

Developing a Framework for Online Collaborative Learning …

59

Putman, Michael, Chuang Wang, Bob Rickelman, Antony Crossley, and Waldemar Mittag. “Comparing German and American Students’ Cognitive Strategies and Affective Attributes toward Online Inquiry.” Education and Information Technologies 25, no. 4 (2020): 3357–82. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10639-019-10066-6. Rahimi, Ebrahim, Jan van den Berg, and Wim Veen. “Facilitating Student-Driven Constructing of Learning Environments Using Web 2.0 Personal Learning Environments.” Computers & Education 81 (2015): 235–46. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012. Sadaf, Ayesha, Timothy Newby, and Peggy Ertmer. “An Investigation of the Factors That Influence Preservice Teachers’ Intentions and Integration of Web 2.0 Tools.” Educational Technology Research and Development 64, no. 1 (2016): 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9410-9. Saido, Saedah Siraj, Dorothy DeWitt, and Al-Amedy. “Development of an Instructional Model for Higher Order Thinking in Science among Secondary School Students: A Fuzzy Delphi Approach.” International Journal of Science Education 40, no. 8 (2018): 847–66. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09500693.2018.1452307. Sakka, Samah Mohammed Fahim El. “Explicit Affective Strategy Instruction to Develop Speaking Performance of Egyptian EFL University Students.” English Language Teaching 12, no. 4 (2019): 85. https://doi.org/10. 5539/elt.v12n4p85. Sitzmann, Traci. “Self-Assessment of Knowledge: A Cognitive Learning or Affective Measure?” Academy of Management Learning & Education 9, no. 2 (July 16, 2010): 169–91. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25682447. Slepcevic-Zach, Peter, and Michaela Stock. “EPortfolio as a Tool for Reflection and Self-Reflection.” Reflective Practice 19, no. 3 (2018): 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1437399. Smith, Patricial, and Tillman Ragan. Instructional Design. Wiley/Jossey-Bass Education. Wiley, 2005. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=_cAkAA AAQBAJ. Snelson, Chareen, and Patt Bowers. “Using YouTube Videos to Engage the Affective Domain in E-Learning.” Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education 3 (2009): 1481–85. So, Hyo-Jeong, and Thomas A Brush. “Student Perceptions of Collaborative Learning, Social Presence and Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment: Relationships and Critical Factors.” Comput. Educ. 51, no. 1 (2008): 318–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009. Spector, Michael. Foundations of Educational Technology: Integrative Approaches and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group., 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01347_11.x.

60

Vinothini Vasodavan, Dorothy DeWitt and Norlidah Alias

Sulaiman, Hidayatul, Rosnah Ismail, Hanizah Yusoff, Norziela Anuar, Jamil Mohd, and Faiz Daud. “Validation of Occupational Zoonotic Disease Questionnaire Using Fuzzy Delphi Method.” Journal of Agromedicine 25, no. 2 (2020): 166–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2019.1666763. Sun, Zhong, Chin Lin, Minhua Wu, Jianshe Zhou, and Liming Luo. “A Tale of Two Communication Tools: Discussion-Forum and Mobile InstantMessaging Apps in Collaborative Learning.” British Journal of Educational Technology 49, no. 2 (2018): 248–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12571. Taneri, Pervin. “The Viewpoints of Instructors about the Effects of Teacher Education Programs on Prospective Teachers’ Affective Characteristics.” Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 70 (2017): 105–20. Tsai, Hao, An Lee, Huang Lee, Chien Chen, and Yu Liu. “An Application of the Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP on the Discussion of Training Indicators for the Regional Competition, Taiwan National Skills Competition, in the Trade of Joinery.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 12, no. 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104290. Vasodavan, Vinothini, Dorothy Dewitt, and Norlidah Alias. “Framework for Developing Intellectual Skills Using Collaborative Learning Tools: The Experts’ Consensus.” Journal of Nusantara Studies 6, no. 1 (2021): 284–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp284-308. Walls, Stephen, John Kucsera, Joshua Walker, Taylor Acee, Nate McVaugh, and Daniel Robinson. “Podcasting in Education: Are Students as Ready and Eager as We Think They Are?” Computers and Education 54, no. 2 (2010): 371– 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.018. Wu, Hung, Hung Wu, I-Shuo Chen, and Hui Chen. “Exploring the Critical Influential Factors of Creativity for College Students: A Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Approach.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 11 (2014): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.09.004. Xie, Kui. “What Do the Numbers Say? The Influence of Motivation and Peer Feedback on Students’ Behaviour in Online Discussions.” British Journal of Educational Technology 44, no. 2 (2013): 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8535.2012.01291.x. Yang, Ya Ting, Jeffrey Gamble, and Shiun Tang. “Voice over Instant Messaging as a Tool for Enhancing the Oral Proficiency and Motivation of English-asa-Foreign-Language Learners.” British Journal of Educational Technology 43, no. 3 (2012): 448–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01204.x. Zion, Michal, Idit Adler, and Zemira Mevarech. “The Effect of Individual and Social Metacognitive Support on Students’ Metacognitive Performances in an Online Discussion.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 52, no. 1 (2015): 50–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633114568855.

Chapter 4

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online Teaching and Learning Selvakumar Selvarajan1, Selvamalar Selvarajan2,* and Agelyia Murugan3 1SMK

Mengkuang, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia Tuanku Sultanah Bahiyah, Kedah, Malaysia 3AIMST University Malaysia & University Science Malaysia 2Politeknik

Abstract With the current demand for online teaching and learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Digital Storytelling (DST) has arisen as a practical tool that keeps both teachers and students positively and actively engaged in the teaching and learning process. DST is effective in enhancing students’ literacy, communication skills and, most notably, thinking skills. The integration of thinking skills and DST is essential in the teaching and learning process to activate students’ higher-order thinking skills. This chapter aims to serve as a helpful guide, especially for teachers, to apply DST in teaching and learning by understanding its approaches, strategies, and techniques. A summary of selected studies is presented in this chapter to show how DST is utilized globally in various educational settings. In addition, a 12-step process is introduced to guide teachers’ adoption of the DST project as a classroom activity with their students. This process outlines the analysis, design, development, *

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

In: E-Learning Editors: Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man ISBN: 978-1-68507-604-7 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

62

implementation, and evaluation phases. With DST, students are allowed to think and apply their knowledge and skills to a new learning context. The implication of this paper is to tap into and revitalize students’ creative thought process and ‘thinking outside the box’ capability, which will enable them to devise new ways to carry out tasks and solve problems in challenging times.

Keywords: digital storytelling (DST), thinking skills, teaching and learning, higher-order thinking skills, classroom activities

1. Introduction Stories are evergreen favorites of the past, the present, and most certainly, the future. Every incident in life is a story. It could be a narrative, either actual or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the listener or reader. When any incidents or events occur, we inevitably create a story to express and share our experiences and thoughts. Storytelling has transformed into a different mode of delivery with the emergence of multimedia tools. A story that is created and told with the integration of media tools is called Digital Storytelling (DST). According to Robin (2008), DST is a well-positioned technology application to take advantage of user-contributed content. In education, it helps teachers overcome obstacles related to using technology productively in their classrooms. Unsurprisingly, DST has burgeoned in classrooms due to its positive outcomes (Al-Amri 2020) that involve experiential learning, engagement, and reflection (Hamilton et al. 2019). It combines the art of telling stories with a mixture of digital media, including text, pictures, recorded audio narration, music, and video (Robin, 2016). For example, DST can take the form of a short video that has photographs or images, music, and a personal narrative (Sitter et al., 2020). The script and the storyboard are the two crucial aspects of DST. Once the purpose of a story is identified, the script needs to be prepared. Here, the challenge is to brainstorm ideas to produce a good script. Learners must think creatively and critically to ensure the story attracts the audience and effectively delivers the intended message. There are seven elements of DST, which have been modified to support educational purposes and outcomes (see Table 1.1).

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

63

Table 1. Comparison of DST elements between general and educational contexts Center of Digital Storytelling’s Seven Elements of Digital Storytelling (Robin 2006; 2008; 2011; O’Byrne et al. 2018) (Source: https://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/page.cfm?id =27&cid=27&sublinkid=31) No General Education 1. Point of view The Overall Purpose of the Story What is the main point of the story and what is the perspective of the author? 2. A dramatic question The Narrator’s Point of View A key question that keeps the viewer’s attention and will be answered by the end of the story. 3. Emotional content A Dramatic Question or Questions Serious issues that come alive in a personal and powerful way and connects the story to the audience. 4. The gift of your voice The Choice of Content A way to personalize the story to help the audience understand the context. 5. The power of the soundtrack Clarity of Voice Music or other sounds that support and embellish the storyline. 6. Economy Pacing of the Narrative Using just enough content to tell the story without overloading the viewer. 7. Pacing Use of a Meaningful Audio The rhythm of the story and how Soundtrack slowly or quickly it progresses. 8. Quality of the Images, Video and other Multimedia Elements 9. Economy of the Story Detail 10. Good Grammar and Language Usage

Juhji and Nuangchalerm (2020) mentioned that teachers need to create learning-oriented actions to align what students have learned with the actual situation in society, By using DST in classrooms, teachers can build not only language skills but also other skills required for students’ professional development. According to Robin (2008), the integration of storytelling with technologies such computers, digital media software, audio capture devices,

64

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

and image capture devices develops students’ 21st century skills. DST does not only engage students in the learning process but also enhances their media literacy. Thus, students should be taught to benefit from the media-oriented environment in classrooms today.

2. Digital Storytelling as an Instructional Tool With its growing importance in the digital age and the ‘new norm’ era, integrating DST in teaching and learning undoubtedly benefits students and engages them in the learning process (Yilmaz and Siğirtmaç 2020). The integration of three knowledge bases forms the core of the technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler et al. 2013), which can be used as a guideline in designing lessons and meaningful activities that provide a great learning experience. In this regard, DST is an effective instructional tool as it allows learners to demonstrate their TPACK knowledge at every level of the learning process. DST can be used in various aspects and at different levels to develop learners’ skills. Demirbas and Sahin (2020) found that DST encourages learners to develop creativity and critical skills by giving them opportunities to learn by doing and exploring actively. This suggests that DST awards more attention to student-centered learning, where learners become independent and take responsibility for their education. It has emerged as a powerful tool in teaching and learning by providing various direct and indirect benefits (Kordaki and Kakavas, 2017); therefore, DST should be utilized in English language teaching to build thinking skills among learners (Mohamed and Sabry, 2014). When learners are driven to engage in learning with multimedia tools, they must think critically to achieve expected outcomes. Yalcin and Ozturk (2019) found that students enjoy the DST process and consider it an opportunity to develop 21st century skills. When students can participate in the multiple steps of designing, creating, and presenting their own digital stories, they are able to fully complement their literacy skills. Figure 1 depicts the integration of DST in teaching and learning to empower students’ skills.

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

65

(Adapted from Bernard R Robin, 2006) Figure 1. Developing 21st century Skills with Digital Storytelling.

2.1. Benefits of Digital Storytelling DST is a narrative that combines video, photography, sound, text, music, and various other digital features. Apart from teachers’ role as facilitators, students can take the authority to become the narrative writer, director, editor, music choreographer, and actor when creating their DST storyboard. There are many critical benefits for students when using technology tools to develop their DST tasks. For one, it encourages students’ hidden artistic talents, such as script writing, directing, acting, singing, digital drawing, taking photos, and playing musical instruments. It simultaneously motivates them to become more interested in creating knowledge content. Students also learn to communicate better by using intended language skills through their DST content. Specifically, their articulation, delivery, pronunciation, accuracy, and fluency can be improved when they practice, record, pause, listen, and re-record their stories when performing the DST task. This environment gives a chance for students, especially passive students, to learn better, as some may encounter anxiety, pressure, and lack of confidence when asked to speak or present in front of others in the face-to-face classroom. DST activities benefit teachers in addition to students, as the former are able to learn new things by exploring interactive online tools to create a DST

66

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

storyboard. Simple tools like Vimeo, iMovie, Adobe Photoshop, and Filmora can be easily explored as they come with tutorial videos for beginners. According to Bloom’s taxonomy, teachers need to facilitate students by imparting knowledge on how to remember and understand the usage of these tools to produce digital stories. Teachers can further introduce students to selected devices and navigate them by doing hands-on digital narration as a class activity. From that point, students can take charge by applying what they have learned and creating their own unique digital story, actions which are categorized as higher-order thinking. Moreover, DST can boost their confidence level and stimulate their critical thinking skills. It is also believed that DST activities can create a positive learning environment among students when they exchange knowledge and collaborate. Working together with peers promotes the development of self-awareness, responsibility, empathy, trust, and respect. These moral values are instilled intrinsically when students cooperate and support each other to deliver a good outcome in their given task. In this era of education, learning from and among peers is known as ‘peer-gogy’ or peer-based learning. It is becoming essential in today’s learning environment as it facilitates students’ organizing skills, planning skills, collaborative knowledge, analytical thinking, and feedback and evaluation of their learning. When students work with their peers, they can pool all the group members’ knowledge and utilize it to make their learning more exciting and creative. Moreover, it helps students’ personal growth and preparation for the professional world. The peer-gogy method should thus be taught to students’ as it brings out their expertise. A list and summary of global studies related to DST implementation in the classroom is presented below. These studies offer evidence on the effectiveness of DST and guide teachers on how DST activities can be employed in various fields of study.

2.1.1. Study 1 Title: Enhancing 21st-century learning skills via digital storytelling: Voices of Malaysian teachers and undergraduates (2014) This study was conducted by researchers in the English for Academic Purpose (EAP) course in a higher education institution. It aimed to enhance students’ English language skills, digital literacy, and cooperative learning through group work. It was found that both teachers and students favor DST in this course as students could work better in groups and widen their knowledge in other skills such as ICT, communication, and creative thinking.

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

67

2.1.2. Study 2 Title: The Effect of Using Digital Storytelling on Developing Active Listening and Creative Thinking Skills (2021) This study aimed to investigate 200 Year 3 Arabic language class pupils’ active listening skills and creative thinking skills, including fluency, flexibility, and originality, by exposing them to DST activities. The findings of this study strongly suggest that DST generates positive results among students apart from boosting their enthusiasm for learning and increasing their interaction with their peers. Some of the recommendations made in this study were to investigate how DST can effectively develop linguistic skills, social skills, and ethical values in the contexts of early childhood education, teacher training programs, and Arabic language teaching. 2.1.3. Study 3 Title: Value-Based Digital Storytelling Learning Media to Foster Student Character (2021) This study was conducted at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia using Borg and Gall’s (2003) Research and Development model, which examines value-based DST media in social studies learning. This value-based research was based on students’ engagement, their reflection of deep learning, project-based learning, technology integration in the classroom, and students’ attitudes and character. This study also imparted students with digital literacy skills that enable them to communicate, discuss, and gather information. Other skills gained were technology literacy, global literacy, visual literacy, and information literacy. 2.1.4. Study 4 The Impact of Digital Storytelling on the Academic Achievement and Democratic Attitude of Primary School Students (2021) The purpose of this study was to find out whether DST impacts students’ academic achievement and democratic attitude. This study was conducted among fourth grade primary school students in Turkey using the Academic Achievement Test for Human Rights, Citizenship and Democracy course and the Democratic Attitude Scale. This mixed-method research revealed that DST has a significant impact on students’ academic achievement and democratic attitude. Moreover, it was found that DST gives students an avenue to become constructivist learners during the knowledge acquisition process, especially in transforming abstract knowledge into concrete knowledge.

68

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

2.1.5. Study 5 Title: Digital Storytelling as a Creative Teaching Method in Promoting Secondary School Students’ Writing Skills (2019) This study sought to determine the significant differences in students’ writing skills after using the DST tool and the specific elements affected their writing skills. The researcher used ‘Storybird’ as the DST tool in her Form One classroom in a Malaysian secondary school. Although it was concluded that this tool played an essential role in improving students’ writing skills, more specific studies should be carried out to investigate students’ grammar and vocabulary abilities, as they indirectly improve students’ writing skills. 2.1.6. Study 6 Title: Digital Storytelling: Engaging Young People to Communicate for Digital Media Literacy (2020) This study, which adopted an exploratory approach, was interested in using DST to explore 191 students’ competencies in using digital media as a tool for civic engagement. The research was an effort to advance digital media literacy in the school setting with a focus on students’ competencies in five areas: information, communication, content creation, safety, and problem-solving. The study revealed that many participants could gather appropriate information using digital tools and present a thoughtful understanding of the given topics. The conversations in focus group discussions opened pathways for reflective thinking and practice, making this project a huge success. 2.1.7. Study 7 Title: The Effect of Digital Storytelling Method in Science Education on Academic Achievement, Attitudes, and Motivations of Secondary School Students (2020) The study was carried out among sixth grade secondary school students to identify the effect of the DST method on secondary school students’ academic success, attitude, and motivation towards science lessons. It also determined students’ views on the use of digital stories in the science lesson. It was found that the practice of DST in the students’ learning process and the use of technology has a tremendous amount of positive effects. 2.1.8. Study 8 Title: Digital Storytelling Implementation for Enhancing Students’ Speaking Ability in Various Text Genres (2019)

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

69

This action research study proved the significant influence of DST methods on senior high school students’ speaking ability in various text genres. The researchers suggested that DST could be a pedagogical tool for teachers in constructing lesson plans. Moreover, it drives students to become more critical, creative, and confident.

2.1.9. Study 9 Title: Pedagogic Effectiveness of Digital Storytelling in Improving Speaking Skills of Saudi EFL learners (2019) This study proved that combining the DST strategy with traditional ways of teaching adult EFL learners in a particular university in Saudi Arabia motivated the learners to enrich themselves with new vocabularies, learn how to use proper grammar, work cooperatively, and improve their speaking skills by mastering stress, tone, and intonation. The researcher found that DST activities help change students’ pessimistic views about their inability to communicate in English. 2.1.10. Study 10 Title: The Effects of Digital Storytelling on the Creative Writing Skills of Literature Students Based on their Gender This study aimed to analyze the gender-specific effects of DST on creative writing skills in the English Language and Literature department of a Turkish foundation university. Both female and male students preferred story completion to develop their creative writing skills with new insights and were satisfied with their stories. The study found that writing a different end to a tale unleashed participants’ creativity and made them feel like trustworthy writers. Despite struggles to use technology, the participants enjoyed the fun digital writing and storytelling process and considered it an opportunity to develop 21st century skills.

3. Digital Storytelling in Amplifying Thinking Skills Thinking skills involve activities that enable us to think and create new ideas, generate and process information, and make plans, connections, and decisions. Thinking skills are essential for everyone as they help individuals be more organized, focused, and flexible, in addition to having good memory skills and self-control. In the DST scenario, thinking skills that teachers need to stimulate among their students are higher-order thinking skills as well as six key learning muscles that focus on imagining, planning, and problem-solving.

70

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

3.1. Higher-Order Thinking Skills Benjamin Bloom created Bloom’s Taxonomy in 1956, which has been prevalent in the education scenario till now. The original Bloom’s taxonomy was used as a measurement tool and was unfamiliar in the education field. Krathwohl and Anderson, in Tiew and Melissa (2019), revised the taxonomy in 2001 into knowledge dimensions and cognitive process dimensions which incorporate factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. This revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy has since then been used to develop examination questions and class activities that comprise lower-order thinking and higher-order thinking skills in the 21st century teaching and learning environment. Lower-order thinking skills are Remembering and Understanding, both of which require an individual to recall, memorize, explain, and discuss the ideas or concepts learned. This is followed by higher-order thinking skills, which are Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. The Applying skill requires adaptation of knowledge in execution and implementation, whereas Analyzing skills help differentiate and draw connections among ideas. Evaluating skills and Creating skills are the highest level in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy; they encourage justification, decision-making, and the development and production of new work and outcomes.

3.2. Essential Dimensions of Critical Thinking in Education Tiew and Melissa (2019) stated that “critical thinking has been regarded as one of the most sought-after skills in contemporary industries and societies” (p. 3). It has been suggested that the learning process of critical thinking is important in building students’ career pathways. The six important dimensions of critical thinking, or learning muscles, for education purposes are questioning, active listening, noticing, imagining, planning, and problemsolving. One of the essential learning muscles is questioning, which is the primary key to gaining information through communication. Apart from that, questions can be to clarify points, test knowledge, or encourage further thought. Active listening signifies how well one listens to obtain information, understand, and respond. There are five crucial elements in active listening: paying attention, expressing that you hear, providing feedback, deferring judgments, and responding appropriately.

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

71

On the other hand, noticing requires seeing and observing situations from thoughts which lead to feelings. Imagining is a unique human quality that allows a person to explore and create ideas not present in reality through various cognitive processes. Planning in thinking skills is a continuous process that helps a person manage functions, future planning, and decision-making. Problem-solving in every stage of implementation is as equally important as other learning muscles. It devises new ways to improve quality, restructure, and brainstorm alternative methods to execute ideas.

3.3. Phases in Digital Storytelling Teaching Phases in the DST teaching method constitute one of the crucial aspects in the education process. Teachers need to understand the different stages in teaching as the stages form the structure of imparting knowledge and skills to students. As for DST, outlining the phases is essential in utilizing this teaching method to guide students in their classroom activities. There are three main teaching phases: Pre-Teaching, While-Teaching, and Post-Teaching. In the DST method, Pre-Teaching is the active phase of learning, While-Teaching is the interactive phase of learning, and Post-Teaching is the grading phase of learning, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Phases in the Teaching of Digital Storytelling.

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

72

Pre-Teaching is the initial stage of introducing the DST method in classroom teaching. It is outlined by the goals and objectives of the lesson to be carried out. Designing the lesson plan is essential to select, organize, and decide on the content and tools used in DST activities.

3.4. Introduction Phase   

Introducing the aims and objectives of DST activities. Introducing the tools that can be used in creating DST Explaining how the content of the subject taught in the classroom can be created through DST.

3.5. Analysis Phase   

The teacher facilitates the students in identifying the themes or topics of the content. Gathering information for the content and script. Identifying the suitable DST tool according to the content that both teacher and students have decided.

While-Teaching is the interactive phase of learning in which many activities are implemented. The designed lesson plans are expected to deliver specific learning experiences where students collaborate and actively participate in the learning process. Deployment of strategies, reinforcement, and feedback happens in this stage.

3.6. Design Phase   

Students collaborate with their peers in discussing and creating the storyboard. Organizing the content of the storyboard and scriptwriting. Planning and designing appropriate images, audios, and videos to be integrated into the DST storyboard.

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

73

3.7. Development Phase   

The teacher facilitates the students in the storyboard progress using the selected tools. Quality checking and editing process. Recording DST content in intended formats.

3.8. Implementation Phase 



Students are encouraged to supplement other supporting educational materials such as flyers, handouts, brochures, and others to support their DST tasks. Uploading process for sharing in the virtual class, which both the teacher and the students can view.

The Post-Teaching phase in the DST activity focuses on grading and giving feedback to the students. This phase re-evaluates whether the aims and desired objectives of the lesson were achieved.

3.9. Evaluation Phase  

Grading students’ work through their DST presentation, either virtually or face-to-face in the classroom. The teacher gives feedback to the students in this phase for improvement and justification purposes.

4. Tools for Digital Storytelling Activities In this era of technology, particularly during the new norm due to the COVID19 pandemic, teachers and learners are exposed to many interactive and exciting tools to engage in DST activities.

74

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

While there are plenty of choices, it is essential to ensure the accessibility and user-friendliness of online tools to engage students in the learning process. Figure 3 shows the variety of tools for DST that are available online for free.

Figure 3. Online tools for Digital Storytelling activities.

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

75

5. Guidelines for Teachers DST may seem to be very exciting and easy to teach to students. Still, some guidelines are to be followed to produce better outcomes. Using the 12-step guideline illustrated in Figure 4, teachers can plan, organize, and execute DST activities for students. Below is an example of the 12-step process we facilitated among students at a selected higher education institution in northern Malaysia. They were undergraduates from programs like business and arts, pharmacy, health sciences, engineering, medicine, and dentistry. Figure 5 and Figure 6 are screenshots of students’ DST activities that were done in the classroom, accessed from the teacher’s Instagram page and the Edmodo platform.

Figure 4. The 12-Step Guideline for Teachers.

76

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

Figure 5. Screenshots of Students’ Digital Storytelling Activities.

6. Assessment Rubric for Digital Storytelling Based on the guidelines provided by the University of Chicago’s Logan Center of Digital Storytelling, we designed a sample rubric (see Figure 7) that can be used to assess students based on these categories: coverage of topics, diagrams and illustrations, organization of information, usage of online tools, and methods and mechanics. The students’ DST assignment can be evaluated

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

77

based on the categories mentioned on the scales given, such as Weak (1), Fair (2), Satisfactory (3), Good (4), and Excellent (5).

Figure 1.6 Screenshots of Students’ Digital Storytelling Activities

Figure 6. Screenshots of Students’ Digital Storytelling Activities.

The usage of online tools/methods for the presentation is not attractive and has nothing to do with the poster presentation. Many grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

Usage of Online Tools/ Methods

Mechanics

Figure 7. Digital Storyboard Rubrics.

There is no sequence of information and the presentation makes little sense.

Organization of Information

The usage of online tools/methods for the presentation is not attractive and is partially connected to the poster presentation. Partial grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

The diagrams and illustrations are not accurate OR do not add to the reader’s understanding of the topic.

2 (Fair) Details on the poster relate to the topic but are too general or incomplete. The audience needs more information to understand. Only some/limited diagrams and illustrations are accurate and add less to the reader’s understanding of the topic. The information appears to be disorganized and inconsistent.

1 (Weak) Details on the poster have little or nothing to do with the main topic of the poster.

Diagrams and Illustrations

Coverage of Topics

CATEGORY

Some grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

The information is organized but the title, headings and subheadings are missing and do not help the reader understand. The usage of online tools/methods for the presentation is satisfactory.

The diagrams and illustrations are accurate and sometimes add to the reader’s understanding of the topic satisfactorily.

3 (Satisfactory) Details on the poster include important information but the audience may need more information to understand fully.

Almost no grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

The usage of online tools/methods for the presentation is interesting and good.

The information is organized adequately with a clear title, headings, and subheadings.

Most of the diagrams and illustrations are neat, accurate and add to the reader’s understanding of the topic.

4 (Good) Most of the details on the poster capture the important information about the topic and the audience understands.

No grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.

The usage of online tools/ methods for the presentation is interesting and excellent.

5 (Excellent) Overall, all the details on the poster capture the important information about the topic and the audience understands excellently. Overall, all the diagrams and illustrations are very neat, accurate and add to the reader’s understanding of the topic. The information is very organized and sequenced with a clear title, headings, and subheadings.

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

79

7. Challenges for Teachers and Students DST activities are challenging for both teachers and students in certain aspects. Designing creative and exciting lessons is always difficult but worthwhile, as the efforts are paid off when teachers witness students’ engagement and outcomes in the course. It is of utmost importance for teachers to explore all the relevant tools suggested above to determine the most appropriate and suitable ones that match the needs of the teaching and learning context. The inability of teachers to design practical learning activities could result in a lack of interest among students to learn (Lestari et al. 2018). Teachers are therefore advised to use DST as a technique to improve students’ skills, and not just as a completion task (Yalcin and Ozturk 2019). On the other hand, students may face challenges adapting to new learning tools at the beginning of DST activities. A lack of exposure or knowledge at the initial stage may limit their participation. This can be resolved gradually with constant attention and support from teachers. Students are challenged to connect their existing knowledge with digital tools and inputs to experience new learning. Here, both teachers and students undertake the journey together to be amazed by the wonders of DST.

Conclusion Thinking skills are defined as speaking in the heart by Plato. This competence should be developed continuously and consciously among students through various activities. Students are engaged in the learning process by focusing, gathering information, remembering, organizing, analyzing, generating, integrating, and evaluating. By changing techniques and teaching strategies, teachers can help students reduce and overcome their problems in learning. It is hoped that educators will embrace DST activities in teaching and learning to achieve excellent outcomes and build 21st century skills among learners.

References Al-Amri, Haifa Mohammed. (2020). “Al-Amri.” Arab World English Journal, 11 (1), 270–81.

80

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

Aljaraideh, Yousef Ahmad. (2020). “The impact of digital storytelling on academic achievement of sixth grade students in English language and their motivation towards it in Jordan.” Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21, no. 1, 73-82. Bechter, Clemens. & Fredric W. Swierczek. (2017). “Digital storytelling in a flipped classroom for effective learning.” Education Sciences, 7, no. 2, 61. Bilen, Kadir, Mustafa Hoştut. & Mustafa Büyükcengiz. (2019). “The effect of digital storytelling method in science education on academic achievement, attitudes, and motivations of secondary school students.” Pedagogical Research, 4, no. 3, 1-12. Chen, Hsiu-Ling. & Yun-Chi Chuang. (2021). “The effects of digital storytelling games on high school students critical thinking skills.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, no. 1, 265-274. Dogan, B. (2021). The Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling Website University of Houston College of Education, (2021). http://digitalstory telling.coe.uh.edu. Goldingay, Sophie, Sarah Epstein. & Darci Taylor. (2018). “Simulating social work practice online with digital storytelling: challenges and opportunities.” Social work education, 37, no. 6, 790-803. Hamilton, Ali, Donald Rubin, Michael Tarrant. & Mikkel Gleason. (2019). “Digital Storytelling as a Tool for Fostering Reflection.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 31 (1), 59–73. https://doi.org/ 10.36366/frontiers.v31i1.443. Hamilton, Rubin, Tarrant. & Gleason. (2019). Digital Storytelling as a Tool for Fostering Reflection. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 31(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v31i1.443. Jantakoon, Thada, Panita Wannapiroon. & Prachyanun Nilsook. (2019). “Virtual immersive learning environments (VILEs) based on digital storytelling to enhance deeper learning for undergraduate students.” Higher Education Studies, 9, no. 1, 144-150. Juhji, Juhji. & Prasart Nuangchalerm. (2020). “Interaction between science process skills and scientific attitudes of students towards technological pedagogical content knowledge.” Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8, no. 1, 1-16. Koehler, Matthew J., Punya Mishra. & William Cain. (2013). “What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?” Journal of Education, 193 (3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002205741319300303. Koehler, Matthew J., Punya Mishra. & William Cain. (2013). “What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?.” Journal of education, 193, no. 3, 13-19.

The Interactive Digital Storytelling Assignment in Online …

81

Koehler, Matthew. & Punya Mishra. (2009). “What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?.” Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9, no. 1, 60-70. Kordaki, Maria. & Panagiotis Kakavas. (2017). “Digital storytelling as an effective framework for the development of computational thinking skills.” EDULEARN2017, 3-5. Lestari, Dini Ayu, Siswandari Siswandari. & C. Dyah S. Indrawati. (2018). Digital Storytelling and Think-Pair-Share to Improve the Ability of Critical Thinking. Mirza, Hanadi S. (2020). “Improving University Students’ English Proficiency with Digital Storytelling.” International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7, no. 1, 84-94. Mohamed Salama Eissa, Hayam. (2019). “Pedagogic effectiveness of digital storytelling in improving speaking skills of Saudi EFL learners.” Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), Volume 10. Mohamed, Eman. (2014). “A.-H., and Hasnaa Sabry, A.-HAH” Using digital storytelling and weblogs instruction to enhance EFL narrative writing and critical thinking skills among EFL majors at faculty of education.” International Research Journal, 5, no. 1, 8-41. O’Byrne, William Ian, Katherine Houser, Ryan Stone. & Mary White. (2018). “Digital storytelling in early childhood: Student illustrations shaping social interactions.” Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1800. Pandian, Ambigapathy, Shanthi Balraj Baboo. & Lim Jing Yi. (2020). “Digital storytelling: Engaging young people to communicate for digital media literacy.” Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36, no. 1. Robin, Bernard R. (2008). “Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom.” Theory into practice, 47, no. 3, 220-228. Robin, Bernard R. (2016). “The power of digital storytelling to support teaching and learning.” Digital Education Review, 30, 17-29. Saripudin, Didin, Kokom Komalasari. & Diana Noor Anggraini. (2021). “ValueBased Digital Storytelling Learning Media to Foster Student Character.” International Journal of Instruction, 14, no. 2, 369-384. Saritepeci, Mustafa. (2017). “An experimental study on the investigation of the effect of digital storytelling on reflective thinking ability at middle school level.” Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6, no. 3, 13671384. Sitter, Kathleen C., Natalie Beausoleil. & Erin McGowan. (2020): “Digital Storytelling and Validity Criteria.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920910656. Syafryadin, Haryani. & Salniwati, A. R. A. P. (2019). “Digital storytelling implementation for enhancing students’ speaking ability in various text

82

S. Selvarajan, S. Selvarajan and A. Murugan

genres.” International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 8, no. 4, 3147-3151. Tiew, C. C. & Melissa, N. L. Y. A. (2019). “The Teaching of Higher Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Malaysian Schools: Policy and Practices”. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management (MOJEM), July 2019, Volume 7, Issue 3, 1 – 18. E-ISSN:2289 -4489. Yalçın, Olgahan Bakşi. & Ebru Öztürk. (2019). “The effects of digital storytelling on the creative writing skills of literature students based on their gender.” In ICGR 2019 2nd International Conference on Gender Research, p. 59. Academic Conferences and publishing limited. Yilmaz, Melek Merve. & Ayperi Siğirtmaç. (2020). “A Material for Education Process and the Teacher: The Use of Digital Storytelling in Preschool Science Education.” Research in Science and Technological Education, 00 (00), 1– 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02635143.2020.1841148. Yilmaz. & Siğirtmaç. (2020). A material for education process and the Teacher: the use of digital storytelling in preschool science education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 00(00), 1–28. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02635143.2020.1841148.

Chapter 5

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rasch Model Analysis Mustaji1, Donnie Adams2, Bambang Sumintono2, *, Nuniek Herdyastuti3 and Dedi Kuswandi4 1Faculty

of Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia of Education, University of Malaya, Malaysia 3Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia 4Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia 2Faculty

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a sudden and dramatic disruption to all levels of education. Universities all around the world have had to transition from the traditional face-to-face learning and teaching mode to the online learning mode. Indonesian universities are no exception, as online learning through the internet has become the ‘new normal’ for both educators and students. However, little is known about students’ engagement in the online mode of instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in a developing country like Indonesia. The purpose of this non-experimental study was to investigate students’ engagement in online learning in terms of cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and behavioral engagement. A total of 1303 public university students from Java Island, Indonesia participated in the *

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

In: E-Learning Editors: Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man ISBN: 978-1-68507-604-7 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

84

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al. study. Using the Rasch model analysis, the validity and reliability of the study’s instrument was established as good. The findings of the study showed that Indonesian students face difficulties adapting to full online learning. Differential item functioning (DIF) was conducted to assess students’ engagement in the online learning mode, specifically with regard to students’ demographic factors (gender and level of study), which revealed unique outcomes. The findings of this study help educators understand students’ responses to and engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in public universities in Indonesia. This study also encourages educators to reflect on their own online teaching and learning activities during the pandemic. Implications and recommendations for future research on blended learning practices are presented.

Keywords: online learning, student engagement, Rasch model analysis, Indonesia

1. Introduction The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented worldwide phenomenon that has disrupted and devastated various fields of industry globally. In a short period of time, the pandemic brought forth the largest disturbance to education systems across the world. As reported by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO (2020), close to 1.5 billion students’ learning processes have been affected by the closure of schools and campuses following the COVID-19 pandemic. At the university level, the pandemic required a sudden change in higher education institutions’ operations, delivery of instruction, and course curricula. The drastic shift to remote teaching and learning through online platforms was thus made mandatory rather than optional in the first half of 2020. Undoubtedly, this big change has heavily impacted both lecturers and students. For lecturers, it means they do not have sufficient preparation time and cannot conduct some teaching modes, such as laboratory and field work, for many subjects. For students, they lose the enjoyment of class attendance and social interaction with classmates, with the only avenue to continue studying being the online mode. Though university students are considered to be more independent learners than primary and secondary students, the changing situation has made it difficult for them to adapt to online platforms

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

85

and tools (e.g., video conferencing), though these tools are provided by the university to maintain formal learning (Li & Lalani, 2020). The purpose of this study was to investigate the online learning engagement of public university students in Java Island, Indonesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this research focused on students’ perception of their online learning engagement in terms of cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and behavioral engagement. The study contributes to the existing literature on online learning during emergency remote teaching at the university level. It also offers a new understanding of this phenomenon in the context of a developing country. The next section of this chapter provides a literature review of online learning and its engagement at the university level. This is followed by the methodology section, which explains the Rasch model approach used to analyze the data, and a discussion of the results. Finally, the chapter concludes with the study’s implications for online learning engagement, the study’s limitations, and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review 2.1. Blended Learning in Higher Education The advancement of science and technology over the previous century has provided various opportunities for the development of educational technology, which has huge potential to improve teaching and learning activities. Fast forward to today, information technology, internet connection, and digital exchanges are fundamentally changing the landscape of knowledge transfer and human interaction, in a shift towards 21st century learning (Miller, 2018). Supported by a faster internet connection, the traditional classroom can be integrated with online interaction, rendering time and location rather irrelevant for learning at every level of education. Such integrated classroom activities are usually called blended learning, which employs the aid of technology to achieve fairness and justice in educational access (Castro, 2019; Miller, 2018). Many countries have acknowledged online learning as part of their educational policy. Examples include the Distance Learning and Online Policy by the Ministry of Higher Education Indonesia (Ristekdikti, 2016) and the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 for Higher Education (Ministry of Education, 2013), both of which specifically mention the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in higher learning institutions. Though

86

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

authors like Medina (2018) are convinced that the use of technology has a better impact on students, it should be remembered that learner-centered approaches are still important. In particular, online approaches should focus on active learning rather than solely being a repository of uploaded learning content, which mainly attempts to change mediums from hardcopy to digital files. Many authors have explored and reported on the implementation of blended learning at the post-secondary level, such as from the aspects of faculty and students’ readiness (Adams et al., 2018; Adams et al., 2021; Geng et al., 2019), impacts on teaching and learning (Cheng et al, 2019; Graham, 2013; Matheos & Cleveland-Innes, 2018; Ożadowicz, 2020), and challenges in implementation (Heilporn et al., 2021; Rasheed et al., 2020). Two studies by Adams et al. (2018; 2021) on the readiness for blended learning in Malaysian universities indicate that the changing methods of learning are not always preferred by undergraduate students, suggesting that they need substantial support from the institution and its educational ecosystem. This finding is in line with another research which reported on the challenges of blended learning, namely technology, instructor, technical support, and students’ engagement are (Maarop & Embi, 2016). Readiness for online learning is indeed highly complex and needs close attention, especially since it involves many factors beyond traditional learning which mostly depends on lecturers. In an unprecedented situation like the COVID-19 pandemic, online learning is the only available alternative. In this scenario, it is known as flipped or blended learning, which has been found to positively impact university students in spite of infrastructure and institutional challenges (Cheng et al., 2019). A recent study by Ożadowicz (2020) during the pandemic demonstrated that students’ positive learning experience can be achieved with the use of web tools in the context of online learning. Having experienced these changes, it is unlikely for the dominant traditional model of higher education learning to return to its former mode when the pandemic is over; instead, well-structured and properly designed courses on online platforms will continue to exert a bigger influence on student learning (Cheng et al., 2019; Heilporn et al., 2021).

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

87

2.2. Students’ Engagement in Online Learning In the context of formal learning at educational institutions, Fredricks et al. (2004) provided a grounded framework for student engagement. They described that student learning engagement is a complex and multi-faceted process influenced by various factors. Moreover, there are three components of students’ engagement: cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004). Adams et al. (2020) elaborated on these engagement types as follows: “Cognitive engagement is the mental process that involves students’ knowledge and skills in learning; behavioral engagement is the extent to which students demonstrate positive actions towards the institution, their social circle, the academic subject matter, and extra-curricular activities; and emotional engagement is the students’ feelings towards their teachers, institutions, and fellow peers” (p. 136). In other words, student engagement entails the basic aspects of a learning activity, i.e., cognitive, affective, and psychomotor, but under different labels. Other studies have confirmed the three elements of student engagement, suggesting that lecturers should pay close attention to all three in their teaching (Northey et al., 2015; Vibert & Shields, 2003). Having said that, at the university level, many lecturers do not take these factors into account in their teaching, believing that student engagement only refers to observable behaviors such as students’ attendance, participation via questions and comments, and frequency behaviors in class activities. Arguing against this position, some studies (see Appleton et al. 2012; Schunk & Mullen, 2012) have highlighted that students’ engagement should be embraced from cognitive and emotional aspects too, instead of only behavioral outcomes. Many other empirical findings provide useful suggestions about students’ engagement, reporting that regardless of traditional face-to-face, blended, or fully online learning, engagement leads to course satisfaction (Lane et al., 2021; Vavasseur et al., 2020) and ultimately improves students’ academic performance (Al‐Qahtani & Higgins, 2013; Bazelais & Doleck, 2018; Fisher et al. 2018; Han et al., 2020) Blended learning itself has shown promising results in terms of increasing students’ achievement. Due to its flexibility, students have been found to more easily adjust to and engage in online learning compared to other methods (Al‐ Qahtani & Higgins, 2013). Likewise, upon examining students of a firstsemester physics course, it was revealed that through blended learning, students can acquire more skills that help them understand the subject matter better (Bazelais & Doleck, 2018). One study showed that emotional

88

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

engagement is a better predictor of learning satisfaction than behavior in a blended learning situation (Lane et al., 2021), while another confirmed medical students’ learning satisfaction when they were provided videos and attendance in a content management system which involved in no traditional learning (Vavasseur et al., 2020). The above review supports that there are numerous significant findings in the literature on students’ engagement in blended and online learning in the post-secondary education setting (Al‐Qahtani & Higgins, 2013; Bazelais & Doleck, 2018; Fisher et al., 2018; Lane et al., 2021; Northey et al., 2015; Vavasseur et al., 2020). Unfortunately, little is known or understood empirically about student engagement in blended and online learning experiences in Indonesia. This is a critical issue, since the COVID-19 pandemic has made online learning no longer a choice, but a norm. Hence, this study aimed to investigate student engagement in the online mode of instruction among students from public universities located in Java Island, Indonesia. Specifically, the study sought to assess their engagement based on its three components (i.e., cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and behavioral engagement) as well as on students’ two demographic factors (i.e., gender and study level).

3. Methodology 3.1. Research Participants The current study was part of a bigger study on Indonesian students’ online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. A quantitative approach was employed in the study, according to which data was collected using a survey questionnaire. An online platform called Google Forms was utilized to distribute the survey and collect data electronically from the target respondents, namely Indonesian students. These students comprised public university students across Java Island, Indonesia, who were invited by email and social media to participate in the study. The first page of the electronic questionnaire stated that their participation would be strictly anonymous and voluntary to address ethical concerns. Thus, by completing the questionnaire, the students gave their consent. A total of 1350 students participated in the study, hailing from Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Universitas Negeri Malang, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, and Universitas

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

89

Negeri Semarang. The next step was data cleaning and validation using WINSTEPS version 3.73, a Rasch measurement model software, to detect outliers (19 responses were excluded for rating all items at maximum value) and misfit responses (28 responses were excluded for having an Outfit MNSQ index larger than 2.0) (Andrich & Marais, 2019; Bond & Fox, 2015; Widhiarso et al., 2016). As a result, 1303 responses were analyzed further in this study, which showed adequate data stability far beyond the minimum requirement. The respondents’ demographic profile is presented in Table 1. The sample of this study was dominated by female students (65%). A majority of the students were in the undergraduate program (53%), followed by those in the three-year diploma program (40%) and postgraduate program (7%). The students came from various programs and faculties; regardless, they all have had to participate in the online learning platform as it is the only available learning tool during the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.2. Instrumentation For this particular chapter, the OLEQ (Online Learning Engagement Questionnaire) instrument was used to measure Indonesian public university students’ engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire was developed in the Indonesian language. The first part solicited students’ demographic profile (gender and program), as mentioned in the above section. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of 16 items, which were divided into three dimensions that rated students’ perception of their online learning engagement: emotional engagement (five items), cognitive engagement (four items), and behavioral engagement (seven items). The fixed response options for all dimensions were the same, as they were rated on a four-point Likert rating scale as follows: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4).

3.3. Measurement Model This current study used the Rasch model as the measurement model to analyze the raw data (Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2015). Particularly, the Rasch rating scale model (RSM) developed by David Andrich (Andrich & Marais, 2019) was used because the data was polytomous in form. Further, students’ engagement in online learning involves latent traits which refer to their

90

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

opinions, perceptions, and attitudes towards the activity, which calls for a precise and accurate measurement model; in this regard, the RSM is the appropriate tool (Boone et al., 2020). To commence, the WINSTEPS software was employed to mathematically transform the raw data from the respondents (Likert rating or ordinal type) into logit (logarithm odd unit) form via probability and the logarithm function, thus creating an equal interval scale (Linacre, 2013). There were two types of logit data produced from the software: (i) item logit to report instrument quality and item calibration, and (ii) person logit to report respondents’ level of engagement (Bond & Fox, 2015; Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2014). Results on the instrument’s quality, validity, and reliability are shown in Table 2. The table exhibits that the data gathered fit the model, as the Outfit mean square values for both person and item were close to one (an ideal value). This was further confirmed by the significance of the Chi-square test. The reliability indices for person (0.90) and item (0.99), as well as the Cronbach’s alpha value (0.93), indicated that the consistency of the person and item responses was ‘very good’ (Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2014). Separation indices, which specify the number of respondent groups in the data (2.92) and the spread of item difficulty level in the instrument (12.58), were more than three (minimum acceptable value), supporting the fact that the data and instrument in this study were both highly reliable (Bond & Fox, 2015; Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2015). Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents (N = 1303) Demographics Gender Male Female Level of Education Three-year diploma Undergraduate Postgraduate

Respondents

Percentage (%)

462 841

35 65

527 694 82

40 53 7

Unidimensionality is a key requirement to assess if the data follows the Rasch model’s assumption that all items must measure a single construct. This was assessed by looking at the fit statistics for the items and carrying out a principal component analysis (PCA) of the residuals (Andrich & Marais, 2019; Bond & Fox, 2015). Two indices reported the results: (i) raw variance, which should be more than 40% (it was 51.9% in this study), and (ii) the Eigen

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

91

value of unexplained variance, which should be less than three (it was 2.0 in this study) (Fisher, 2007). As shown in Table 2, both indices confirmed a satisfactory level of unidimensionality. The four-point rating scale used in the study was also functional, where the thresholds (steps) between each rating point were all within the ideal values of 1.4 to 5.0 (Van Zile-Tamsen, 2017). Table 2. Summary statistics of person and item

N Outfit Mean Square Mean SD Separation Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha Chi-square (χ2) Raw Variance Unexplained variance Eigen value

Person 1303

Item 16

0.91 0.75 2.92 0.90 0.93 20298** 51.9% 2.0

0.91 0.26 12.58 0.99

** p < 0.01

Figure 1. Category Probability Curve of BLEQ Instrument Rating Scale.

92

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

Figure 1 depicts that the average person measured by category moved up monotonically, indicating that each rating scale had its own peak (Linacre, 1999) and each peak was higher than 50%. This graph confirms that all the Likert scale categories were well-functioning and understandable for the respondents.

4. Findings 4.1. Item Difficulty Level The first result of the Rasch model analysis in this study was the estimation of item thresholds/calibrations, generally known as item logit or logit value of item (LVI). A bigger LVI means a higher severity or difficulty level of the scale items, meaning that the respondents tend to find the item not easy to agree with. The item logit mean was fixed at 0.0 logit and the value of the item standard deviation (SD) in this study was 0.92 logit. To put that into perspective, mean and SD are used to group items based on difficulty level (see Table 3). There were two items (13%) in the category of ‘very difficult to agree with’ (LVI > 0.92 logit). In the second category, ‘difficult to agree with’ (+0.92 > LVI > 0.00), there were seven items (44%), while the next category ‘easy to agree with’ (0.00 > LVI > -0.92) had four items (25%). Lastly, three items (18%) fell into the category of ‘very easy to agree with’ (LVI < -0.92 logit). As shown in Table 3, the three dimensions of engagement revealed two different response patterns. For cognitive engagement, two items each were categorized as difficult and easy to agree with, respectively. For emotional engagement and behavioral engagement, more items (three out of five and four out of seven, respectively) were in the ‘difficult to agree with’ group. This finding indicates that Indonesian students perceive emotional and behavioral engagement in online learning to be more difficult than cognitive engagement, which involves thinking. Further, this finding underscores the real challenge Indonesian students face with the sudden change from traditional face-to-face classes to fully online classes because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This situation applies for universities in the whole country, given that mitigation risk is too big to handle by university management as infection cases can increase drastically in a short period of time.

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

93

This situation has made emotional and behavioral aspects of engagement challenging for respondents to adopt easily in their new online learning platform. For instance, under emotional engagement, item E1 (I’m able to motivate myself to learn when performing online tasks) and E2 (I give importance to studying together with my classmates in a group online) were considered difficult for the respondents to agree with, reflecting the hardship of emotional adaptation students face in new learning mode and online interaction. In the case of behavioral engagement, more items were perceived to be disagreeable by Indonesian students, indicating their difficult behavioral adaptation to online learning. For instance, item B3 (I listen carefully to my lecturers in class on the required task to perform online) and B1 (I participate actively in online activities) were the two most difficult statements to agree with, clearly showing students’ uneasiness and frustration. These negative feelings may stem from the sudden behavioral change required from them in online learning, which gives them limited time to fine-tune their previous behavior. Table 3. Online learning engagement item calibration (N = 1303) Construct of Engagement Cognitive Emotional Behavior

Difficulty level Very Difficult E3 B3

Difficult C2, C4 E1, E2 B1, B2, B5

Easy C3, C1 E4 B4

Very easy E5 B7, B6

The complete item and person location in a logit measurement continuum is shown in Figure 2. The Wright map or item hierarchy map demonstrates how items and participants fit together along a logit continuum, where a higher LVI means the item is more difficult to agree with for respondents. On the right side of the map, item E3 (I feel my classmates respect my thoughts and views during online discussion with LVI +2.07 logit) was the most difficult item to agree with. This means that students have little experience of friends’ support in online learning and discussion. Meanwhile, item E5 (I feel my lecturers show interest to my views during online discussion with LVI -1.51 logit) located in the lower right corner of the map, implies that students perceive they are supported by lecturers’ attention. It is interesting to note these contrasting responses in LVI for the same construct (emotional engagement), indicating the vastly different experiences of students with regard to their friends and lecturers.

94

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

Figure 2. Item Person Map of BLEQ Instrument.

4.2. Students’ Level of Engagement in Online Learning The left side of Figure 2 shows the spread of the person level of engagement. The higher logit value person (LVP), which is located in the top-left, indicates that the person answering the items tends to agree or strongly agree, showing a very high level of engagement in online learning. The mean of LVP was +1.84 logit with a standard deviation of 2.33, revealing that the participants tended to be located higher than the items. It can thus be deduced that Indonesian students’ level of engagement in this sample was higher than the difficulty level reflected in the items, with a bigger standard deviation pointing to a relatively wide spread of engagement levels. Since the Rasch model provided accurate and precise measurements of the engagement level in online learning, similar to the grouping of item

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

95

difficulty level (as shown in Table 3), student categorization was also possible (see Table 4). Using the LVP of mean and SD, four levels of online learning engagement (from very high to low) were employed to identify the number of students in each group. This analysis was useful because it delved into individual-centered statistics rather than group-centered statistics, thus offering many insights (Engelhard et al., 2018). Table 4. Students’ Online Learning Engagement Level by Demographics (N = 1303) Demographic

Gender Male Female Level of Education Diploma Undergraduate Postgraduate

Very High LVP > +4.17

High +4.17 > LVP > +1.87

Moderate +1.87 > LVP > -0.49

Low LVP < 0.49

85 143

199 218

142 368

36 112

103 103 22

239 147 31

156 326 28

29 118 1

Arranged by group size, the number of students with moderate level engagement were 510 (39%), followed by those with a high level (417 students or 32%), very high level (228 students or 17%), and low level (148 students or 12%) of engagement. Slightly more than half the sample (51%) exhibited moderate and low engagement, representing students who still face some difficulties in online learning. The rest (49%) were those who have managed to catch up with the new learning mode on online platforms. This empirical finding is indeed noteworthy, as it shows how university students from a developing country are coping with the sudden shift in learning modes. Furthermore, comparing the demographic profile of the sample with high and very high engagement against the sample with moderate and low engagement revealed important trends. In terms of gender, male students constituted a bigger proportion (284 students or 62%) of students with high and very high levels of engagement. Based on the students’ education level, a higher level of engagement was exhibited by students from the diploma and postgraduate programs (65%), followed by students from the undergraduate program (37%).

96

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

4.3. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) of Respondents’ Demographic Factors The next stage of analysis was to utilize the sensitivity of the Rasch model to examine the item level. This analysis aimed to detect different responses to an engagement item based on respondents’ demographic variables. For this purpose, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis was performed, which suggests that respondents of separate subgroups respond differently to each item (Boone et al., 2014). Statistically, this analysis is called DIF; socially, it is considered a bias response detector which measures distinctive responses at the item level (Bond & Fox, 2015). There were two demographic variables collected in this study, which were gender and level of education program. The DIF analysis showed that both demographic factors had significantly different responses (based on either DIF size > 0.5 logits, t > 2.0, or p < 0.05) (Boone et al., 2014; Bond & Fox, 2015). In particular, three items (out of 16 items) portrayed DIF in each demographic variable.

Note: L = male; P = female Figure 3. Person DIF plot based on gender.

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

97

Note: D = diploma; S = undergraduate; M = postgraduate Figure 4. Person DIF plot based on education program.

Under gender, three items (B4, E3, and E5) reported DIF (Figure 3). Female students found it easier to agree with two items, B4 (I do my assignments and submit them on time online) and E5 (I feel my lecturers show interest to my views during online discussion), compared to male students. This shows that female students tend to be more active and punctual with regard to electronic assignments; at the same time, they enjoy attention from lecturers in online classes more than male students. However, pertaining to friend interactions on the online platform, represented by E3 (I feel my classmates respect my thoughts and views during online discussion), female students are less engaged than their male counterparts. Figure 4 shows the responses based on the students’ of level of education. Specifically, three items showed DIF (E1, E3, and B3). Diploma level students found it easier to agree with item E1 (I’m able to motivate myself to learn when performing online tasks) than postgraduate and undergraduate students. Similarly, diploma students agreed that they receive more social support from their friends than other programs’ students, as evidenced by item E3 (I feel my classmates respect my thoughts and views during online discussion). Interestingly, postgraduate students are more diligent in performing online tasks, based on B3 (I listen carefully to my lecturers in class on the required

98

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

tasks to perform online), followed by diploma and undergraduate students. From these three items, it appears that undergraduate students are finding it more challenging to engage in online learning compared to other programs’ students.

5. Discussion This chapter examined students’ engagement in the online mode of instruction based on their cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and behavioral engagement. Setting it apart from previous studies, this research specifically assessed students’ engagement at the individual levels of person and item along with their demographic variables. The sample respondents of this study were public university students located in Java Island, the most populous and developed area in Indonesia. First, the instrument quality in the study was highly reliable and valid. The psychometric attributes of the instrument reported no issues in latent trait variable measurement, both at the instrument level and item level. For instance, the data fit the model, the unidimensionality index showed good construct validity, and item results from all dimensions were within the acceptable range. Even the rating scale used was functional, showing that the Likert scale rating points were understood by the respondents (Andrich & Marais, 2019; Bond & Fox, 2015; Boone et al., 2014). The findings of this study are similar to previous ones that used this instrument (Adams et al., 2018; 2020; 2021). Second, Indonesian public university students’ perception of engagement is critically important. The results in Table 3 clearly indicate their difficulty in changing to the fully online learning mode, wherein the sudden and drastic shift made them feel that a majority of the items were difficult to agree with. Interestingly, emotional and behavioral engagement are more challenging to the respondents than cognitive engagement. This finding is in line with many authors’ (e.g., Li & Lalani, 2020; UNESCO 2020) observation that the potential learning loss is enormous not only in developed countries, but in developing countries as well. To make matters worse, engaging in online learning both emotionally and behaviorally is not easy, as it is something new even for university students. They do not yet have the experience to cope with this change, whereas lecturers themselves are in a trial-and-error mode to find the best way to involve students in teaching and learning (Lane et al., 2021; Vavasseur et al., 2020). Notably, for cognitive engagement, students found a

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

99

similar number of items easy and difficult to agree with (see Table 3), indicating that they have a more developed mental process and are more mature in terms knowledge and learning skills (Fredricks et al., 2004; Northey et al., 2015). The cognitive engagement construct is thus worth highlighting as students seem to perceive a balance of difficulty and easiness in understanding complex ideas and mastering difficult skills in the online learning mode. In addition, students were found to have a moderate level of behavioral engagement, suggesting that they still have a positive attitude towards participating in blended learning activities and completing tasks given by lecturers though they may not hand them in on time or enjoy the tasks (Ma et al., 2015). Regarding emotional engagement, students perceive it as the most challenging and difficult aspect of the online learning process. This is because the traditional way of interaction has become formal and physically distant; as such, while their mind understands that they are emotionally active with each other (lecturers and classmates), their physical self still suffers from the geographical gap with others (Vavasseur et al., 2020). As a result, factors such as peer group relationships and instructor support should be facilitated and constantly improved (Lane et al., 2021). Third, the results of this study indicate students’ merely moderate level of engagement in online learning activities. This could be largely influenced by the drastic change caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which closed all campuses and moved teaching-learning activities fully online. Nearly all university students are digital natives from the Millennial or Centennial generations, meaning that they have used and been surrounded by technology all their life, which influences their way of learning. Despite this fact, making online learning the only alternative interaction appears to be too much for them to handle easily (Adams et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020). Nevertheless, slightly less than half the respondents were in the group of very high and high engagement, showing that some students have managed to overcome this challenge. Fourth, based on the respondents’ demographic profile, male students exhibit a higher level of engagement than their female counterparts. This is in line with another study (Win & Wynn, 2015) which found that male students tend to be more excited to participate in online activities compared to female students. Relevant empirical research has also informed that female students prefer traditional face-to-face learning to online learning (Yau & Cheng, 2012; Yu, 2021). In terms of students’ education program, Indonesian students’ responses are interesting, such that diploma students seem to be as mature as

100

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

postgraduate students while undergraduate students are the group left behind in terms of online learning engagement. This shows that postgraduate students and diploma students are keener towards the online mode of instruction compared to undergraduate students, who predominantly prefer in-class tutorials and face-to-face instruction. This finding makes sense as postgraduate students are typically more mature and independent learners, which would be reflected in their use of utilizing information technology for learning. On the other hand, diploma students are generally more receptive towards online learning as they are eager to try new ways of learning after their schooling years (Adams et al., 2018). Finally, a closer look at student groups using DIF analysis showed that some items had different responses by demographic traits. Three items showed DIF based on gender, denoting that female students perform better in terms of online assignments and receive more attention from their lecturers than male students. It is interesting to discover that certain aspects of online learning are more positive for female students. However, with regard to support from friends in online learning interactions, female students do not perceive much help in voicing out their ideas; rather, it appears that male students dominate in the area of peer support (Naresh et al., 2016; Yau & Cheng, 2012). Regarding DIF analysis of students’ educational program, undergraduate students’ response to three items portrayed their greater difficulty in those aspects than the other two groups. This signifies that undergraduate students are not really well-prepared for online learning compared to diploma and postgraduate students, which has been confirmed by several studies (Adams et al., 2018).

Conclusion This chapter explains the overall findings of this study on Indonesian public university students’ engagement in online learning activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the results indicated students’ moderate level of engagement in the online mode of instruction. However, subsequent analyses showed differences in students’ engagement based on the specific dimensions of engagement as well as students’ demographic variables. In summary, the implementation of online learning activities during a sudden change like a world health crisis undoubtedly calls for such activities to be devised according to students’ interest, competence, and skills. At the same time, university lecturers must be able to maintain control and possess

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

101

technical ‘know-how’ to design activities that promote students’ high levels of engagement in online learning, so as to make it a meaningful experience for students. The chaotic situation of campus closure cannot be avoided due to the pandemic’s nature that greatly impacts human health in all walks of life. This has made online learning the only choice available to continue knowledge transfer at the institutional level. Going forward, online learning will act as a disrupting energy that forces universities to innovate and develop useful tools for its long-term adoption. Though this may be a challenge, it will redefine higher learning institutions by facilitating a better learning experience and transforming towards a learning-centered identity. To achieve that, students’ engagement in online learning must be assessed carefully to maximize its impact on their learning and avoid learning loss (Li & Lalani, 2020). This study comes with several limitations of its own. First, its sample size is relatively small. Although 1303 public university students from Java Island, Indonesia participated, Indonesia is a big country with three different time zones, thousands of islands, and a total population of university students of more than five million. It should also be taken into account that Java Island is a relatively developed region compared to other areas in Indonesia. Therefore, we suggest future studies to expand to other public and private universities in Indonesia and draw a larger sample size. It is also better if future scholars can reveal the other side of the current phenomenon, that is, the perspectives and perceptions of lecturers pertaining to online learning. Involving different research approaches or paradigms is recommended as well. For example, the qualitative method (e.g., narrative data, interviews, open-ended questionnaires) could be adopted to further explore and explain the findings in depth. Furthermore, investigating which specific online learning activities are most effective in engaging students across a wide range of demographic variables (field of study, student age, ethnicity, type of university, etc.), either during the pandemic or when the situation is back to normal, would significantly broaden the current body of knowledge. We conclude that the implementation of online learning cannot be avoided; it is a must for all institutions because of government mandates as well as institutional policies and practices in the present health crisis. In the near future, this opportunity should be fine-tuned as technology will exert more disruptions to thrust higher learning institutions towards online learning implementation in university courses. As this transformation gathers pace and grows in popularity and demand, close preparation for both students and

102

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

lecturers must be developed and put in place to face inevitable disruption and sudden change.

References Adams, D., Sumintono, B., Mohamed, A. & Mohamad Noor, N. S. (2018). Elearning readiness among students of diverse backgrounds in a leading Malaysian higher education institution. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 227-256. Adams, D., Tan, M. H. J., Sumintono, B. & Oh, S. P. (2020). Blended learning engagement in higher education institutions: a differential item functioning analysis of students’ backgrounds. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2020.17.1.6. Adams, D., Chuah, K. M., Sumintono, B. & Mohamed, A. (2021). Students' readiness for e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in a South-East Asian university: a Rasch analysis. Asian Education and Development Studies. In press/online edition. Al-Qahtani, A. A. & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and elearning on students’ achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652729.2012.00490.x. Andrich, D. & Marais, I. (2019). A Course in Rasch Measurement Theory, Measuring in the Educational, Social and Health Sciences. Dordrecth: Springer. Appleton, J. J. (2012). Systems consultation: Developing the assessment-tointervention link with the Student Engagement Instrument. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 725–741). Dordrecth: Springer. Bazelais, P. & Doleck, T. (2018). Investigating the impact of blended learning on academic performance in a first semester college physics course. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(1), 67-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-0180099-8. Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 3rd ed. Routledge: New York. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R. & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch Analysis in the Human Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. Boone, W. J. & Staver, J. R. (2020). Advances in Rasch Analyzes in the Human Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

103

Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523-2546. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/s10639-019-09886-3. Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D. & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A metaanalysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 793–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7. Engelhard, G. & Wind, S. (2018). Invariant Measurement with Raters and Rating Scales. New York: Routledge. Fisher, R., Perényi, Á. & Birdthistle, N. (2018). The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1469787418801702. Fisher, W. P. Jr. (2007). Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 21(1), 1095 (available at http://www.rasch. org/rmt/rmt211m.htm). Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059. Geng, S., Law, K. M. & Niu, B. (2019). Investigating self-directed learning and technology readiness in blending learning environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s41239-019-0147-0. Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 333–350). New York: Routledge. Han, F., Pardo, A. & Ellis, R. A. (2020). Students’ self-report and observed learning orientations in blended university course design: How are they related to each other and to academic performance? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 969-980. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12453. Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S. & Bélisle, M. (2021). An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3. Lane, S., Hoang, J. G., Leighton, J. P. & Rissanen, A. (2021). Engagement and Satisfaction: mixed-method analysis of blended learning in the sciences. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21(1), 100-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00139-5. Li, C. & Lalani, F. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Changed Education Forever. This Is How. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/

104

Mustaji, Donnie Adams, Bambang Sumintono et al.

agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digitallearning/. Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 103-122. Linacre, J. M. (2013). A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministeps Rasch-model computer programs. available at: http://www.winsteps.com/index.htm. Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J. & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 2634. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.005. Maarop, A. H. & Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of blended learning in higher learning institutions: A review of literature. International Education Studies, 9(3), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n3p41. Matheos, K. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2018). Blended learning: Enabling higher education reform. RevistaEletrônica de Educação, 12(1), 238-244. Miller, R. (2018). Transforming the future: Anticipation in the 21st century (p. 300). London: Taylor & Francis. Medina, L. C. (2018). Blended learning: Deficits and prospects in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 42-56. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3100. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). Malaysia Education Blueprint: 2015– 2025, Higher Education. https://www.um.edu.my/docs/um-magazine/4executive-summary-pppm-2015-2025.pdf. Naresh, B., Reddy, B. S. & Pricilda, U. (2016). A study on the relationship between demographic factor and e-learning readiness among students in higher education. Sona Global Management Review, 10(4), 1–11. Nguyen, Q., Rienties, B. & Richardson, J. T. E. (2020). Learning analytics to uncover inequality in behavioural engagement and academic attainment in a distance learning setting. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 594-606. doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1679088. Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M. & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475315589814. Ożadowicz, A. (2020). Modified blended learning in engineering higher education during the COVID-19 lockdown—building automation courses case study. Education Sciences, 10(10), 292. Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A. & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103371, 1-17. Ristekdikti. (2016). Kebijakan Pendidikan Jarak Jauh dan E-Learning, Kementerian Riset, Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi, Republik Indonesia

Online Learning Engagement among Indonesian University …

105

[The policy of distance learning and E-learning, Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education, Republic of Indonesia]. Jakarta. Schunk, D. H. & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–235). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-1-4614-2018-7. Sumintono, B. & Widhiarso, W. (2014). Aplikasi model Rasch untuk penelitian ilmu-ilmu sosial (edisi revisi) [Application of rasch modelling in social science research, revised edition]. Cimahi: Trimkom Publishing House. Sumintono, B. & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi Pemodelan Rasch pada Asesmen Pendidikan [Application of rasch modelling in educational assessment]. Cimahi: Trimkom Publishing House. UNESCO. (2020). 1.3 Billion Learners Are Still Affected by School or University Closures, As Educational Institutions Start Reopening Around the World, Says UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/news/13-billion-learners-are-stillaffected-school-university-closures-educational-institutions. Van Zile-Tamsen, C. (2017). Using Rasch Analysis to Inform Rating Scale Development. Research in Higher Education, 58(8), 922–933. Vavasseur, A., Muscari, F., Meyrignac, O., Nodot, M., Dedouit, F., RevelMouroz, P. & Mokrane, F. Z. (2020). Blended learning of radiology improves medical students’ performance, satisfaction, and engagement. Insights into Imaging, 11, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00865-8. Vibert, A. & Shields, C. (2003). Approaches to student engagement: Does ideology matter? McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 221–240. Widhiarso, W. & Sumintono, B. (2016). “Examining response aberrance as a cause of outliers in statistical analysis”, Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 11-15. Win, N. L. & Wynn, S. D. (2015). Introducing blended learning practices in our classrooms. Journal of Institutional Research in South East Asia, 13(2), 17– 27. Yau, H. K. & Cheng, A. L. F. (2012). Gender difference of confidence in using technology for learning. The Journal of Technology Studies, 38(2), 74–79. Yu, Z. (2021). The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 14. doi:10.1186/ s41239-021-00252-3.

Chapter 6

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms: A Study on Public Sector Universities of Pakistan Muhammad Mujtaba Asad1,*, Syeda Sumbul Shah1, Fahad Sherwani2 and Prathamesh Churi3 1Sukkur

IBA University, Airport Road, Sukkur, Pakistan University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan 3NMIMS University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India 2National

Abstract The technologically advanced countries have a well-developed system available for digital learning and E-learning, but this situation is not true in low-income countries such as Pakistan. This chapter aims to identify some challenges being faced by male and female students in public sector universities of Pakistan in the pandemic. Whereas survey research design and survey questionnaire were adapted for data collection from a sample of 63 students’ belonging to a public sector university of Pakistan. The data was analysed in SPSS software version 24.0 using descriptive and inferential statistics. Moreover, the findings revealed that the limited access to internet at home, minimum interaction with teachers, technical problems associated with digital setup, poor learning conditions at home, electricity issues, connectivity issues, lack of discipline during online sessions, and social isolation are some of the major challenges faced by *

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

In: E-Learning Editors: Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man ISBN: 978-1-68507-604-7 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

108

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al. the students. This research suggests that the Government of Pakistan should take proactive steps to overcome these challenges and difficulties faced by the students along with providing the sufficient funds to universities to upgrade the digital and technological requirements for improved online learning. This is the first quantitative study of its nature which is conducted in Sindh province of Pakistan and focuses on the impact and challenges associated with the digitalization of learning at public sector universities.

Keywords: information and communication technology, digitalization, survey design, higher education

1. Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in the Hubei province of Wuhan City, China. The World Health Organization reported COVID-19 as the worldwide public emergency of international concern on 30th January and on 11th March 2020 it was declared as a global pandemic (Cucinotta and Vanelli 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic was confirmed in Pakistan by the Health Ministry on 26th February, when a student in Karachi tested positive after returning back from Iran (Saqlain et al. 2020). On 13th March Pakistani authorities closed all educational institutions across the country to slow down the spread of the coronavirus (Ali 2020). Hence, the higher education commission (HEC) ordered higher education institutes to start digital learning mode, create online courses, and facilitate students regularly until the COVID-19 crises remain unchanged (Khan, Niazi, and Saif 2020). However, digital learning depends on the internet technology which has made it difficult to use as well as inaccessible (Ractham and Chen, 2019). Although, the higher education commission is continuously working to design an online education system that is accessible to every student’s home (Yan et al. 2020). For this purpose, HEC has made an Online Readiness Policy Guideline for universities on COVID-19 in order to facilitate students in this difficult situation. Despite these efforts, students are facing different problems and challenges owing to sudden changes in the mode of education from traditional to digitalization (Ali 2020). Students are not well trained for online learning because they do not have enough technology-related resources such as the internet, laptops, and android mobiles, to utilize for online learning (Ali 2020).

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms

109

Similarly, (Khan, Niazi, and Saif 2020), highlighted some other issues like electricity issues, lack of technical competency among students, and selfisolation. At this stage, rural and moderately urban areas in Pakistani society, specifically in Sukkur district of Sindh province, students are facing barriers and challenges during this global wave of COVID-19 pandemic situation where all educational institutes are closed, and they are pushing towards online delivery of education. In this connection, this study aims to identify the challenging factors of the digital learning faced by male and female students of Public sector university of Pakistan in the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.1. Problem Statement COVID-19 affected all the people around the world and every aspect of life including economy, health and education is no more exempt from it (Fernando, 2020). In this situation the traditional education system was not working properly. Hence, educational institutes were trying to find alternatives to this system and shift their mode of education from traditional to online (Myers, 2020). This happened because all institutes were closed due to this pandemic. Hence, more than 1.2 billion children around the world are out of school (UNESCO). To overcome the educational crisis many educational institutes have decided to shift their mode of education from traditional to online (Tam and El-Azar). Educational institutes including administrators, teachers, and students are admiring this mode of education to keep the processes going on during this tough time (Paul & Pedro Moreno, 2020). Most of the universities are shifting their mode of education from traditional to online and students are also getting the benefits of this mode (Mukhtar et al. 2020). There are a lot of reasons that educationists are accepting this mode worldwide, mainly, most of the students are preferring this method allowing flexibility, comfortable environment, and alternative learning option, etc., but still, there are some limitations like, lack of social life, student-teacher interaction and connectivity (Kwary and Fauzie 2017). Despite its acceptability worldwide, Pakistan didn’t introduce this method as a formal platform for education until recently when the CoVid-19 situation arrived. (Sayed, 2020). Number of factors are creating hindrances to implement digital education in educational institutes including, technical problems in dealing with computers, networking problems, lack of access to online resources (Anwar, Khan, and Sultan 2020). While (Anwar, Khan, and Sultan 2020) identified one major issue which creates a problem in digital

110

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al.

learning that is lack of digital competencies among teachers as well as students. However, Saif (2020) highlighted some major issues such as electricity issue and lack of technical competency among students. Additionally, the issue of gender inequality in technology has been recognized in the early 2000s (Gupta & Sharma, 2003). Moreover, Akhmedshina (2021) posited that the general negative stereotype about technology for women creates hindrance to pursue ICT in their educational field. Moreover, the research of Khan et al., (2015) explored some factors which are gender biased such as negative social cultural attitudes and gender friendly working environment. Apart from western researchers, Pakistani researchers also highlighted that, this bias is deeply embedded in the culture of Pakistan. According to (WEF) world economic forums, global gender gap report 2015 declared Pakistan on the rank of 143 out of 144 counties in gender inequality index. While Akhmedshina,(2021) found that in Pakistan most of the females are facing problems in usage of digital tools because of providing less opportunity of using digital gadgets. Moreover, the social cultural attitude towards ICT in Pakistan is also gender biased, usage of smart gadgets are creating a negative image for females which creates hindrance to use digital tools for their learning. However, the study of Safdar et al., (2020) found that in COVID-19 females are facing more problems than males due to lack of digital competences, attitude towards ICT and negative social cultural attitude are some common problems. Moreover, the quality of digital learning has been affected due to lack of competencies of females in operating digital tools (Meelissen & Drent, 2007; Korlat et al., 2021). Hence, the higher education commission introduced online readiness policy guidance note and policy guidelines for universities on COVID-19 in order to overcome these highlighted issues. Similarly, the Sindh government has also taken steps and introduced an online class’s policy in the COVID-19 pandemic (DAWN, 2020). Irrespective of these steps, students are facing challenges while attending online classes. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the challenges of digital learning faced by male and female students of the Public University of Pakistan in COVID-19 pandemic Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in challenges of digital learning faced by male and female students of Public University of Pakistan in COVID-19 pandemic.

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms

111

2. Literature Review 2.1. Digital Learning In 1999 Jay Cross gave the concept of digital learning (Seplacan, 2020). Digital learning defined by Doris et al., (2013) as a way of teaching and learning in education and upgrading the overall learning and skill enhancement by developing internet media such as text, internet, video, graphics etc. Moreover, in the current era the focus of education is to design tools of learning through technology, hence, researchers and educationists developed new ways of learning including online, digital and distance learning. Moreover, nowadays the parameters of education are also assessed by electronic devices such as time, location, assessment, lesson plans, resources (Kaklamanou et al., 2012). Nowadays demand for digital learning has increased rapidly because of its abundant information and knowledge in almost every sector. Additionally, (ASTD) American Society of Training and Education also give whispered attention to digital learning, according to (ASTD) the usage of digital learning and digital media are helpful in the learning process. Moreover, Zohou, (2018) defined some components of digital learning such as corporate network, computers, internet, TV, compact disk, audiotapes, satellite broadcasting and videotapes. Digital media can be used for various purposes such as computer-based learning, network base learning, flip class, virtual class etc. Zohou (2018). However, Hockly (2012) defined the usage of digital tools, she highlighted that digital tools can be used for pedagogical content through wireless networking or cabled connection to enhance the process of learning. Additionally, Shabani, (2012) explored four parts of digital learning such as video, audio, digital portfolio, blogs, wikis, Ebooks, digital content for teachers, web tools, creative presentation, and lastly interactive digital board etc. The second element is based on the accessibility of digital tools for students, these tools are computers, tablets, digital notebook smartphones etc. The third element is about digital delivery, providing some networks and channels to learners for maximizing their learning for instant and satellite broadcasting etc. And the last point is concerned with autonomy of learning including self-study, which do not require any supervision. Basically, autonomous learning helps students to make their own decisions and tasks by using digital tools, digital teaching material and digital delivery.

112

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al.

2.2. Challenges of Digital Learning Digital learning is widely recognized but some issues are needed to be addressed. (Dua, Wadhawan, and Gupta 2016) highlighted some issues such as Lack of awareness is a serious concern for digital learning, learners’ motivation, technical skills of learners, and evaluating effectiveness. Additionally, “eminence of digital learning” dealings focusses much on “open educational possessions, contribution, and procedures,” and far less on “output- and outcome-oriented approaches.” It is difficult to evaluate students’ learning outcomes under such parameters where learner’s progress can’t be judged properly (Esfijani 2018). Similarly, Molnar (2017), highlighted the same point that traditional learning allowed the instructors to judge the grade which they provided in the form of transcripts and reports, but digital learning hinders the instructors to assess whether the desired outcomes designed for a particular course have been achieved or not. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that the public school system is vulnerable to exterior disasters (Bozkurt and Sharma 2020). (Adedoyin and Soykan 2020) also highlighted that the adoption of Digitalization raised numerous challenges. However, Bozkurt and Sharma (2020) explored that in COVID- 19 student’s performance affected negatively due to number of reasons such as economic factors, lack of digital competencies of teachers that are affecting the performance of students. The challenges are also discussed that how transformation of instructional operation during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected overall education system. Additionally, Digital learning is reliant upon computers, internet, students, and then teachers and a poor connection of technologies causes hindrance in eLearning so the dependency on technological devices and provision of those devices is the major challenge (D. Yattes (Personal communication, 17 March 2020). Fishbane and Tomer (2020) highlighted another issue that Students with obsolete high-tech instruments may observe difficulty to comply with the computer-based training. It is difficult to grasp the information shared through the announcement section in different course profiles. Another factor that undermines the effectiveness of online study is that the students who belong to different socio-economic backgrounds are deprived of required facilities like free computers and internet access. (Demirbilek 2014). Consequently, students form lower and middle class are at bigger disadvantage than those from upper class. Research findings on what students do who don’t have access to the internet during this disease, the purchasing power of general public in society rises, the user statistics of internet access has rapidly

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms

113

decreased, and as a result, students suffering from socio-economic powerlessness or their inability to have a broadband connection is more likely to lag and face more challenges in online learning (Fishabane & Tomer, 2020). The study conducted by Fishbane and Tomer (2020) emphasized that internet access is an important factor regarding online education, due to socioeconomic differences in lower income countries, students who do not have broadband connections fall out and fail to get online education. There are other factors that interrupt online learning such as other family members, pets, and friends at home, it causes disruption in attention during the learning process (Manfuso, 2020). Similarly, Pietermaritzburg (2020) also highlighted the same point that the interruption of family members, pets, and friends is also a challenge in online classes. Digital competencies are skills, attitude and knowledge to perform a task in online education such as problem solving, collaboration, simulation, etc. (Ferrari 2012). Additionally, according to researchers digital competencies are the key feature to implement online learning accurately and properly (Omotayo and Haliru 2020). After digital competencies, here comes assessment where teacher measure learning of the students through some tools such as quiz, tests, and examinations. Further, during the online teaching process, instructors are restricted to proxy the supervision of students to control their cheating (Arkorful and Abaidoo 2015). In online learning teachers are bound to proxy the supervision of learners in order to regulate and control cheating (Arkorful and Abaidoo 2015). During the COVID-19 time period, assessment is more complicated because of the transformed mode of education. Another challenge faced by students is a heavy workload, because of this sudden change in the mode of education from traditional to digitalization, which put students in trouble because of pressure from universities for digital transformation to ICT units for introducing more updated e-platform, integrated current external utilization into their system as well as a full transfer into exterior apps. Teachers similarly share responsibilities because they have transferred their content to an e-platform that is more user friendly (Adedoyin and Soykan 2020). Apart from western researchers, there are some Pakistani researchers that highlighted issues and challenges related to digital learning, such as (Qureshi et al. 2012) identified challenges of implementing digital learning inside the Pakistani institutes and found that there are various challenges and barriers in Pakistani institutes include digital competencies, lack of access to digital devices, lack of computer literacy, and privacy issues. Similarly, (Hussain 2017) also found numerous challenges faced by students in digital learning such as lack of access to online resources, technical issues in dealing with the

114

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al.

computer, networking issues and lack of support from educational institutes. Similarly, Pakistan faces the education problems due to COVID-19 and the education system has been shifted from traditional mode to digitalization, due to this shift many students face difficulties while taking online classes such as electricity issues, lack of resources, and internet (Khan, Niazi, and Saif 2020). Moreover, students are not well trained for online learning because they do not have enough technology-related resources such as the internet, laptops, and android mobiles, to utilize for the online learning (Ali 2020).

2.3. Role of Gender in Digital Learning The stereotypes related to mathematical and technical fields always support masculine qualities (Charles & Bradley, 2009). The perception has been developed that computer and technological skills are more suitable to boys as compared to girls (Adamus et al., 2009). However (young, 2000) posited that the digital gender gap starts from an early age of child, parents, and teachers support the concept that computers are a male domain. Similarly, this is highlighted from early childhood that the activities and toys of boys are technology and action based while, girl’s toys tend to relate beauty and that computers are a male domain (Kollmayer et al., 2018). Likewise, the study of (EcclesS, 2009) identified that most parents provide more opportunity to boys for using computer and technological resources however girls expected to read and socially interact with their peers. Hence, this gendered experience weakens girls’ interest, confidence, and their ability in computer and technological related subjects (Price, 2006). Moreover, girls are facing more difficulties and obstacles in the usage of ICT which create hindrance in the quality of digital learning (Meelissen & Drent, 2007). Specifically, in online classrooms boys may have more advantage over girls because of their comfort, engagement, and higher perceived ability (Korlat et al., 2021). Similarly, the study of (Cox, 200) also identified that boys have more advantages over girls in usage of ICT, and this pattern is constant from elementary to university level (Adamus et al., 2000). Recently, a meta- analysis with university showed girl’s positive belief and high competency of digital learning as compared to male (Perkowski, 2013). On other hand, the research of (Britner & Pajares, 2001) posited that the value and beliefs of girls towards ICT and digital learning are less positive and they have less confidence on their own technological skills as compared to boys. While some researchers highlighted that there are no any differences between boys and girls in belief, and attitude

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms

115

of digital learning (Farrah & Bakry, 2020). Additionally, in COVID pandemic, researchers and educationists are concentrating and focusing on learning activities in a digital learning setup, despite of that, both male and female are facing challenges in usage of ICT (Korlat et al., 2021). However, in Pakistan both are facing challenges in education because of this sudden shift from traditional mode to digitalization including electricity issues, lack of digital competencies, lack of resources, and internet (Khan, 2020).

2.4. Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) There are many models and theoretical frameworks associated with digital learning, but in this research the TPACK model has been used. The reason for selecting this model is, it emphasized three mediums of knowledge includes, Pedagogical knowledge, Technological Knowledge and Content Knowledge and also stressed to integrate these components in education setting (Scherer et al., 2017). Moreover (Schmidt et al., 2009) describes that TPACK model comprises three concepts (technology, pedagogy and content) and these three concepts show the relationship among themselves. Along with this, there are seven components of the TPACK framework. They are: 

 

The technological knowledge (TK) is stressed on various technologies including, learning tools, internet, and multiple software. Content knowledge (CK) is all about subject matter knowledge that is supposed to be taught and learned. Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is about teaching including teaching methods, classroom management, assessment, lesson planning and students’ learning.

Technological content knowledge (TCK) is the mixture of two ideas: content and technology, so (TCK) will support how learners learn any concept by using technology. Moreover, it also helps to change students’ practices and learning by using technology. Technological pedagogical knowledge: (TPK) also revolved around the two concepts: pedagogy and technology. Hence, (TPK) is helpful for teachers as it suggests how they can use technology in their teaching to make their teaching more effective. Pedagogical content knowledge: (PCD) is all about pedagogy and content. This refers to deliver

116

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al.

the lesson by adopting effective teaching methods in order to improve students’ content knowledge. Moreover, technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK): it is the mixture of three concepts such as content, pedagogy and technology. This factor stressed to make teaching practice more effective by using technology in order to improve students’ content knowledge. Similarly, the TPACK model is appropriate for this study because this model emphasizes how teachers and students use technology which ultimately affects students’ growth and development. However, in Pakistan, students’ face various problems in online learning like; lack of resources, lack of electricity, lack of internet facilities, infrastructure and family background. In the light of these problems this study tries to identify what kind of issues and problems were faced by male and female students in Sukkur, Pakistan.

3. Methodology In this research study, quantitative approach has been used and a survey research design has been adopted to identify some challenges being faced by male and female students in public sector university of Pakistan in the pandemic situation. Survey research design makes it easy to get the exact information required based on the research (Jaafar 2008). The Questionnaire has been adopted from (Oriogu, Ejemezu, and Ogbuiyi 2018) and modified as per the digital-learning aspect. The questioner contains 18 items by using a five-point Likert scale ranging one to five from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The points are: limited access to Wi-Fi at home, Limited screen for visualization of learning reassures, Poor interface and memory capacity of digital learning devices, Technical problems while using digital tools, poor learning conditions at home, less discipline in online classes, poor learning conditions at home, Social isolation, electricity issue, connectivity issues, difficulties to implementing the feedback given by teacher in online classes, hard to switch traditional classroom to online classroom, lack of time to participate in online classroom, difficult to express opinions to others, difficult to work independently in online classes, difficult to communicate online via email or discussions, difficult to download apps related to digital learning and the last point is, difficult to use digital learning tool in online classes. Moreover, the instrument has been validated by two language experts and three subject-matter experts. However, the reliability has been checked through a pilot study and that study was analysed through SPSS software

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms

117

(through Cronbach’s alpha test). A reliability analysis consists of 18 items. The result of Cronbach’s alpha showed the questionnaire/instrument is to reach acceptable, because α = .782 which indicates that instrument is reliable. Moreover, 63 students from final year have been participated in this study from different programs like, Pathology, Community Medicine and ENT, who used digital tool in online learning in COVID-19 pandemic situation. The reason for selecting final year students is because they have more experience with digital learning. Moreover, they were selected based on simple stratified random sampling. Random sampling ensures that results obtained from your sample should approximate what would have been obtained if the entire population had been measured (Shadish et al., 2002). Moreover, the random sampling provide equally chance to the units of population which has been selected (Moore & McCabe, 2003). According to Morgan’s (1970), the minimum number for a population of 75 is 63. Whereas the data was analysed by using SPSS software version 23.0 using descriptive (Mean and Standard Deviation) and inferential statistics (Independent Sample T-Test).

4. Result and Findings In this section, the result based on analysing quantitative data has been reported whereas the demographic, descriptive, and inferential results are specified below. This result is based on 63 students from the final year who have been participating in this study from different programs like Pathology, Community Medicine and ENT, who used digital tools in online learning in COVID-19 pandemic situation. 47% of the population were male students who had participated in the research and the remaining 53% were female students as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Percentage based on gender SNO 1 2

Variables Male Female

Result 53% 47%

Whereas the different final year students have participated in this study from different programs such as pathology, ENT, and community medicine. The results present in percentage are specified below. Table 2 shows that 42% students belonged to pathology program, 22% students belonged to ENT

118

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al.

programs and rest of the students participated from Community medicine, as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Percentage based on profession SNO 1 2 3

Program Pathology ENT Community Medicine

Result 42% 22% 35%

Table 3. Descriptive results for challenging of digital learning SNO

Items

Mean

1

Limited screen for visualization of learning reassures Reduced interaction with the teacher Technical problems while using digital tools difficulty to express my opinions to others difficulty to work independently in online classes There were poor learning conditions at home connectivity issues while attending online classes difficulty to switch traditional classroom to online classroom limited access to Wi-Fi at home

3.0645

Std. Deviation 1.21292

3.2258 3.3387 3.2097 3.1129 1.9355 1.8065 1.8210

1.31098 1.20032 1.18926 1.17494 .92099 1.09901 1.30815

1.7258

1.11868

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The demographic representation of participants is shown in Table 1. Whereas, Table 3 indicates the descriptive findings, that high level of mean has been specified blow 3.0645, 3.2258, 3.3387, 3.2097, 3.1129, similarly the lowest mean is 1.9355, 1.8065, 1.7258, and 1.8210 whereas similarly, the highest standard derivation is 1.21292, 1.31098, 1.20032, 1.18926 and 1.17494 and the lowest standard derivations are .92099, 1.09901, 1.11868 1.30815. This study found that there is no significant difference in the mean scores of challenges of digital learning during COVID-19 pandemic situation for male and female students because t .480(60), p (.633). Similarly, the mean of both groups (m1=2.6818, m2=2.6818) highlighted that there is no change of observation has been recorded as depicted from Table 4. Hence, the Statistic of the independent t-test shows that there is no significant difference between male and female students. Which indicates that both male and females are facing equal problems in digital learning during COVID-19 pandemic

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms

119

situation. Therefore, null hypotheses are rejected, and alternative hypotheses have been accepted. Table 4. Inferential results for challenging of digital learning

Challenges of digital learning

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .921 .480 60 .633 .013

.965

.482

59.5

.632

5. Discussion This study broadly aimed at knowing the Challenging factors of digital learning being faced by male and female students of the Public Sector University of Pakistan in COVID-19 pandemic situation. The findings of this study revealed that students are facing numerous challenges such as inaccessibility to Wi-Fi at home, poor learning conditions at home, social isolation, financial problems and electricity issues. The results of this study are in line with previous studies on the challenges and barriers that are faced by students in digital learning. The review of the current literature indicates challenges related to digital learning. These challenges include insufficient financial resources to support online devices, no internet or poor internet, no cell phone or laptop computers, no Wi-Fi (Kibuku, Ochieng, and Wausi 2020). Similarly, (Klepfer et al. 2018) also highlighted some other challenges such as lack of administrative support, financial issues, and lack of family support in online education. Apart from western researchers, there are some Pakistani researchers that highlighted issues and challenges related to digital learning, such as (Qureshi et al. 2012) identified challenges of implementing digital learning inside the Pakistani institutes and found that there are various challenges and barriers in Pakistani institutes include digital incompetency, lack of access to digital devices, lack of computer literacy, and privacy issues. Similarly, (Hussain 2017) also found numerous challenges faced by students in digital learning such as lack of access to online resources, technical issues in dealing with computers, networking issues and lack of support from educational institutes. Moreover, the role of gender in digital learning is not identified clearly, some researchers identified that girls are facing more

120

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al.

difficulties in digital learning (Adamus et al., 2009). While some other studies shown that both are facing equally challenges in digital learning especially in this pandemic situation (Korlat et al., 2021). The findings of this study also revealed that male and females are facing equal challenges in digital learning. The above studies emphasized that digital education is the need of the current world. Hence, the Government of Pakistan should take some serious steps to improve and recover the online education system in Pakistan. So, the above discussion provides sufficient insights into the nature of the problem that is faced by students in digital learning. It also indicates that while implementing online education in the past, students faced various problems, thus it is very likely that in the current situation, students are facing problems while attending online classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation. It requires a wide range of efforts at the individual level from the student’s side as well from the teacher’s side and at the institutional level such as the management side to overcome these challenges and problems. The Higher education commission and the Ministry of Education need to devise online education policies. They should also give financial support to universities for the desired material resources. The policy-related achievement of the higher education commission is quite appreciable, such as online readiness policy guidance note and policy guidelines for universities on COVID-19. Now, it is time for the successful implementation of the prerequisite policies and procedures to overcome these issues.

Conclusion The importance of digital learning can widely be seen in these days. It has eased the lives of many people and made a better world for us. Its significance can also be seen in all sectors, especially in the educational sector. Furthermore, by looking at the current situation where countries’ schools, colleges and universities are closed to maintain social distance in order to save from COVID-19, digital learning has shown its importance for students as well as for teachers; current situation has emphasized upon the digital learning. To overcome the educational crisis many schools have decided to shift their schooling from traditional to online method. Digital learning has yet again arrived for help in such tough times like COVID-19 pandemic situation. Although digital learning is accepted worldwide, Pakistan had not introduced this method as an official platform for education until recently when the

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms

121

COVid-19 situation has arrived. Pakistan is facing many difficulties while implementing digital learning in the education sector. So, the aim of this study is to identify Challenging factors of digital learning faced by male and female students of public sector University of Pakistan in COVID-19 pandemic situation. Results revealed that limited access to Wi-Fi at home, reduced interaction with teachers, technical problems while using digital modes, poor learning conditions at home, electricity issue, connectivity issues, being less disciplined while attending online classes and social isolation are some major challenges being faced by the students. Additionally, the Universities of Pakistan should pay attention towards the online education system by following the policies of HCS such as online Readiness policy and guidance policy for universities in this pandemic. Students should practice the techniques of digital learning and should prepare for the next era of online education in Pakistan. Finally, there are some recommendations for future studies. Recommendations are based on research methods. The present study was a cross-sectional study, so a longitudinal study should be done in the future. In this study data was collected from one university so in future data should be collected from more universities. The population of this study was university students, in the future, more studies should be conducted on colleges and schools. Moreover, this study applied descriptive and inferential statistics, in future, case study and ethnography should be used to get more insight about this issue.

References Adedoyin, Olasile Babatunde, and Emrah Soykan. “Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities.” Interactive Learning Environments (2020): 1-13. Ali. “Students disappointed with online teaching system amid COVID-19.” Retrieved from Daily Times: https://dailytimes.com.pk/587446/ students-disappointed-with-online-teaching-system-amid-covid-19 (2020). Akhmedshina, F. “Gender inequality in it technology: Causes and prospects.” ACADEMICIA: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal 11, no. 3 (2021): 2315-2319. Anwar, Muhammad, Anwar Khan, and Khalid Sultan. “The Barriers and Challenges Faced by Students in Online Education during Covid-19

122

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al.

Pandemic in Pakistan.” Gomal University Journal of Research 36, no. 1 (2020): 52-62. Arkorful, Valentina, and Nelly Abaidoo. “The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education.” International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 12, no. 1 (2015): 29-42. Bhandari, Aarushi. “Gender inequality in mobile technology access: the role of economic and social development.” Information, Communication & Society 22, no. 5 (2019): 678-694. Bozkurt, Aras, and Ramesh C. Sharma. “Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic.” Asian Journal of Distance Education 15, no. 1 (2020): i-vi. Cauchemez, Simon, Maria D. Van Kerkhove, Brett N. Archer, Martin Cetron, Benjamin J. Cowling, Peter Grove, Darren Hunt et al. “School closures during the 2009 influenza pandemic: national and local experiences.” BMC infectious diseases 14, no. 1 (2014): 1-11. Cucinotta, Domenico, and Maurizio Vanelli. “WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic.” Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis 91, no. 1 (2020): 157. Demirbilek, Muhammet. “The ‘digital natives’ debate: An investigation of the digital propensities of university students.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 10, no. 2 (2014): 115-123. Dua, Shikha, Seema Wadhawan, and Sweety Gupta. “Issues, trends & challenges of digital education: An empowering innovative classroom model for learning.” International Journal of Science Technology and Management. Vol 5 (2016): 2394-1537. Esfijani, Azam. “Measuring quality in online education: A meta-synthesis.” American Journal of Distance Education 32, no. 1 (2018): 57-73. Fernando, Ranil. “COVID-19 Pandemic; a call for a reality check.” Galle Medical Journal 25, no. 1 (2020). Ferrari, Anusca. Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Sevilla: JRC IPTS. (DOI: 10.2791/82116) (2012). Gupta, Namrata, and Arun K. Sharma. “Gender inequality in the work environment at institutes of higher learning in science and technology in India.” Work, employment and society 17, no. 4 (2003): 597-616. Harasim, Linda. Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge, 2017. Hussain, Nosheen. “Challenges of e-learning in pakistan from student’s perspective: A phenomenological approach.” Journal of Social Sciences and Media Studies 1, no. 1 (2017): 50-63. Khan, A. A., S. Niazi, and S. K. Saif. Universities unprepared for switch to remote learning. University World News (2020).

How Digital Learning Influences Modern Classrooms

123

Khan, M. Z., Sumaira Rehman, and Chaudhry Abdul Rehman. “Educa-tion and income inequality in Pakistan’.” Management & Administra-tive Science Review 4, no. 1 (2015): 134-45 Kibuku, Rachael Njeri, Daniel Orwa Ochieng, and Agnes Nduku Wausi. “e‑Learning Challenges Faced by Universities in Kenya: A Literature Review.” Electronic Journal of e-Learning 18, no. 2 (2020): pp150-161. Klepfer, Kasey, Bryan Ashton, Dwuana Bradley, Christopher Fernandez, Max Wartel, and Jeff Webster. “Student Financial Wellness Survey Report. Spring Report.” Trellis Company (2018). Korlat, Selma, Marlene Kollmayer, Julia Holzer, Marko Lüftenegger, Elisabeth Rosa Pelikan, Barbara Schober, and Christiane Spiel. “Gender Differences in Digital Learning During COVID-19: Competence Beliefs, Intrinsic Value, Learning Engagement, and Perceived Teacher Support.” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021): 849. Kwary, Deny A., and Sarah Fauzie. “Students’ achievement and opinions on the implementation of e-learning for phonetics and phonology lectures at Airlangga University.” Educação e Pesquisa 44 (2017). [Education and Research] Mukhtar, Khadijah, Kainat Javed, Mahwish Arooj, and Ahsan Sethi. “Advantages, Limitations and Recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era.” Pakistan journal of medical sciences 36, no. COVID19-S4 (2020): S27. Myers, A. After COVID-19: Recalibrating the American educational system. Johns Hopkins University. April (2020). Omotayo, Funmilola O., and AbdulRasaq Haliru. “Perception of task-technology fit of digital library among undergraduates in selected universities in Nigeria.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 46, no. 1 (2020): 102097. Oriogu, Chuks Daniel, Charlse Ikechukwu Ejemezu, and Chima Darlina Ogbuiyi. “The Use of mobile devices in learning foreign languages: Survey of a private university.” Library Philosophy and Practice (2018): 1. Qureshi, Ijaz A., Khola Ilyas, Robina Yasmin, and Michael Whitty. “Challenges of implementing e-learning in a Pakistani university.” Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal 4, no. 3 (2012): 310324. Safdar, Muhammad, and Musarat Yasmin. “COVID‐19: A threat to educated Muslim women’s negotiated identity in Pakistan.” Gender, Work & Organization 27, no. 5 (2020): 683-694. Saplacan, Diana. “Situated ability: A case from Higher Education on digital learning environments.” In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 256-274. Springer, Cham, 2020.

124

M. Mujtaba Asad, S. Sumbul Shah, F. Sherwani et al.

Saqlain, Muhammad, Muhammad Muddasir Munir, Ali Ahmed, Azhar Hussain Tahir, and Sohail Kamran. “Is Pakistan prepared to tackle the coronavirus epidemic?.” Drugs & Therapy Perspectives (2020): 1. Taat, Muhamad Suhaimi, and Agatha Francis. “Factors Influencing the Students’ Acceptance of E-Learning at Teacher Education Institute: An Exploratory Study in Malaysia.” International Journal of Higher Education 9, no. 1 (2020): 133-141. Yan, Gabriel, Chun Kiat Lee, Lawrence TM Lam, Benedict Yan, Ying Xian Chua, Anita YN Lim, Kee Fong Phang et al. “Covert COVID-19 and false-positive dengue serology in Singapore.” The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20, no. 5 (2020): 536.

Chapter 7

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability: Identification of Barriers for the Member States Riccardo Corrado1, and Audrey Liwan2 1American 2Universiti

University of Phnom Penh, Cambodia Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia

Abstract In 2015 ASEAN launched the ICT Masterplan 2015, followed by the 2020 Masterplan, addressing major key elements in the ICT regional development with the belief that Information Communication Technology (ICT) will be a key enabler for the regional social and economic integration and supporting the ASEAN race toward sustainable development. With a focus on the fourth United Nations Sustainable Development Goal, namely quality education, the relatively recent phenomenon of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has emerged as a powerful tool for democratizing education and supporting a quality one. Currently, there is no common framework at the ASEAN level for guiding the member states in adopting MOOCs. Prior to the creation of a common framework, one major characteristic of the ASEAN region to consider is represented by the non-homogeneity between its members. The effectiveness of a framework, in fact, requires a relatively homogeneous environment, reachable only if specific areas of action are identified and improved. In this chapter, relying on the official ASEAN 

Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected].

In: E-Learning Editors: Donnie Adams and Chuah Kee Man ISBN: 978-1-68507-604-7 © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

126

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan statistics, we identified three categories, with subcategories of issues to address for creating a homogeneous ecosystem, from the perspective of MOOCs implementation in ASEAN: the technological, human capital, and economic category. Additionally, for every category, we identified subcategories in which we identified regional members to focus on specific aspects, aiming to reach a minimum level of homogeneity, while capable to pave the path toward the creation of a future common framework for MOOCs adoption at the regional level.

Keywords: ASEAN, sustainable development, homogeneity, quality education, MOOCs

1. Introduction Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are a relatively recent learning phenomenon that provides a combination of open education and eLearning (Corrado et al. 2021a). MOOCs are developed under the concept of Open Learning or Open Education, enabling the so-called ‘knowledge democratization,’ leveraging on academic aspects such as interaction, access to debate, knowledge trading, and transparency beyond just the provision of contents, and mostly, open access to syllabus and resources (Quiliano Terreros et al. 2009). Haron et al. (2019) pointed out that massive, online, open, and free, are the hallmarks of MOOCs (sometimes and most of the time). Specifically, ‘massive’ simply indicates that a MOOC can accommodate a large number of students, far more than the size afforded in a regular face-toface class or an online course. The term ‘online’ refers to a course that can be completed remotely over the internet rather than in a classroom setting, like a MOOC. Anyone with an internet connection, independently from the location, can participate in these learning experiences, due to the ubiquitous characteristic of these courses. This characteristic is an intrinsic advantage offered by Information Communication Technology (ICT), an aspect even more relevant during the pandemic that affected the entire world. Additionally, openness refers to the fact that these courses should be open to anybody and shoul not have any prerequisites, such as a qualification or a certain degree of achievement in previous studies. Furthermore, according to Canbek (2015), and as previously mentioned, MOOCs are a relatively new phenomenon in distance education, having first appeared in 2012, and became a hot topic in online education especially due to the ongoing pandemic. MOOCs offer to those individuals who lack the

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

127

financial, travel, or temporary availability to benefit from quality education, without the ties of the classic boundaries and limitations imposed by offline learning experiences. MOOCs, in fact, due to their ability to offer ivy-league education for free, captured the public imagination with the promise to possibly solve the problem of access to higher education (HE) (Hulsmann 2016) and quality professional development. However, Dillahunt et al. (2014) also pointed out that the majority of learners who are taking advantage of these courses are already employed or have post-secondary degrees, and in general, have not faced financial limitations to accessing HE. Thus, even if MOOCs have proposed themselves as a possible solution to several issues currently staggering the education ecosystem around the world, their adoption requires preparation and an implementation plan for enabling them to be effective (Corrado et al. 2021). Currently, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), an association consisting of ten countries namely Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, also known as ASEAN Member States (AMS), has attracted much attention due to its pre-pandemic economic growth, and its economic potential, mixed with its relatively young population (ASEAN 2015), a perfect mix for representing fertile soil for investment and economic growth. On the other end, a fundamental aspect to consider when talking about development is represented by the sustainability aspect of it. In this regard, in 2015 all the United Nations (UN) Member States joined the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which in accordance with its vision, “provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” (UN n.d.). This agenda presents 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which represent an urgent call for action by all countries, either if developed or developing ones, together in a global partnership (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). One of the goals is represented by quality education, and specifically, quality education has been identified as one of SDGs, and more specifically the fourth one, part of the UN agenda. Quality education represents one of the pillars for sustainable growth, and MOOCs have been proposed by a pool of educators and researchers as an appealing tool with the capability to democratize and support quality education, due to its open, massive, and free nature (Corrado & Tungjan 2019). However, even before considering the possibility to create a framework at the regional level, for enabling MOOCs to empower ASEAN learners with free quality education, ASEAN needs to address one of the issues currently characterizing its fabric: non-homogeneity (ASEAN 2015). To the best of our

128

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

knowledge, no previous research works have addressed this aspect of the ASEAN region, from the perspective of MOOCs as a tool for sustaining quality education, one of the SDGs and one of the pillars of sustainable growth. Thus, with this chapter, aiming to fill the identified gap in the body of research, we offer an analysis of the current scenario in ASEAN, using official statistics provided by the ASEAN Secretariat, to identify issues to address at the ASEAN level tailored to MOOCs adoption. As the first step, we have identified three categories, and within each category, specific subcategories of current issues to address, with the goal to foster the creation of a homogeneous ecosystem capable to support effective implementation of MOOCs at the regional level, and not only at the national one, something that may cause an even larger gap between the more developed, and the less developed members. Additionally, in this chapter, we have identified issues for each subcategory, and the AMS belonging to each. Following our categorization, each AMS could clearly identify specific areas of action to focus on, to achieve a common homogeneous ground suitable for fostering the creation of a regional framework of action for MOOCs implementation for quality education at the regional level, and not only at the national one. In the rest of this chapter, we first discuss how MOOCs could support sustainable development, mostly related to quality education. Following, these authors offer an overview of the current ICT-related education in ASEAN, for then diving into the aspects to consider and barriers to address for a regional MOOCs adoption, categorizing them in three categories, and subcategories of issues that should be addressed. Furthermore, for each subcategory, the AMS who belongs to each of them are identified. The final part of the chapter will focus on the ways forward for ASEAN in using MOOC as its tool for propagating quality education.

2. MOOCs for Education in Achieving Sustainable Development Today’s societies are confronted with social, economic, health, and environmental crises, necessitating a paradigm shift based on sustainable development that contributes to the creation of a society that lives within the planet’s ecological limits (Sosa-Díaz & Fernández-Sánchez 2020). In 2015, the UN introduced 17 SDGs to foster the sustainability aspect of development. The term ‘sustainability’ refers to an increase in the quality of human life while remaining within the support ecosystem’s capabilities (Fernández & Gutiérrez

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

129

2013). The function of education has been identified as one of the most important areas for generating and fostering change (Sulkowski et al. 2020). The SDG 4, namely quality education, is a priority goal of the UN SDGs, and it aims to “ensure inclusive, equitable, and high-quality education for all and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UN n.d.). According to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, which represents a global call to action to address the world’s most pressing issues, education promotes socioeconomic mobility and is essential for escaping poverty. Considering the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the uprising role of technologies in our times, it is important to analyze how technology-driven solutions can support the race toward achieving the SDGs. Regarding this, it is agreed that technologies, and more specifically ICT, are considered a vehicle to empower the poor and enable development in underdeveloped regions of the world (Hilty & Hercheui 2010). ICT has already shown its ability to support development and in fact, it fostered economic growth and social progress in the last few decades (Doong & Ho 2012). Among the several aspects that can be supported by ICT, one of them is education, considered as an economic development pillar (Neamtu 2015). ICT can enhance education in multiple ways (Daniela 2019). Daniela (2019, p. 12) introduced the acronym SMART technologies for describing those technological solutions “that are able to adapt automatically and change behavior to suit the environment, sense things with technological sensors, provide data to analyze, and draw conclusions from the data obtained.” In this context, Daniela (2019, p. 16) defined SMART as: (S) smart and social, (M) meta-cognitively developed and motivated, (A) anywhere and anytime, (R) rapidly changing, and (T) technologically enhanced. Thus, considering the SMART environment, what can ICT do for ASEAN educators, and what has already been done in ASEAN?

3. ICT in Today’s ASEAN Education Scenario In 2015 ASEAN launched the ASEAN ICT Masterplan 2015 (ASEAN 2015), with the belief that ICT will be a “key enabler for ASEAN’s social and economic integration” (KOICA 2020, p. 5). With this Masterplan, ASEAN addressed four major key elements in the ICT regional development, namely utilization of ICT for competitiveness, recognition of ASEAN as a global ICT hub, enhancement of the regional quality of people life, and foster collaboration across ASEAN business and citizens (Wongwuttiwat &

130

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

Lawanna 2018). Additionally, within this master plan, ASEAN defined six strategies to adopt for reaching the goals set in the plan: economic transformation, people empowerment and engagement, ICT innovation, ICT infrastructure development, human capital development, and bridging the digital divide within the society (ASEAN 2015). After the ASEAN ICT Masterplan 2015, in 2020 a new masterplan was launched, named ASEAN ICT Masterplan 2020. In this masterplan, ASEAN offered recommendations such as enhancing the ICT infrastructure development, prioritize projects with stronger emphasis, define responsibilities for published outcomes, define processes and responsibilities for future masterplan projects, focusing on projects relevant to trade agreements and regional economy, short masterplans from 5 to 2-3 years duration, facilitating post-pandemic recovery, address insufficient focus on cloud computing, and address the digital divide and increasing cooperation between AMS (ASEAN 2020). Accounting for the suggestions offered in the 2020 masterplan, namely “prioritize projects with stronger emphasis,” and “define processes and responsibilities for future masterplan projects” it is essential to identify specific issues analyzing the current regional ecosystem for fostering the creation of regional plans of action. Analyzing the ASEAN statistics and current regional scenario, we can say that ASEAN is a region still behind in ICT overall performance (Vu 2017), with a non-homogeneous regional digital divide issue (Ness & Lin 2015) that is still larger in comparison to the world, with the exception of mobile phones (Vu 2017). The digital divide issue has roots in the educational level (Corrado & Tungjan 2019; Prajaknate 2017). In fact, the integration of ICT in the national education curriculum is still not widespread, with only four AMS, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand have included a course on basic computer skills within the curricula at the primary, lower-secondary, and upper-secondary level of education (Prajaknate 2017). Additionally, still, no members of the ASEAN community, included Singapore, have been able to achieve a universal one:one learner-tocomputer ratio (Prajaknate 2017). ICT education and preparation are essential. In fact, in accordance with the study of Wannapan and Chaiboonsri (2018), ICT is the causal determiner driving economic growth in ASEAN. In general, it can be said that ICT increases economic growth in both rich and poor countries (Appiah-Otoo & Song 2021). In order to concentrate on problem solutions, it is essential to ensure equitable educational systems in ICT and the development of hightechnology in all the AMS (Wannapan & Chaiboonsri 2018) – not an easy process. Regarding this, Machmud et al. (2021) highlighted the fact that the

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

131

ASEAN region is still presenting a non-homogeneous developmental ecosystem, which is characterized by development gaps in the education context, economic growth, human resources, infrastructure, and policies. These gaps have a deep impact on technology preferences and educational technology perspectives across the region. For instance, where the Singaporean approach focuses on preparing its workforce with an appropriate and targeted development of thinking through the role of ICT in the future socio-economic, other AMS like Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam have slower rates in the spread and development of ICT infrastructure (Machmud et al. 2021). Regarding education and workforce preparation, many policymakers and scholars have already expressed their belief that digital literacy and expertise are essential elements of the human capital competencies for the 21-st century economy (Hsu & Yeh 2019). But technologies can also support education itself. Specifically, many countries have already started the process of investigation and implementation of technologies that, supported by pedagogical theories, can provide new solutions unimaginable only a few decades ago, with the role of higher education (HE) in national development has been already widely recognized (Bandalaria 2018). The importance of technologies for the development of ASEAN countries should be considered both in terms of preparation for the new generations and also in terms of supporting the education itself, in a form of technological pervasion of the educational ecosystem. Considering this, it results fundamental to address the issues related to the implementation of technology into the ASEAN education sector, to be sure that is aligned with the visions of ASEAN and its members. In the rest of this paper, we place a focus mainly on the increasingly intertwined dependency that education and ICT are experiencing and set as a focal point of the discussion one of the many ICT tools that can be used for supporting education: MOOCs.

4. MOOCs in ASEAN Education Open Educational Resources (OER)-related activities are not new to the higher education ecosystem around the world. UNESCO defined OER as “teaching, learning and research materials in any medium – digital or otherwise – that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions.” MOOCs need to be seen in the wider context of OER

132

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

(Hulsmann 2016). Asia is moving in that direction as well. In the specific, regarding the Asian ecosystem, some countries have made national efforts to disseminate and support the usage of MOOCs in the region (Shigeta et al. 2017). In recent years, in fact, many open universities in Asia adopted various forms of open education (Bandalaria 2018). Countries like India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines have already Open Universities offering open education in a different form, and one of these forms is through the adoption of MOOCs for fully online or blended learning experiences. In the ASEAN region, MOOCs present much potential in terms of what they can offer to address the various challenges faced by education systems (Bandalaria 2018). As Dennis (2018) pointed out, while the traditional university is still indispensable, technology and innovation are completely disrupting the status quo and countries like Thailand and Malaysia have already taken this opportunity. In the case of Malaysia, its government is very supportive of the use of MOOCs and sees it as a platform to integrate learning technologies (Kumar & Al-Samarraie 2018). The first higher education institution to announce its pilot MOOC was Taylor’s University, in 2013. Only one year later, in October 2014, the Ministry of Higher Education officially declared Malaysia the first country in the world to implement MOOCs for all public universities (COMPETEN-SEA 2019). It can be said that Malaysia is moving forward in the process of implementing MOOCs as an official tool for blended learning. As proof of this, the Malaysian Government, with the Shift 9 Malaysian Education Blueprint 2015–2025, officially recognized MOOCs for credit transfer, making Malaysia the first country ever to accept credit transfer by crediting national and international MOOCs (Kumar & Al-Samarraie 2018). Regarding Thailand instead, in order to tackle the economic downturn and the aging population, the Thai Government introduced a new national development policy, called Thailand 4.0 policy (Buasuwan 2018). The Thai Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC) has suggested a number of changes required in Thailand 4.0, for achieving the targets defined in the development of the 3rd Framework of the 15 years long Range Plan (20172031) (Buasuwan 2018). One of the purposes of MOOCs in Thailand is to create networks between institutions (Thaipisutikul & Tuarob 2017), and this is the example also of one of the major projects in Thailand, the Thailand Cyber University Project (TCU), (Anutariya & Thongsuntia 2019), with the flagship project being represented by Thai MOOC, which is a national MOOC platform (Thammetar & Khlaisang 2019). With this project, a strategic plan related to open education was developed, with the goal to lead to a learning

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

133

society and promote lifelong learning via ICT in Thailand (Thammetar & Khlaisang 2019). Besides Malaysia and Thailand, Cambodia has shown its commitment to integrate ICT into education. The Cambodian Government has shown its commitment to ICT expansion with the adoption of the Cambodian National Science and Technology Master Plan 2014-2020 (Corrado et al. 2021), placing a major focus on the importance of ICT and ICT-related education. Regarding STEM education, in fact, its importance has been already highlighted multiple times by the Government, and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS), and culminated with the Cambodian National Education Strategic Plan (2014–2018), which aimed to prepare students for the twenty-firstcentury workforce. Furthermore, regarding specifically MOOCs, in December 2015, the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Korea signed a Memorandum of Understanding on a Partnership Cooperation for the development of e-Learning content (Khan 2015). In the Philippines, its Department of Education has already expanded the traditional, formal school-based system adding new methods, and defined alternative delivery modes, with one of the major components represented by e-learning technologies (COMPETEN-SEA 2019). Regarding tertiary education in the Philippines, it is important to highlight the promulgation of the open distance learning act, which institutionalized open distance learning at levels of tertiary education, promoting e-learning technologies, with a specific focus on MOOCs, “mandating as it does the acceptance of online courses as formal education” (COMPETEN-SEA 2019). In Indonesia, MOOCs represent a powerful tool for knowledge dissemination due to their large population, and it being the largest in the ASEAN fraternity. Additionally, MOOCs have been supported through the Ministerial Regulation Number 109 in 2013, where it was also ensured that participants of distance education can receive academic credits recognized by the promoter of those courses (Berliyanto & Santoso 2018). In October 2014, the Directorate of Learning and Student Affairs, and the Directorate General of Higher Education of Indonesia developed the so-called Indonesian Open and Integrated Online Learning Program or Pembelajaran Daring Indonesia Terbuka dan Terpadu (PDITT), which later was renamed Online Learning System or Sistem Pembelajaran Daring (SPADA). SPADA, in the specific, was created for conducting online learning, adopting MOOCs (Lubis et al. 2020). In summary, MOOCs have become a symbol of a larger modernization agenda for universities but not yet across all ASEAN in an effective and

134

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

homogeneous way. But MOOCs have enormous potential, not only in terms of democratizing education but also in supporting the race of the region toward the achievement of sustainable development goals, with a specific focus on quality education, mostly for those AMS who are left behind the most.

5. MOOCs for ASEAN Education: Issues and Ways Forward Considering the opportunity MOOCs are offering, and the journey that some AMS has already embarked on for studying, analyzing, and deploying MOOCs for supporting their educational systems, there are still many barriers to the extensive implementation of MOOCs in ASEAN. Hence, this part of the chapter is dedicated to identifying the common and uncommon areas related to MOOCs issues and challenges face in ASEAN. Based on the Khan Dimensional Framework (2000) there are numerous factors that contribute to creating a meaningful learning environment, and many of these factors are interconnected and interdependent in a systematic way. The goal of this framework is to assist people like MOOC providers, instructors, and policymakers in thinking through each step of the e-learning design process. According to Khan (2000), designers may build effective learning environments by having a holistic awareness of these variables, including pedagogical, technological, interface design, evaluation, management, resource support, ethical, and institutional variables. All ASEAN countries have introduced initiatives to incorporate ICT in education, recognizing the benefits of using ICT to improve the quality, equality, and efficiency of educational institutions. However, due to the region’s diversity in terms of economic and educational variables, member countries are at varying degrees of ICT integration. For instance, SEAMEO categorizes the ten member countries into three groups based on these varied stages in its 2010 report (SAMEO, 2010). Specifically, in this report, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Timor Leste are listed in the emerging category (group 3), Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam in the Infusing category (group 2), and Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore in the Transforming category (group 1). Additionally, it is worth noting that within each category, there are variances as well. By considering the ICT integration variances among the ASEAN countries, this study has extended the important factors that need to be addressed to achieve SDG 4 as summarized in Table 1. The factors identification is made based on the data in the ASEAN Sustainable

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

135

Development Goals Indicators Baseline Report 2020 (The ASEAN Secretariat, 2020). We identified 3 macro categories referring to three areas of interest, namely the technological one, the human capital one, and the economical one. In order to identify these 3 categories, we analyzed the different statistics reported by the ASEAN Sustainable Development Goals Indicators Baseline Report 2020. First, we excluded those statistics not directly relevant to ICT and education. Once the set of ICT and educationrelated statistics were identified, we grouped them in areas of interest, thus identifying a more technological-related sphere, including statistics such as ownership of electronics (mobile) devices, availability of computers for pedagogical purposes, mobile cellular signal coverage, fixed broadband subscriptions, internet usage, and electricity access. These statistics are capable to represent those technological-related factors fundamental for obtaining an overview of the readiness of a country to enable MOOCs for supporting them in the race toward the achievement of the 4th SDG (quality education). The second macro category identified referred to the human capital, accounting for both teachers and students. The ability to use effectively MOOCs for supporting education, in fact, passes through both teachers’ ability and preparation to use MOOCs and implement them into learning activities, and from the preparation, and overall readiness of students in using them (Corrado et al. 2021a; Corrado et al. 2021c). Thus, in this category, we included statistics such as teacher preparation and illiteracy. Finally, the last category identified referred to the economical aspect, and more specifically it included poverty. The economical aspect, in fact, is an element directly related to education and in general the ability to offer quality education (Boussetta 2021; Ebersöhn 2017; Suasih et al. 2020). As a further step, to guide each AMS in identifying the area of interest they should focus on, for every category, we identified each AMS which should belong or not belong to specific subcategories. Belongingness to a subcategory was determined in accordance with the official statistics provided by the ASEAN Secretariat (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). For every subcategory, we considered the most recent average level (between the AMS) in the considered subcategory and used it as a demarcation level. Thus, for each subcategory, those AMS with their level under the ASEAN average level in that specific subcategory was assigned to the subcategory, as being considered behind the regional average, and thus, countries who should focus on the specific issue-related area. In table 1 are reported categories, subcategories, and AMS.

136

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

Table 1. ASEAN Countries with barriers to address divided by identified category Main Category Technological

Area to Address

Countries with the Issue

Next step Goal

Ownership of electronics (mobile) devices Computers for pedagogical purposes

Indonesia (Lao PDR, Philippines, and Vietnam not included) Indonesia Myanmar (Lao PDR, Singapore, and Thailand not included) Indonesia (Lao PDR, Myanmar, and the Philippines not included) Myanmar Philippines (Indonesia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Thailand not included) Indonesia Philippines (Lao PDR not included) Cambodia Myanmar Philippines (Lao PDR, and Singapore not included) Brunei Indonesia (Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Singapore not included) Cambodia Lao PDR Myanmar Philippines Laos PDR Myanmar Philippines (Brunei, and Singapore not included)

Common Plan at the ASEAN Level

Mobile Cellular Signal Coverage Fixed Broadband Subscription

Internet Usage

Electricity Access

Human Capital Teacher’s Preparations

Illiteracy

Economical

Poverty

MOOCs for ASEAN 4th SDG

6. Discussion To benefit from MOOCs, a first step is to be able to own electronic devices such as smartphones or laptops. In 2018, among the eight AMS with national

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

137

poverty lines (excluding Brunei and Singapore) an average of 13 percent of people were living below the countries’ poverty line (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). Myanmar recorded the highest figure with 24.8 percent, followed by the Philippines (23.5 percent), Lao PDR (18.3 percent), and Cambodia (13.5 percent). Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam recorded a figure of ten percent or below, respectively ten, 7.6, and 6.8 percent (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). These figures become even worse when considering the educational settings. For instance, when accounting for the availability of computers for pedagogical purposes in the region, a marked disparity between AMS was identified (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). For example, if Singapore reported a 100 percent figure, on the other end of the spectrum Philippines recorded a 41.1 percent figure, and Myanmar even lower, with only 2.2 percent of schools reporting having access to computers to use for pedagogical purposes (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). The use of technology in education has been heavily investigated in the last years (Lai & Bower, 2019), but in a region where less than fifty percent of schools have access to computers for pedagogical purposes, there is the serious risk to not be able to benefit from ICT. Furthermore, even considering smartphone ownership and internet access, the numbers depict a situation that may represent a serious threat to MOOCs. In the specific, in terms of smartphone availability, ASEAN registered an average of 73.9 percent of people owning a mobile phone (not necessarily a smartphone) with the lowest figures recorded by Indonesia, with a 62.4 percent figure (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). Furthermore, 78.6 percent of the region’s population is within the reach of a mobile-cellular signal, with the highest figures reached by Singapore, followed by Cambodia, and Vietnam (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). The lowest available figure was recorded by Indonesia with 62.4 percent of the country’s population within the reach of a mobile-cellular signal. Considering the fixed internet broadband, the situation doesn’t show a better situation. In the specific, regarding fixed internet broadband subscriptions, ASEAN averaged 7.2 percent in 2018, with Singapore having the highest figure (26.4 percent), followed by Vietnam and Brunei. Philippines registered only 3.7 percent, followed only by Myanmar (0.4 percent) (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). Table 2 shows the comparison of fixed broadband subscriptions and of mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in ASEAN countries for 2016 to 2018, in accordance with the World Bank’s World Development Indicators (The World Bank 2021).

138

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

The fixed broadband subscription reported in Table 2 refers to high-speed access to the public internet (a TCP/IP connection), at downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 256 kbit/s. Overall, the report shows an increasing trend of fixed broadband subscriptions for the three years period except for Malaysia. Regarding mobile subscriptions instead, the numbers show a fluctuating trend but depicting an overall positive scenario, with more than one subscription per person, other than for Myanmar (for the years 2016 and 2017) and for Lao PDR. But, even if the numbers of fixed broadband subscriptions are rising, and the number of mobile subscriptions is relatively high across the region, it is possible to see how the figures are not homogeneous across ASEAN, with countries like Myanmar, and Lao PDR, having an extremely low number of fixed-broadband subscriptions, and relatively low mobile subscriptions. Table 2. Fixed Broadband Subscriptions (per 100 people), and Mobile Cellular Subscriptions (per 100 people) in 2016-2018 Country

Brunei Darussalam Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam

Fixed Broadband Subscriptions Year 2016 2017 2018 8.6 9.7 11.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 2.3 3.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 8.9 8.6 8.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.9 3.2 3.5 28.2 25.8 25.9 10.5 11.9 13.2 9.7 11.9 13.6

Mobile Cellular Subscriptions 2016 124.7 126.3 147.4 57.8 141.6 95.4 115.9 149.7 173.5 128.8

2017 128.3 116.0 164.4 53.4 136.1 89.8 114.1 146.8 175.6 126.9

2018 131.9 119.5 119.3 51.9 134.5 113.8 126.2 148.8 180.2 147.2

This is a very important aspect for assuring the good implementation of online courses in formal and even in non-formal education since one of the major obstacles for the usage of online courses passes by the quality of connection, bandwidth, power cuts, and cost of the service. In general, independently of using mobile access, or fixed broadband access to the internet, the percentage of people using the internet in ASEAN shows once more a very different scenario based on the country considered. In Figure 1 we can see how across ASEAN we assist AMS with more than eighty percent of citizens using the internet, and others where less than 35 percent does.

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

139

Additionally, from Figure 1 we can see that there are significant differences between countries, with Brunei Darussalam reporting the highest percentage of individuals using the internet (94.87%) followed by Singapore (84.45%) and Malaysia (80.14%). At the other end of the scale, Myanmar has the lowest rate of internet users (23.62%) and Lao PDR is second-lowest in terms of percentage of individuals using the internet.

Figure 1. Individuals using the internet (% of Population) in 2017.

Figure 2. Access to electricity (% of Population) in 2018.

140

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

Furthermore, focusing on electricity access, in the ASEAN region, 86.1 percent of primary schools (on average) had access in 2018 to electricity, with the figure being dramatically low for Myanmar, where only 20.3 percent of primary schools had access to electricity (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). This figure slightly increases when talking about electricity access in the own house, with a 2018 average in ASEAN equal to 92 percent. It’s a reality that electricity is a precondition for connectivity, and this has been discussed in the existing literature (Corrado et al. 2021a). Figure 2 displays how the region is overall on the right path for achieving citizen access to electricity, except for Myanmar. The issues though are not only technological, such as electricity, ownership of devices, or internet access. In fact, ASEAN is also suffering from a pre-existent education issue (Corrado & Tungjan 2019; The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). The region, mostly in some of the AMS, is suffering from an illiterate youth issue. Specifically, regarding this, the percentage of literate amount ASEAN population aged 14 years and above are still low, mostly in Myanmar, Cambodia, and Lao PDR, with respectively 88.9, 82.5, and 70.4 percent figures (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). This represents an issue and an undermining threat to the possible usage of MOOCs. In fact, in this regard, across all geographic regions, students that decide to learn with MOOCs have very high levels of educational attainment with 83 percent of students having a post-secondary degree, and almost 80 percent of students having a bachelor’s degree or higher (Christensen et al. 2013). Another issue that influences the effective implementation of MOOCs in ASEAN is represented by the need for a strong learners’ commitment to learning and improving, a requirement that has been proved to be one of the widely recognized problems of MOOCs: the low completion rate (Jiang et al. 2014). It is important to underline the concept that ICT left to itself, tends to augment entrenched inequalities and not to overcome them (Corrado et al. 2021a; Hulsmann 2016). Koller et al. (2013) found out that the biggest barriers in completing a MOOC are time and course design, a design process that should take place considering the learners and their characteristics. Considering the typology of learners and their needs is very important and it is a fundamental factor in the success of a MOOC between specific learners. The design of MOOCs that target the specific learner typology in any AMS and its needs could be a possible solution: MOOCs designed around the ASEAN learner. But this is not a low-cost solution (Hollands & Tirthali 2014), and thus a feasible approach for developing countries.

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

141

In addition to these obstacles, it is also important to highlight another issue: low teacher preparation. Considering the available data for ASEAN, 90.3 percent of teachers in primary education had received at least the minimum pedagogical training required in their country, and 95.3 percent at the secondary level (The ASEAN Secretariat 2020). These numbers may represent an issue for the region. In fact, a very important element to consider is how MOOCs can be implemented in an effective way for supporting the learning experiences of students (Corrado & Tungjan 2019). To be sure that these online courses can effectively support the learning experience of the students, a careful learning design process must take place (Corrado 2021). In fact, MOOCs differ from earlier models of e-learning mostly because of their massiveness (Buhl et al. 2018) and thus the framework for their implementations must be adapted to many aspects of the learning ecosystems where they are going to be introduced. In conclusion, as de Freitas et al. (2015, p. 457), wrote, “it is easy to see the appeal of an education system that appears to promise higher education, for free, to an unlimited audience.” But currently, ASEAN results still a region non-homogenous under different aspects, with many issues to address for guaranteeing an effective implementation of MOOCs, and even for allowing the creation of a MOOCs adoption framework at the regional level, and not only at the national one, for supporting education, the fourth SDG, and pillar of sustainable development in the region.

Conclusion ASEAN has already expressed its clear belief that ICT represents a key enabler for the regional social and economic integration, capable to support the development through the enhancement of regional quality of people life, increased collaboration, boosted competitiveness on the world stage, and offering the opportunity to ASEAN to become a global ICT hub, with all the advantages connected to it. The overall development of the region, supported by the affordances offered by ICT-driven solutions, needs to be aligned with the UN SDGs, used by the AMS as guidelines to assure a development characterized by sustainability and homogeneity in the region. One of the pillars of sustainable growth is embodied by education, which is present in the SDGs as the fourth goal: quality education. In order to achieve this goal, while integrating the vision of ICT for ASEAN, it is fundamental to explore and exploit the intertwined relationships between ICT and education,

142

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

aiming to use ICT to support the race toward the achievement of the fourth SDG, and pave the path toward an overall sustainable development in the region. One of the tools offered by ICT in education is represented by MOOCs, which in the last decade have attracted the interest of many stakeholders, due to their promised ability to democratize education, and offering ivy league education also to those who could not afford it financially. Unfortunately, and understandably, MOOCs are not ready-to-use tools that can be implemented in any ecosystem revolutionizing it. Many research papers pointed out the fundamental role played by a learning design process with the student at the center. Additionally, many barriers are present for the effective implementation of MOOCs as well, mostly in developing countries. One important step at the regional level should pass from the creation of a MOOCs implementation framework, but this could be done effectively if a relative homogeneity is present in the targeted region. In accordance with the official statistics of AMS, ASEAN is a region not homogeneous in terms of development and socio-economic status. Several issues are still present which may hamper any possible implementation on a large scale in the region. For instance, there is still a lack of connectivity and good internet connection in many regions, and an overall lack of devices to use for granting access to the internet to possible learners. Schools across the countries are still facing a lack of appropriate facilities and devices to use for pedagogical purposes, figures which are marked mostly in the least developed AMS. Furthermore, across the ASEAN region there are still instructors not trained enough for implementing in an appropriate way MOOCs into a learning activity, and on the other side, still, too many young people, who should be the primary target of MOOCs, are still illiterate. In order to offer support to each AMS in the identification of issues to address for the creation of relative regional homogeneity, from the perspective of MOOCs implementation, in this chapter we identified three main issuerelated categories, namely technological, human capital, and economic, and for each of them, we identified specific sub-categories. For each category and subcategories, relying on the latest official ASEAN statistics, we identified which AMS belongs to each issue-related category, from the perspective of MOOCs implementation for quality education. This identification would allow each AMS to obtain a clear overview of the current issues to address for reaching a relative homogeneity in the region, fostering the creation of a MOOCs implementation framework at the regional level. In summary, if MOOCs have an attractive ability to support education; on the other hand, they require a prepared environment and skilled manpower for

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

143

it to be effectively implemented to support education and the overall sustainable development of the ASEAN region. Ideally, ASEAN should achieve a better homogeneity in the region, in terms of both connectivity and socio-economic perspectives. However, a first step would be the creation of a regional working team to drive a formation of a framework for the implementation of MOOCs, at a larger scale. The framework would holistically suggest the ecosystem needed to prepare the foundations of teaching with ICT and with MOOCs, and to prepare learners from a young age, to learn with ICT. If each country investigates its strengths and weaknesses independently and follow their own single path in accordance with their financial availability, the risk of creating an even wider gap between AMS could be a serious threat to the overall development of the whole region, and fueling one of the major concerns introduced by ICT in education – which is an enlargement of the digital divide.

References Anutariya, Chutiporn, and Wanlipa Thongsuntia. 2019. “MOOC Design and Learners Engagement Analysis: A Learning Analytics Approach.” In 2019 International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology (SIET), 5–10. https://doi. org/10.1109/SIET48054. 2019.8986057. Appiah-Otoo, Isaac, and Na Song. 2021. “The Impact of ICT on Economic Growth-Comparing Rich and Poor Countries.” Telecommunications Policy 45(2): 102082. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.telpol.2020.102082. ASEAN. 2015. “ASEAN ICT Masterplan 2015.” Accessed May 6, 2021. https://tinyurl.com/8uzkbkuj. Bandalaria, Melinda dela Peña. 2018. “Open and Distance eLearning in Asia: Country Initiatives and Institutional Cooperation for the Transformation of Higher Education in the Region.” Journal of Learning for Development 5(2): 116–132. https://jl4d.org/index. php/ejl4d/article/view/301. Berliyanto, and Harry B. Santoso. 2018. “Indonesian Perspective on Massive Open Online Courses: Opportunities and Challenges.” Journal of Educators Online 15(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id= EJ1168947. Buasuwan, Prompilai. 2018. “Rethinking Thai Higher Education for Thailand 4.0.” Asian Education and Development Studies 7(2): 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-07-2017-0072. Buhl, Mie, Lars B. Andreasen, and Karanam Pushpanadham. 2018. “Upscaling the Number of Learners, Fragmenting the Role of Teachers: How Do Massive

144

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Form New Conditions for Learning Design?” International Review of Education 64(2): 179–195. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11159-018-9714-1. Canbek, Nil G., and Jace Hargis. 2015. “Educational innovation in e-learning: MOOCs and OER movements in Turkey.” Glokalde 1(1): 19-32. Christensen, Gayle, Andrew Steinmetz, Brandon Alcorn, Amy Bennett, Deirdre Woods, and Ezekiel Emanuel. 2013. “The MOOC Phenomenon: Who Takes Massive Open Online Courses and Why?” SSRN Electronic Journal. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2350964. COMPETEN-SEA. 2019. Capacity to Organize Massive Public Educational Opportunities in Universities of Southeast Asia. Heerlen, Nederland: COMPETEN-SEA. http://competen-sea.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ WP1.1-Feasibility-Study-Report-v2.00.pdf. Corrado, Riccardo. 2021. “Undergraduate Students’ Experiences of the Use of MOOCs for Teaching and Learning at a Cambodian University.” (Minor Dissertation), the University of Johannesburg, Faculty of Education. Corrado, Riccardo, Erica Pretorius, and Gert van der Westhuizen. 2021a. “Undergraduate Students’ Experiences of the Use of MOOCs for Learning at a Cambodian University.” Education Sciences 11(7): 336. https://doi. org/10.3390/educsci11070336. Corrado, Riccardo, Sereyvuth Khat, and Panha V. Nhean. 2021. “The Role of Cambodian Universities in Preparing Cambodia for a Digital Economy.” In Digitalization and Sustainable Development, edited by Weiß Raimund and Robert Hör, 76–84. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. https://tinyurl.com/6jnfk65c. Corrado, Riccardo, and Patchanee Tungjan. 2019. “How Digital Tech Can Help Fix Cambodia’s Broken Education and Healthcare Systems.” In EGovernance in Cambodia, edited by Perera Christopher and Robert Hör, 20– 39. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. https://tinyurl. com/yfwvv238. Corrado, Riccardo, Patchanee Tungjan, and Meta Soy. 2021c. “Professoriate’s Motivation in Cambodian Higher Education.” The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership 28(2): 59–74. https://doi.org/10. 18848/2329-1656/CGP/v28i02/59-74. Daniela, Linda. 2019. “Smart Pedagogy for Technology-Enhanced Learning.” In Didactics of Smart Pedagogy: Smart Pedagogy for Technology Enhanced Learning, edited by Daniela Linda, 3–21. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-01551-0. Dennis, Marguerite J. 2018. “The Impact of Technology on U.S. and Worldwide Higher Education.” Enrollment Management Report 21(10): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/emt.30372.

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

145

Dillahunt, Tawanna, Zengguang, and Stephanie D. Teasley. 2014. “Democratizing Higher Education: Exploring MOOC Use among Those Who Cannot Afford a Formal Education.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 15(5): 177–196. Doong, Shing H., and Shu-Chun Ho. 2012. “The Impact of ICT Development on the Global Digital Divide.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Poverty, Technology and Microfinance 11(5): 518–533. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.elerap.2012.02.002. Fernández, Lilia, and Mirella Gutiérrez. 2013. “Bienestar social, económico y ambiental para las presentes y futuras generaciones.” Información tecnológica, 24(2): 121-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/ S0718-07642013000 200013. Freitas, Sara I., John Morgan, and David Gibson. 2015. “Will MOOCs Transform Learning and Teaching in Higher Education? Engagement and Course Retention in Online Learning Provision.” British Journal of Educational Technology 46(3): 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.12268. Haron, Hafiza, Ahmad Rizal Mohd Yusof, Hafiza Samad, Noraini Ismail, Anis Juanita, and Hafidzan Yusof. 2019. “The platform of MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) on open learning: issues and challenges.” International Journal 1(3): 1-9. https://doi.org/10. 35631/ijmoe.13001. Hilty, Lorenz M., and Magda D. Hercheui. 2010. “ICT and Sustainable Development.” In What Kind of Information Society? Governance, Virtuality, Surveillance, Sustainability, Resilience, edited by Berleur Jacques, Magda D. Hercheui, and Lorenz M. Hilty, 227–235. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15479-9_22. Hollands, Fiona M., and Devayani Tirthali. 2014. MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. Center for Benefit Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://tinyurl.com/ywn4w5w2. Hsu, Ying-Shao, and Yi-Fen Yeh. 2019. “Opportunities and Challenges of STEM Education.” In Asia-Pacific STEM Teaching Practices, edited by Hsu YingShao, and Yi-Fen Yeh, 1–16. Singapore: Springer. Hulsmann, Thomas. 2016. The Impact of ICT on the Costs and Economics of Distance Education: A Review of the Literature. British Columbia, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2047. Khan, Badrul H. (2000). “A framework for web-based learning.” TechTrends 44(3): 51–51. http://doi.org/10.1007/bf02778228. Khan, Rama. 2015. “Cambodia - Korea Signed MOU on Development of ELearning Content.” ThmeyThmey. Accessed May 21, 2021. https://www. thmeythmey.com/index.php?page=detail&ctype=article&id=34267&lg=khv .

146

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

KOICA. (2020). Cambodian ICT Masterplan 2020. South Korea: KOICA. https://tinyurl.com/sdedxs. Koller, Daphne, Andrew Ng, and Zhenghao Chen. 2013. “Retention and Intention in Massive Open Online Courses: In Depth.” EDUCAUSE Review Online. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/6/retention-and-intention-in-massiveopen-online-courses-in-depth. Kumar, Jeya A., and Hosam Al-Samarraie. 2018. “MOOCs in the Malaysian Higher Education Institutions: The Instructors’ Perspectives.” The Reference Librarian 59(3): 163–77. https://doi. org/10.1080/02763877.2018.1458688. Lai, Jennifer W. M., and Matt Bower. 2019. “How Is the Use of Technology in Education Evaluated? A Systematic Review.” Computers & Education 133(1): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2019.01.010. Loizzo, Jamie, Peggy A. Ertmer, William R. Watson, and Sunnie L. Watson. 2017. “Adult MOOC Learners as Self-Directed: Perceptions of Motivation, Success, and Completion.” Online Learning 21(2). https://eric.ed. gov/?id=EJ1149353. Lubis, Andre H., Syed Z. S., and Salleh A. Rashid. 2020. “The Exposure of MOOC Usage in Indonesia.” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 9(2), 2716–2720. https://tinyurl.com/5e4xrk8j. Machmud, Muhammad T., Agung P. Widiyan, and Noer R. Ramadhani. 2021. “The Development and Policies of ICT Supporting Educational Technology in Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, and Myanmar.” International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 10(1): 78–85. https://doi.org/10. 11591/ijere.v10i1.20786. Neamtu, Daniela M. 2015. “Education, the Economic Development Pillar.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180(1): 413–420. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.138. Ness, Daniel, and Chia-Ling Lin. 2015. International Education. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315703329. Prajaknate, Pornpun. 2017. “Information Communication Technologies (ICT) for Education Projects in ASEAN: Can We Close the Digital Divide?” In Sustainable Development Goals in the Asian Context, edited by Servaes Jan, 107–33. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-10-2815-1_6. Quiliano-Terreros, Rocio, Darinka Ramirez-Hernandez, and Pablo Barniol. 2019. “Systematic mapping study 2012-2017: Quality and effectiveness measurement in MOOC.” Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 20(1): 223-247. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ12 01890.

MOOCs for ASEAN Educational Sustainability

147

Shigeta, Katsusuke, Mitsuyo Koizumi, Hiroyuki Sakai, Yasuhiro Tsuji, Rieko Inaba, and Naoshi Hiraoka. 2017. A Survey of the Awareness, Offering, and Adoption of OERs and MOOCs in Japan. Open Praxis 9(2): 195–206. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/181422/. SEAMEO. 2010. Report: Status of ICT Integration in Education in Southeast Asian Countries. Bangkok, Thailand: SAMEO. https://tinyurl.com/ r3kvmpkz. Sosa-Díaz, María J., and María R. Fernández-Sánchez. 2020. “Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) within the Framework of International Developmental Cooperation as a Strategy to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals.” Sustainability 12(23), 10187. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su122310187. Sulkowski, Adam J., Wojciech Kowalczyk, Bruce L. Ahrendsen, Robert Kowalski, and Edward Majewski. 2020. “Enhancing sustainability education through experiential learning of sustainability reporting.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 21(6): 1233-1247. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2019-0185. Thaipisutikul, T., and Tuarob, S. (2017). “MOOCs as an Intelligent Online Learning Platform in Thailand: Past, Present, Future Challenges and Opportunities.” In 2017 10th International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing and Workshops, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/UMEDIA. 2017.8074143. Thammetar, Tipajin, and Jintavee Khlaisang. 2019. “Promoting Open Education and MOOCs in Thailand.” In MOOCs and Open Education in the Global South, Challenges, Success, and Opportunities, edited by Zhang Ke, Curtis J. Bonk, Thomas C. Reeves, and Thomas H. Reynolds, 140–55. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429398919-16. The ASEAN Secretariat. 2020. “ASEAN Sustainable Development Goals Indicators Baseline Report 2020.” Jakarta, Indonesia: The ASEAN Secretariat. https://asean.org/storage/2020/10/ASEAN-SDG-IndicatorBaseline-Report-2020.pdf. The World Bank. (2021). World Development Indicators. https:// databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators. UN. n.d. The 17 Goals - Sustainable Development. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. Vu, Khuong M. 2017. “ICT Diffusion and Production in ASEAN Countries: Patterns, Performance, and Policy Directions.” Telecommunications Policy 41(10): 962–77. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.telpol.2017.04.005.

148

Riccardo Corrado and Audrey Liwan

Wannapan, Satawat, and Chukiat Chaiboonsri. 2018. “An Analysis of ICT Sectors and Economic Growth: Evidence from ASEAN Countries.” In Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, edited by Tsounis Nicholas, and Aspasia Vlachvei, 189–201. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70055-7_14. Wongwuttiwat, Jittima, and Adtha Lawanna. 2018. “The Digital Thailand Strategy and the ASEAN Community.” The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 84(3): e12024. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12024.

About the Editors

Donnie Adams, PhD is a senior lecturer in the Department of Educational Management, Planning and Policy, University of Malaya. He obtained his PhD in Educational Leadership from the University of Malaya. He is a recipient of the University of Malaya’s Bright Sparks scholarship and a recipient of University of Malaya’s Excellence Award 2016: PhD Completion in Less than 3 Years. He is an author and reviewer of Web of Science ISI (Social Science Citation Index) and SCOPUS journals and the Editor-in- chief for the International Online Journal of Educational Leadership (IOJEL).

150

About the Editors

Chuah Kee Man is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Language and Communication, majoring in educational technology, computational linguistics, learning sciences and instructional design. He has won several awards at national and international levels for various innovations in teaching and learning as well as assistive technology.

List of Contributors

Agelyia Murugan is an English Language lecturer at the School of General Studies and Foundation at AIMST University Malaysia. She graduated from Universiti Putra Malaysia with a Bachelor of Education in TESL in year 2006. In the year 2007, she completed her Master’s in English Language Studies and Linguistics at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Currently, she is a part-time PhD TESL candidate at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Her research interest is in the field of Mobile Assisted Language Learning, Digital Storytelling, Young Adult Literature and Corpus Linguistics.

Audrey Liwan is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Economics and Business at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS). She teaches natural resource economics while pursuing her Ph.D. in environmental economics. Audrey has published in several peer-reviewed journals on the topic of economics. She has also been involved in national consultancies and research grants. She has received several training awards from national and international institutions. Her research interest includes climate change, environment, natural resources, and international trade economics.

Bambang Sumintono, PhD graduated from Flinders University, Australia in 2001 (Master of Education) and Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand in 2007 (Doctorate). Now, he is a lecturer at Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. His research interests are in educational administration and leadership, educational assessment and Indonesian education development. He wrote two textbooks about application of Rasch modeling for social sciences research in Indonesian language. He can be contacted by email: [email protected] or [email protected]

152

List of Contributors

Dedi Kuswandi, PhD is a lecturer in the Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Education, State University of Malang. His doctoral degree in Educational Technology was obtained in 2005 from Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. He had the opportunity to participate in the Postdoctoral Activity at Educational Colleges, Newcastle University, NSW, Australia, which was organized by AusAID, Australia Government. His current activity is as a lecturer, researcher, practitioner, and presenter in the field of Education Technology and Education Curriculum.

Dorothy DeWitt, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Curriculum and Instructional Technology Department, Faculty of Education, University Malaya and a recipient of the Endeavour Executive Fellowship. Her interests are in new pedagogies and technologies for knowledge management and collaborative problem solving. She has been involved in projects and consultancies related to curriculum acceptance, 21st century learning, blended learning and online pedagogies and has won awards related to digital technologies in teaching and training both locally and internationally.

Fahad Sherwani, PhD is serving as an Assistant Professor at National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences. He has published several research articles in reputed international journals. His areas of research interest are Machine learning, Artificial Intelligence and E-Learning.

Muhammad Mujtaba Asad, PhD is serving as an Assistant Professor and Head of Educational Technologies and TVET Research Group at Sukkur IBA University. Dr. Mujtaba has published more than seventy (70) research articles (ISI & Scopus Indexed) in reputed international journals and conferences worldwide. Also, two books related to the observational skills of competent educators under the CS publishing house and Taylor and Francis, USA are in his publication credit. He has also received several international research awards in Malaysia, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE on his commercialized projects.

List of Contributors

153

Mustaji, PhD is a lecturer at the Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya. His doctoral degree in Educational Technology was obtained in 2009 from Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. His research focused on learning design, blended learning and development of online learning models. His current activity is as a lecturer, researcher, practitioner, and presenter in the field of Education Technology and Education Curriculum. He can be contacted by email: [email protected].

Nadrah Harith Fadzilah is a STEM Model School Coordinator (Penyelaras Sekolah Model STEM) and has been teaching at SMK Seksyen 9 since 2020. She is a certified science teacher and has been teaching for more than ten years in four different secondary schools. As a member of the National STEM Association, she shared the best pedagogical practices in various platforms for teachers in Southeast Asia. She voluntarily shared her content knowledge in Biological Sciences with students throughout the countries during the pandemic. She obtained her Master’s Degree in Instructional Technology (Instructional Design) from University Malaya.

Norazilawati Abdullah, PhD works as a lecturer at the Sultan Idris University of Education, Malaysia. As a lecturer of Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Human Development, she has taught a professional education course and successfully graduated many students from diploma to PhD level. She is also very active at conducting conventional research and action research that contributes to education in Malaysia. In addition to writing books, she has written many high impact journal articles regarding research in the field of education, particularly those related to Science Education. Her works are also widely published in newspapers and magazines. She is also the editor in chief of the Malaysian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. For 20 years in the world of education, apart from being a teacher and lecturer, she has also held the position of Primary School Education Coordinator, Publication Coordinator and most recently Deputy Director at the National Child Development Research Center.

154

List of Contributors

Norlidah Alias, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Curriculum and Instructional Technology Department, Faculty of Education, University Malaya. Her interests are in developing digital pedagogies and designing futuristic curricula. She has published books and articles in highly ranked journals on use of technology for education in Malaysia and has been involved in research projects related to curriculum development, digital pedagogies and focusing on TVET and Environmental Education. She has been actively training teachers and lecturers in 21st century learning, curriculum development and OBE.

Nuniek Herdyastuti, PhD is a lecturer in the Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Surabaya (Unesa). She got her doctoral degree in Biochemistry in 2010 from Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia. Her research interest is in the chemistry sciences as well as online learning in science education. She is also active as a halal auditor and halal activist in East Java, Indonesia. She has written a book as an outcome of her research in chemistry. She can be contacted by email: [email protected]

Prathamesh Churi, PhD is faculty member in Computer Engineering Department in School of Technology Management and Engineering, NMIMS University, India. He is serving as Associate editor of International Journal of Advances in Intelligent Informatics, International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, and International Journal of Security and Privacy. He is also the research mentor at Cerebranium, Germany. He is actively involved in the peer review process of reputed IEEE and Springer journals. He has 70+ research papers in International Conferences and Journals (Scopus and SCI Indexed). He has 5 patents in the field of Wireless Sensor Networks and Machine Learning.

Riccardo Corrado, PhD is an assistant professor and chair of the ICT program at the American University of Phnom Penh (AUPP), and an advisor to the Cambodian Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (MPTC). He received his bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and Ph.D. from the University of Trieste, Italy, in Electronics, Telecommunications, and Information Engineering, respectively. Additionally, Riccardo is a certified information

List of Contributors

155

engineer (information engineering board exam, held by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research). His research interests involve video encoding, wireless communications, and ICT for education and sustainable development.

Selvakumar Selvarajan is currently an English Language teacher at SMK Mengkuang, Bukit Mertajam, Penang. He completed his Diploma in Teaching at Institut Perguruan Darulaman, Jitra, Kedah in Pengajian Inggeris & Pendidikan Jasmani dan Kesihatan. He obtained his Bachelor's Degree in TESL as major & Sports Science as minor from Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI). His areas of interests include teaching English as a Second Language, Digital Storytelling, Testing and Evaluation.

Selvamalar Selvarajan is currently a lecturer at General Studies Department at Politeknik Tuanku Sultanah Bahiyah, Kedah. She completed her BA Ed. (English Language Studies) at Universiti Sains Malaysia. She obtained her MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL from Newcastle University, United Kingdom. She has been teaching Communicative English courses for young adult learners at polytechnic for the past 14 years. Her research interest includes presentation skills, project-based learning, digital storytelling, discourse analysis and pragmatic competence.

Syeda Sumbul Shah is an MPhil research student at Sukkur IBA University. Her areas of research interest are E-Learning, Teacher Education and Emotional Intelligence.

Vinothini Vasodavan, PhD is presently a lecturer in the School of Education, Taylor’s University. Her research interest is in the field of collaborative learning and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has driven her to design learning tasks for innovative teaching and learning. Recently, she won a gold medal and outstanding innovative award for sustainable development goal (SDGIIA, 2021) for project Bacabaca (Learning to Read, Reading to Learn). She is also a silver award recipient for Asia International Innovation Exhibition (AIINEX 2021) for learning difficult

156

List of Contributors

content made easy with mobile augmented reality (AR): An innovative pedagogy.

Zainun Mustafa is currently affiliated at the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization's Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics (SEAMEO RECSAM). Prior to joining SEAMEO RECSAM, she had more than ten years of teaching experience and held various posts in research projects, i.e., post-doctoral academic officer at the National Child Development Research Center, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris; researcher at the Regional Centre of Expertise for Education for Sustainable Development, Penang; and the Centre for Science and Environmental Studies, Institute of Islamic Understanding.

Index

A academic performance, 87, 102, 103 academic success, 68 acquisition of knowledge, 17 action research, 69, 153 assessment, 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 25, 27, 35, 37, 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 102, 105, 111, 113, 115 attitude domain, v, vii, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 attitudes, 16, 36, 37, 50, 52, 67, 80, 90, 110 autonomy, 18, 24, 26, 111 awareness, 7, 36, 66, 112, 134

B barriers, viii, 18, 109, 113, 119, 128, 134, 136, 140, 142 behavioral aspects, 93 behavioral change, 93 benefits, 7, 15, 64, 65, 109, 134 blended learning, 14, 17, 27, 59, 84, 85, 86, 87, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 132, 152, 153 blogs, 10, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 111 broadband, 19, 113, 135, 137, 138

C challenges, vii, viii, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 15, 19, 79, 80, 86, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 132, 134, 145 classes, 17, 20, 26, 92, 97, 110, 113, 114, 116, 118, 120, 121 classroom, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71,

72, 73, 75, 80, 81, 85, 103, 115, 116, 118, 122, 126 classroom activities, 62, 71, 85 classroom activity, 61 classroom management, 115 cognitive abilities, 36 cognitive level, 24 cognitive process, 70, 71 cognitive skills, 36, 37 collaboration, 2, 3, 16, 19, 26, 38, 39, 113, 129, 141 collaborative learning tools, v, vii, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48, 51, 52, 60 communication, 18, 25, 39, 49, 61, 85, 108 communication skills, 61 community, 17, 23, 38, 117, 130 computer, 17, 22, 38, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 119, 130 connectivity, 23, 26, 107, 109, 116, 118, 121, 140, 142, 143 consensus, 36, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 creativity, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 49, 55, 60, 64, 69 creativity and innovation, 16 critical thinking, 36, 37, 66, 70, 80, 81 cross-border higher education, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 cross-border programmes, 1 cross-sectional study, 121 cultural values, 37 culture, 21, 52, 110 cumulative frequency, 42 curricula, 2, 84, 130, 154

158 curriculum, 6, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 130, 152, 154 curriculum development, 154

D data collection, 43, 107 deep learning, 67 demographic factors, 84, 88, 96 Department of Education, 133, 149, 152, 153 developing countries, 3, 98, 140, 142 digital creativity, 14 digital storytelling (DST), v, vii, 49, 50, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 151, 155 digital technologies, 152 digitalization, 7, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 144 distance learning, 3, 4, 6, 7, 104, 105, 111, 133

E economic competitiveness, 10 economic development, 129 economic downturn, 132 economic growth, 127, 129, 130 economic integration, 125, 129, 141 economic power, 113 economic status, 142 economic transformation, 130 economics, 151 ecosystem, viii, 1, 5, 17, 23, 27, 86, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 142, 143 education industry, 3 education reform, 104 education research, 14 educational assessment, 105, 151 educational attainment, 140 educational institutions, 87, 108, 134 educational materials, 73 educational policy, 85 educational process, 13 educational services, 2 educational settings, 61, 137 educational system, 36, 123, 130, 134

Index educators, 23, 79, 83, 127, 129, 152 e-learning, v, vii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 59, 102, 104, 107, 122, 123, 124, 133, 134, 141, 144, 145, 152, 155 electricity, 107, 109, 110, 114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 135, 139, 140 environment, 2, 7, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 38, 64, 65, 66, 70, 103, 104, 109, 110, 122, 125, 129, 134, 142, 151 environmental economics, 151 environmental issues, 22 environments, 21, 27, 38, 50, 80, 123, 134 executive functioning, 19 executive functions, 18

F face-to-face interaction, 18 factual knowledge, 51, 70 family members, 113 family support, 119 feelings, 37, 40, 50, 71, 87, 93 financial, 6, 119, 127, 143 financial resources, 6, 119 flexibility, 8, 17, 20, 22, 26, 67, 87, 109 formal education, 133, 138 fuzzy Delphi, v, vii, 35, 36, 42, 43, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 fuzzy set theory, 42

G gender gap, 110, 114 gender inequality, 110 global education, 3 global sustainability, 16 growth, 3, 5, 7, 21, 22, 28, 46, 66, 116, 127, 128, 129, 130, 141 guidance, 36, 37, 110, 120, 121 guidelines, 22, 75, 76, 110, 120, 141

H health, 18, 19, 75, 100, 101, 109, 128 higher education, v, vii, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 28, 32, 35, 36, 38, 54, 58, 66, 75,

Index 80, 84, 85, 86, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 120, 122, 123, 124, 127, 131, 132, 133, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 154 higher education institutions, vii, 1, 2, 35, 36, 84, 102 higher-order thinking, 61, 62, 66, 69, 70 higher-order thinking skills, 61, 62, 69, 70 human, 15, 16, 21, 28, 48, 71, 85, 101, 126, 128, 130, 131, 135, 142 human capital, 15, 126, 130, 131, 135, 142 human resources, 16, 131

I individual differences, 40 individuals, 16, 22, 24, 37, 43, 69, 126, 139 inequality, 104, 110, 121, 122, 123 information and communication technology, 85, 108 information communication technology, 18 information science, 14 information technology, 19, 85, 100 infrastructure, 2, 6, 8, 17, 86, 116, 130, 131 institutions, vii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 21, 35, 36, 84, 85, 87, 101, 102, 104, 105, 108, 132, 134, 151 instructional design, 40, 150 instructional methods, 21, 40 international mobility, 2 internet, 14, 17, 19, 22, 31, 39, 83, 85, 104, 107, 108, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 119, 126, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142 issues, viii, 1, 6, 8, 19, 22, 36, 41, 42, 63, 81, 98, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 140, 141, 142, 145

K knowledge acquisition, 18, 19, 67

L language skills, 63, 65, 66 learners, 4, 7, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 35, 38, 41, 48, 52, 64, 67, 69, 73, 79, 81, 84, 100, 105, 111, 112, 113, 115, 127, 140, 142, 143, 155

159 learning, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155 learning activity, 10, 87, 142 learning environment, 7, 22, 23, 25, 27, 38, 66, 70, 80, 103, 104, 123, 134 learning outcomes, 26, 27, 103, 105, 112 learning process, 17, 18, 22, 25, 38, 40, 61, 64, 68, 70, 72, 74, 79, 84, 99, 111, 113 learning skills, 66, 99 learning society, 133 learning styles, 18 learning task, 37, 49, 50, 155 lesson plan, 35, 37, 69, 72, 111, 115 level of education, 85, 96, 97, 130 lifelong learning, 9, 35, 129, 133 literacy, 18, 61, 64, 66, 67, 68, 81, 113, 119, 131 longitudinal study, 19, 121

M management, 88, 92, 115, 120, 134, 152 measurement, 42, 70, 89, 93, 98, 146 media, 21, 23, 25, 49, 51, 62, 63, 67, 68, 81, 88, 111 metacognitive knowledge, 70 mobile device, 18, 123 mobile phone, 130, 137 modelling, 48, 50, 105 models, 7, 10, 40, 48, 115, 141, 153 MOOCs, vi, viii, 4, 5, 9, 10, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147 motivation, 50, 68, 80, 112 motor skills, 19, 35, 36, 40

160

Index

N

Q

narrative review, 21 networking, 23, 26, 109, 111, 114, 119

quality education, vii, 14, 15, 17, 19, 27, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 134, 135, 141, 142 questionnaire, 43, 44, 46, 50, 88, 89, 107, 117

O observable behavior, 87 online learning, v, viii, 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, 29, 38, 56, 58, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 108, 113, 114, 116, 117, 121, 123, 133, 145, 146, 147, 153, 154 opportunities, 4, 8, 26, 39, 64, 80, 85, 121, 129 ownership, 49, 50, 135, 137, 140

P pandemic, v, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 34, 35, 37, 61, 73, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 130, 153 participants, 68, 69, 93, 94, 118, 133 pedagogy, vii, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 52, 64, 115, 156 personal achievements, 48 personal stories, 50 personal values, 49 platform, 14, 23, 25, 27, 51, 75, 88, 89, 93, 97, 109, 113, 120, 132, 145 policy, 2, 4, 9, 10, 15, 17, 85, 105, 110, 120, 121, 132 preparation, iv, 14, 25, 66, 84, 101, 127, 130, 131, 135, 141 problem-solving, 16, 24, 25, 37, 38, 41, 46, 68, 69, 70 professional development, 43, 63, 127 professional qualifications, 5 project, 9, 25, 27, 61, 67, 68, 132, 155 public sector, 107, 116, 121 public service, 17 publishing, 82, 152 purchasing power, 112

R Rasch analysis, 102 Rasch measurement, 89 Rasch measurement model, 89 Rasch model analysis, v, viii, 83, 84, 92 recommendations, iv, 67, 84, 121, 130 reliability, 42, 43, 44, 84, 90, 116 researchers, vii, 66, 69, 110, 111, 113, 114, 119, 127 resources, 4, 5, 6, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 39, 42, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114, 116, 119, 126, 131 response, 14, 89, 92, 96, 100, 105

S school, vii, 6, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 67, 68, 69, 80, 81, 84, 105, 109, 112, 120, 121, 133, 137, 140 science, vii, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 68, 80, 82, 85, 105, 122, 153, 154 scientific knowledge, 16 scientific method, 16 scientific understanding, 24 secondary education, 14, 17, 88 secondary school students, 68, 80 secondary schools, 153 social construct, 36, 37, 38, 39 social constructivism, 36, 37 social interaction, 37, 38, 81, 84 social interactions, 37, 38, 81 society, 9, 21, 63, 109, 112, 122, 128, 130, 133 software, 14, 20, 21, 28, 32, 63, 89, 90, 107, 115, 117 statistics, 90, 91, 95, 107, 112, 117, 121, 126, 128, 130, 135, 142

Index

161

storytelling, vii, 49, 50, 62, 63, 66, 69, 80, 81, 82, 155 student engagement, 32, 57, 84, 87, 88, 102, 103, 104, 105 sustainability, 16, 127, 128, 141, 147 sustainable development, 33, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 134, 135, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 155, 156 sustainable growth, 127, 128, 141

thoughts, 49, 62, 71, 93, 97 training, 16, 43, 67, 112, 141, 151, 152, 154 transformation, 101, 112, 113, 130

T

V

teacher preparation, 135, 141 teacher training, 67 teachers, viii, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 73, 75, 79, 87, 103, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120, 135, 141, 153, 154 teaching and learning, viii, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 36, 37, 43, 61, 62, 64, 70, 79, 81, 84, 85, 86, 98, 111, 150, 155 teaching experience, 43, 156 teaching strategies, 20, 25, 26, 46, 79 technical support, 86 techniques, 2, 9, 20, 24, 36, 61, 79, 121 thinking skills, viii, 30, 31, 36, 55, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 81, 82

variables, 96, 98, 100, 101, 134 videos, 21, 47, 48, 50, 52, 66, 72, 88 visualization, 116, 118

U universities, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 83, 86, 88, 92, 101, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 120, 121, 123, 132, 133

W web, 17, 48, 49, 86, 111, 145 work environment, 122 workforce, 38, 131, 133 working memory, 18 worldwide, 2, 6, 84, 108, 109, 120, 152

Y young people, 81, 142