CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
SciVerse ScienceDirect PrOC6d ¡0
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 59 (2012) 2-8 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
UKM Teaching and Learning Congress 2011
From Traditional to Self-Regulated Learners: UKM Journey
towards Education 3.0
Riza Atiq Abdullah O.K. Rahmat & Kamisah Osman*
Centre for Academic Advancement, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Abstract
Curriculum development at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia witnessing the outcomes based approach as the main theoretical background underpinned curriculum design and implementation since 2008. Two years later, the Student Total Learning Experience Policy was introduced whereby the campus and its surrounding compounds are regarded as learning space for the students. In 2011, the Student Centred Learning Policy was endorsed which unequivocally stipulates amongst all, the navigation of learning on part of the student themselves. As learning ownership is shifted from lecturers to the learners, many student-centred approaches were emphasised such as Learning Contracts, Problem Based Learning, and Community Service. Cognizance of the impact of e-Learning on students' learning and retention, coupled with the characteristics of learners in this 21st century as well as current learning trends at higher institution, the e-Learning Policy was introduced to coordinate the effort. As learning horizon becomes borderless, interdisciplinary and cross-institutional learning approach become significant in producing learners equipped with skills and knowledge they'll need in the modern world such as problem solving and inventive thinking skills. Considering all these challenges, the Student Centred Learning Policy embraces that by the year 2015, learning approach at UKM is gradually shifted from Education 1.0 to Education 3.0. This paper will highlight the journey towards Education 3.0 vis a vis teaching and learning road map which strategically planned at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in producing learners as envisaged in the university's vision and mission statement.
© 2011PublishedbyElsevierLtd. Selection and/orpeer reviewedunderresponsibilityofthe UKMTeachingand LearningCongress 2011
Keywords: Curriculum; outcome base approach; student total learning experience policy; student centered learning policy; e-learning policy; problem based Learning; community service; learning contract; education 3.0
ELSEVIER
1. Introduction
A study by the Educause Center for Applied Research three years ago paints a rich picture of the 21st century undergraduate students as a whole. The study found that 80.5% of undergraduate students owned laptops. Approximately 66.1% of them owned an Internet-capable cell phone. In terms of software usage, 93.4% of respondents used the institution's library website, 91.9% used presentation software, 85.9% used spreadsheets,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-019-288-4814; fax: +6-03-8926-4816. E-mail address: kamisah@ukm.my.
1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer reviewed under responsibility of the UKM Teaching and Learning Congress 2011 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.238
85.2% used social networks, 83.6% used text messaging, and 82.3% used course management systems. Based on this study, it is clearly evidenced that undergraduate students at the university level can be considered ubiquitous users of digital technologies or digitally natives (Prensky, 2001). Bearing these new characteristics of learners in mind, coupled with socio political and economics changes overwhelming Malaysia at the moment, it is argued that Malaysian tertiary education should be transformed towards producing future generation who could uphold the challenges created by the new economics paradigm. It is expected that students leaving Malaysian tertiary education should be able to: i) solve complex problem, ii) generate new knowledge, iii) capitalize on new ideas, iv) embrace changes, v) innovative, vi) entrepreneurial, vii) global, and viii) leverage and collaboration.
Malaysia, in its responsive movement towards becoming educational hub especially in the Asia Pacific region has established the Malaysian Qualification Agency (MQA) in 2005. Two years later the Malaysian Qualification Agency Act (MQAA 2007) was introduced which specifically assign the responsibility for quality assuring higher education in Malaysia to MQA. The act, amongst all, requires all Higher Education Providers (HEPs) to comply with the Malaysian Qualification Framework (MQF), which propagate the implementation of Outcome Based Education (OBE) curriculum approach. As a result, all academic programs in UKM and other HEPs in Malaysia must be realigned within the paradigm of OBE which resulted in extensive curriculum review in 2008.
With respect to that, UKM senate approved a Teaching Learning Policy in which all academic programs offered must be aligned with OBE paradigm while at the same time facilitating UKM academic programs transformation from prescription based to Outcome Based. At the same year e-Learning Policy was introduced to facilitate self-learning; which is the core aspect of OBE. These two policies require some changes in mind set and requiring new skills by academic staffs. A series of training and workshop have been conducted for these purposes and compliance audit based on Code of Practice for Program Accreditation (CoPPA) have been carried out at the same year.
In 2010, the senate approved Student Total Learning Experience Policy where the whole campus and surrounding area are regarded as a learning space for the students. In 2011, the university approved Student Centred Policy in which the ownership of learning is officially transferred to the students through learning contracts. Under this policy, in 2015 all programs must be reviewed for compliance with Education 3.0.
2. Education 3.0 Explained
The internet has changed student learning habit, especially those who are brought up in the digital environment. Some people called this generation as digital native students. Through the internet they gain tremendous amount of information and knowledge from various sources from all over the world. They make use the internet to have friends and to collaborate with their colleagues from various countries. The Education 3.0 is taking advantage of this environment. It is characterized by openness and the obsolescence of physical and perceived barriers in the learning environment. Social networking plays a tremendous role allowing students to collaboratively create and share in learning artifacts. The student is required to make new choices with the abundance of information available to them. The student is therefore seen as a producer and collaborator in the generation of content (Keats & Schmidt, 2007).
Higher education in Malaysia moved from Education 1.0 to Education 2.0 when Malaysia Qualification Agency Act was Parliament in 2007. With this move, there is a significant shift on the role of professors, from teaching to facilitating. Now the situation is changing rapidly. Malaysian is moving to innovation based economic. This requires graduates who are innovative, creative and highly entrepreneurial thinking in order to bring innovation to the market. Producing such graduates requires a new kind of education. In addition, the behaviour and habit of new students are very much different from what they used to be. The new kind of education must capitalise this behaviour and must able to produce innovative entrepreneur graduates. The answer is Education 3.0 where the students are given a wide open opportunity to learn by themselves, to innovate, collaborate, experiment and explore all possibilities. In short, Education 3.0 is empowering the learning to the students. Comparisons between Education 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 are given in Figure 1 and Table 1.
Achieved in holistic transformation
Education 1.0
Figure 1. Education 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 framework
Table 1. Comparisons of education 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0
Characteristics Education 1.0 Education 2.0 Education 3.0
Primary role of professor Source of knowledge Guide and source of knowledge Orchestrator of collaborative knowledge creation
Content arrangements Traditional copyright materials Copyright and free/open educational resources for students within discipline, sometimes across institutions Free/open educational resources created and reused by students across multiple institutions, disciplines, nations, supplemented by original materials created for them
Learning activities Traditional, essays, assignments, tests, some group work within classroom Traditional assignment approaches transferred to more open technologies; increasing collaboration in learning activities; still largely confined to institutional and classroom boundaries Open, flexible learning activities that focus on creating room for student creativity; social networking outside traditional boundaries of discipline, institution, nation
Institutional arrangements Student behaviour Campus-based with fixed boundaries between institutions; teaching, assessment, and accreditation provided by one institution Largely passive absorptive Increasing (also international) collaboration between universities; still one-to-one affiliation between students and universities Passive to active, emerging sense of ownership of the education process Loose institutional affiliations and relations; entry of new institutions that provide higher education services; regional and institutional boundaries breakdown Active, strong sense of ownership of own education, co-creation of resources and opportunities, active choice
Technology E-learning enabled through an electronic learning management system and limited to participation within one institution E-learning collaborations involving other universities, largely within the confines of learning management systems but integrating other applications E-learning driven from the perspective of personal distributed learning environments; consisting of a portfolio of applications
(Source: Keats and Schmidt, 2007)
Accountability
Leadership Supported through an
adapted reform agenda
3. Application Of Education 3.0 In Higher Education
Application of Education 3.0 in a higher education program is the way forward towards producing human capital required for the future economy which is based on innovation and entrepreneurship. Beside, digital natives entering higher education, growing abundance of free and open educational resources, including reusable content and software, the emergence of the programmable web (distributed learning environments) and the growth of social networking and the blur of the distinction between work and play; require changes in mind set of professors, recognition of collaborative learning and university policies. Perhaps changing the mind set of professors is the most difficult task. Traditionally professors are the source of knowledge. In Education 3.0, sometimes, the student becomes the source of knowledge and something to offer to the professor. University policies especially related to learning-teaching, assessment and registration must be redrawn. Curriculum must foster collaboration, active and action learning, meaning that the project based is more appropriate than course based. Classroom teaching must be replaced with studio-problem based learning. Examination will be replaced with authentic assessment where students exhibit the required competencies. Classroom learning experience will be minimised to make way for total learning experiences, including optimisation of internet. Other required changes are given in Table 2.
4. Implementation of Education 3.0
Migration to Education 3.0 requires institutional strong will and must be gradual. It involves a paradigm shift from professors centred to real student centred, from lecturing to students learning experience designer and from teaching to facilitating. This requires retraining of academic staffs to make them really understand.
Second, the right policy must be developed and implemented. The policy must stresses on student centered learning, learning empowerment, total learning experience, encouraging cross institutional, cross nations, cross disciplines collaboration, maximization of technological use such as application in Web 2.0 in e-learning, learning accreditation, integrity and plagiarism. This policy will be the motivation for everybody in the institution to be on board and ensuring students' learning is authentic. In UKM, all necessary policies are already in place, thus training to use Web 2.0 as well as required pedagogical skills are carried out extensively.
Third, there must be a learning accreditation body in the institution. All learning experiences whether it is driven by academic staffs or by students shall be given accreditation in order to ensure the stated learning outcomes have been achieved. When the student is able to demonstrate that he or she has achieved the stated learning outcomes with all necessary evidences, his or her learning should be given accreditation. The processes upon which they have gone through is not important. In ensuring successful implementation of such learning approach, UKM has established Centre for Learning Accreditation.
Fourth, Education 3.0 must be implemented gradually to avoid resistance from professors and backlash from national or professional accreditation bodies. Perhaps the experience in shifting from Education 1.0 to Education 2.0 beginning in 2004 was a good learning process for academic staffs and the accreditation body. Undoubtedly, such an effort necessitates 6 years of training and retraining of academic staffs and accreditation auditors. Besides, research in learning and teaching should also be cultivated among the academic staffs as well as revamping accreditation manual. With respect to the former, UKM has allocated so far more than 10 million Ringgit to stimulate teaching innovation amongst its academic staffs through extensive action research approach.
Fifth, a good assessment plan is required for every program. The plan must be calibrated and validated to ensure all stated learning outcomes are achieved by the students (Rahmat, 2011). The plan is not only for a comprehensive assessment but also to align all student learning activities toward achieving the learning outcomes (Biggs, 2004). In UKM, an on line Assessment Plan System has been developed and currently undergoing pilot test. It is hoped that it will be fully implemented in two years ahead.
Table 2. Changes that need to happen to implement education 3.0
Change
Reason
Embracing and contributing to free software that is fit for purpose
Education 3.0 leadership will depend on the Free software development shows efficient ability to experiment, and grow new and community-based innovation mechanism . integrated technologies that foster social The barriers to participation in these
Embracing and contributing to free and open standards for sharing and co-creation (not just information exchange)
A good base of Free and Open Resources for Education (FORE) to which the institution contributes and from which it draws
collaboration within institutions, across institutions, across disciplines, and across nations
Education 3.0 is fundamentally about multidirectional collaboration and multipurpose use and reuse of educational resources. The use of open standards ensures that resources remain compatible and accessible
Resources are the building blocks of collaborative educational processes. Without them, Education 3.0 is impossible
innovation processes are much lower with free software than with proprietary software. Institutions that fail to understand and embrace this will either be left behind or will incur disproportionate expenses.
Only if standards are open and implemented in free software can true collaboration happen with the level of innovation that will be required in Education 3.0 leaders
We need to move beyond publishing of static open courseware (OCW), which is still following a producer-consumer model
Learning processes and structures that take into account lessons from the collaborative development communities observed in free software development
Education has lots to learn from the loosely organised yet highly efficient production networks of free software communities. Learning from and adapting their practices can greatly benefit educational activities, formal and informal
These kinds of collaboration can be both student-focused, lecturer-focused, or both.
A mindset change that says students have something to offer, and that fosters a "Rip-Mix-Burn" approach to education. This includes a willingness to blur the line between student and teacher
Without a mindset change, the concept of students as creators of knowledge resources will not be realizable. There is no better way to learn than to teach. In general, students have much to teach one another, and reuse/remix is one of the ways in which this can be fostered
Along with the mindset change, we need tools (e.g. rubrics) to foster assessment of remix activities
Institutional policies and strategies that foster progress towards collaboration and sharing, and students as producers rather than consumers
Institutional frameworks in higher education are needed to enable professors and students to engage in Education 3.0. Being a leader in the face of counter-policies and strategies is impossible
Institutions of higher education change slowly and few have embraced the opportunities of Education 3.0 or even Education 2.0
Good solid evidence-based research on the educational and economic implications of Education 2.0 and 3.0
Agile information systems able to cope with the administrative challenges of Education 3.0
Without evidence, decision making will be based on intuition, yet there is very little research in this area that goes beyond a high-level philosophical treatment. We need to understand the nuances of all the possibilities, not all of which will be equally appropriate
Education 3.0 will require institutions to assess and accredit a wide range of learning activities, not just formal, on-site or classic distance courses
There is also scope for the creation of standards for describing and assessing informal and unstructured learning activities.
One approach to this that is rapidly winning place in the business world is services oriented architecture, and approach that is designed for agility of business processes_
(Source: Keats and Schmidt, 2007)
Sixth, internet broad band connection must be stable to provide access for students to search information and knowledge as well as having collaborated with their counterparts across the globe. Searching knowledge independently and global collaboration are indeed the essence of Education 3.0. However, the internet broadband by itself will not change an institution to Education 3.0 if the professors still teaching old information rather than taking advantage of them to generate new knowledge. Certainly, learning institution will need to rebuild themselves not on software, not on hardware, but on mind ware. Such new technologies integrate the development of
imagination, creativity and innovation. Mindware maximizes the potentials for human capital development that ambient technologies permit (Moravec, 2009).
Starting early 2011, co-curriculum, some of general study and elective courses has been delivered based on Education 3.0. Learning contract was introduce to empower learning to students. Students are given a set of learning outcomes and they can form their own groups to achieve the learning outcomes. The students are free to design their own learning activities and at the end they have to provide evidences that they have achieved all the learning outcomes. They are also given a freedom to choose their supervisor among the university academic staffs or any other university personnel. The appointed supervisor will then facilitate their learning and at the end of the process evaluating them. The essence of this kind of activity is immersive collaboration, experiential learning and using technology to acquire as much knowledge as possible.
Meanwhile, some programs which are not subjected to professional accreditation are revamped totally and planned to be implemented in 2012. Table 3 signifies differences between 2008 curriculum with the planned 2012.
Table 3. Comparisons between 2008 curriculum with the planned 2012
Current Curriculum (Approved in 2008) Planned Curriculum for 2012 (Education 3.0)
Mixed of student and teacher centred Truly student centred
Prescription or rigid outcomes based Beyond Learning Outcome (unexpected)
Timetabled Immersive collaboration
Course based Project based
Tested (e.g. Examination) Exhibit (more authentic)
Professors' initiative Students' initiative
Professors' led Students' experience led
Local material Global material
5. Conclusion
This paper paints a rich picture of all the efforts undertaken by UKM in meeting the requirement of new paradigm of teaching and learning at higher institution - Education 3.0. However, it is still very early to conclude the effectiveness of the implementation of Education 3.0 in UKM as it still at ins infancy. However, based on feedbacks received through social media such as Facebook, Twitters etc, the students are not merely comfortable with such learning approach, but also giving their full support to this new curriculum delivery approach. It is interesting to see in the next few years the outcomes of this new paradigm of learning.
6. References
Biggs, J. (2004) Aligning teaching for constructing learning. The Higher Education Academy. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdic/download?doi =
10.1.1.116.5166. (accessed: 3rd August 2011). Keats, D, Schmidt, P. (2007) The Genesis and Emergence of Education 3.0 in Higher Education and its Potential for Africa. First Monday, Vol. 12, No 3.
Moravec, J. (2009) The role of technology in Education 3.0. Education Futures. http://www.educationfutures.com/2009/04/21/the-role-of-
technology-in-education-30/(accessed: 3rd August 2011) Prensky, M. (2011). From digital natives to digital wisdom. From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century education. New York: Corwin
Rahmat, R.A.A.O.K. (2011) Achievement of Program Outcomes Using Assessment Plan, Procedia - Social Science and Behavioural Sciences, 18, 87-93
