A Portal For Web-based Information System

For Secondary Schools In Malaysia

By

PURUSHOTHAMAN RAVICHANDRAN
Lecturer Kolej Yayasan UEM
E-mail: ravi@kyuem.edu.my
and
RAJENDRAN NAGAPPAN, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Sultan Idris University of Education
E-mail: nsrajendran@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT

This paper reports findings from a larger study, which investigated how teachers
in secondary schools can be empowered to integrate technology into their teaching using
Web-tools. Selected teachers from both rural and urban districts were involved in this
study. This study employed both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Number
of variables explored, include, attitudes, knowledge and beliefs towards its use in
classrooms. This paper attempts to give teachers an insight into what their classroom
contexts should look and feel like if they are to integrate Web-tools as a powerful Web-
based teaching tool. Further, this paper defines a new portal for using Web-based
information system based on Salmon’s five-stage model at the Secondary School level in
Malaysia. The success of this approach was measured partly by the ability of novice
teachers, who were fully engaged with a Web-based information system to produce the
desired outcome in their classroom teaching.

INTRODUCTION

The role and responsibilities of a teacher at a secondary school level are infinite
along with limitless. A well-adjusted teacher is a source of inspiration to his students and
a boon to the society. On the other hand a maladjusted teacher can create havoc with his
students and his own mental health. In order to bring about improvement in the teacher
education such maladjusted teachers has to be empowered with the technology that is
vastly available. Educational technology is a combination of the process and tools
involved in addressing educational needs and problems, with an emphasis on applying
the most current tools: computers and their related technologies. (M.D.Roblyer, Jack
Edwards 1998). Also “Whenever new technology is introduced into society, there must be
a counterbalancing human response… the higher tech (it is), the more high touch (is
needed)” (Naisbett, 1984, P.35). For this reason this study has been thought over.
LINKING TEACHERS WITH WEB-TOOLS

It is not possible for a secondary school teachers to use what he thinks is a

suitable Web-tool. This is because Web-tools are meant for a collaborative and interactive
centered teaching environment and is meant for a long use. Therefore selecting an online
tool has to be very strategically viewed as it connects present technology with the future
expectation of a teacher.

For this reasons Salmon’s studies (2000) has identified five common stages in
students’ behavior online, which illustrate the gradual development underpinning
meaningful collaboration and constructivist learning. The Figure 1 below shows
Salmon’s 5-stage model, which indicates how the tutor’s role should also change in order
to support and encourage the students as they progress through these stages.

Figure 1: Salmon’s 5-stage model

THE RESEARCH

Literatures on the application of the Web-tools to supplement the secondary

schools in Malaysia is not much and attempt to review the literature in the area of
technology teaching using Web-tools, particularly in Malaysia, revealed that nothing
much has been reported in this area. This study will make contribution towards a better
understanding of introducing a Web-based solution at secondary schools in Malaysian
classrooms and will also contribute as a powerful resource for teaching community to
integrate ICT with the existing classroom teaching methodology. The following questions
guided the researcher in this study.

1. How far can the teachers adapt themselves to Web-tools?

2. What is the learning curve of the teachers while infusing Web-tools in their
teaching?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Although this study included Quantitative and Qualitative methods, the data and
discussion shown here are based on qualitative research only. The reason for including a
qualitative component in this study is that there has been virtually no previous research
on this topic in Malaysia. “By collecting information about beliefs and interviewing
randomly, more can be learned about the subject than merely a comparison of gain
scores” (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996, p. 603). For this reason this study is divided into
Phases: Phase 1 consists of interviews and questionnaire (quantitative), which was useful
for identifying the pedagogical belief, pedagogical philosophy, pedagogical preferences
and pedagogical acceptance of the Web-tools in the teaching strategy Phase 2 consists of
observations using Web-tools followed by interviews (qualitative). The Web-tools
designed were based on Salmon’s 5-stage model and the system design is shown in
Figure 2.

Figure 2: System design of Web-tools used for teacher’s observation

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

In assessing how far the teachers can adapt themselves to Web-tools, learning
contracts were used. Learning contracts are a teaching and learning tool for increasing
learner’s self-direction while attaining specified learning objectives. The learner develops
the contract’s contents in collaboration with the teacher who acts as a facilitator and
subject matter expert (Noel LeJeune and Karen Richardson, 1998).

Observation chart were also used to scale the comfort levels in using Web-tools
in each module, with scales “Limited”, “Moderate” and “High”. Thus after the
observations of the ten teachers were complete, they were assessed based on their level of
difficulties and skills exhibited using the observation chart and case-ordered effects
matrix. The first part of the learning contract assessed what knowledge, understanding,
skills and attitudes the teacher participant’s seek to acquire, while administering the Web-
tools based on their existing knowledge. For this first observation was used in which how
far the teachers used their current knowledge in posting messages and uploading notes
were observed. Supporting this observation were interviews with the teachers, which was
useful to understand what these teachers felt. Thus giving an opportunity to compare
what was observed against what the teacher participant felt. The second part of the
learning contract focused on what resources and teaching strategies the teachers used in
order to reach the objectives. Thus in the second part of the learning contract, observation
were based on how the teacher’s created online lesson plans and hyper links for the
students to become more knowledgeable about specific topics. This constructive
approach is necessary in Web-based learning because students are forced to access,
retrieve, reconstruct, adapt, and organize information in a way that is meaningful to their
learning. Thus the second part of the learning contact focused on what resources and
learning strategies the teachers used in order to reach the above objectives. The third part
of the learning contract element is the evidence of accomplishment, the proof and
recognition of the goals. As the third part of the learning contract assessing process, third
and fourth observations were utilised in which assessment were based on how the
teachers administered attendance and also posted remarks and reports in an online
environment using Web-tools. The last part of the learning contract emphasised the
contract relating to measurement. The criteria and means of validating the evidence
measure the level of attainment of the learning objectives (Noel LeJeune and Karen
Richardson, 1998). For assessing this stage of the learning contract, fifth and sixth
observations were used in which assessment were based on how the teachers
administered online quizzes. Apart from the quiz administration, teachers were also
observed on how they were able to manage the Web-tools. At the end of the last learning
contract observation, it was evident that only four out of the ten participants who were
involved in this study were able to journey through the Web- tools without any hindrance
(Table 2.0).

Table 1.0 Teachers’ attainment through various modules of Web-tools

Name Lesson Posting Uploading Creating Atten. Reports/ Quiz Web-tools

plan Message Notes Links Remarks Usage
L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H
Vel        
Gouri        
Azila        
Lau        
Suriathy        
Khalijah        
Padhma        
Krishna        
Loh        
Mohan        
L – Limited M- Medium H- High

However, one could notice from the table above that three teachers (Vel, Loh and
Padhma) were not comfortable while journeying through the first module of the Web-
tools (Table 1.0). It was evident from their interviews that they did not utilize the Web-
tools in the classroom or seem to have little commitment to using the technology as a
pedagogical tool. Supporting the above facts from the teachers’ observations, the
dialogues taken from the interviews of these three teachers, gives an opportunity to
understand the teachers’ attitude in a precise manner.

Vel: I think I did find many difficulties. If I do it continuously I think it would

not be a problem as a part of my job [2I5UA]. I have really not tested it so
it was only during the observation I have tested [2I4UA].

Loh: I think there is no difficulty but I think I have to spend more time in
working with the Web-tools.[3I5RI]

Padhma: but.. when it comes to lesson plan and linking it to website was bit
difficult [3I5RG].

From the statement of Vel, it is clear he has not used the Web-tools in the
classroom, as he mentions that he has used them only during his observation sessions.
Also it is clear from his statement that he does not use them continuously as a part of his
job. Similarly, Loh mentions that she has not spent much time using Web-tools. Thus
there seems to be a lack in technology integration of Web-tools or a desire to use them
continuously in their classroom. In the case of Padhma, she was able to post messages
with ease using the Web-tools but she found posting lesson plans to be bit difficult. This
is an interesting point to note, as posting messages and uploading lesson plan had
identical user interface and same the strategies, but still she mentions that uploading
lesson plans was a bit difficult. This shows that she had not shown the same desire as she
had during her first observation, as she moved to the next stage of her observations.

The rest of the seven participants were accepting in their use of Web-tools and
used it as an integral part of their teaching in terms of delivery, learning, management, or
other aspects of the class. This was also evident form the observations with these teachers
that they were able to use the Web-tools as an integral part of their teaching. However,
Suriathy, Krishna Kumar and Azila faced problems during the Quiz and Web-tools
administration modules. Thus, only four out of these seven teachers in this stage were
able to adopt the Web-tools so as to facilitate teaching within their classroom and beyond.
These four teachers who were successful in integrating the Web-tools and tried it in the
classroom were also the teachers who could successfully journey through the entire Web-
tools without much hindrance (Table 2.0). These teachers with the experience gained
with commitment were able to modify and infuse technology as a tool in their classroom.
However, it is quite difficult to estimate if such commitment and ability of the teachers to
infuse technology was due to the additional knowledge these teachers had before the
conduct of the observations. Moreover, this has to be seen in the context of Shulman’s
argument (1986), which states that having knowledge of subject matter and general
pedagogical strategies though necessary is not sufficient for capturing the knowledge of
good teacher.
 Although Shulman did not discuss technology and its relationship to pedagogy
and content, it was Punya Mishara and Matthew J. Koehler (2006), who blended
technology with PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) and emerged with a new
approach, called TPCK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). This TPCK is
a form of knowledge that expert teachers bring into play anytime while integrating
technology with PCK. For example, in the case of Khalijah, during her observation
session she mentioned that “I think yeah, everything I have learned in this six
observations are good, but as I mention now there are few other things that you can to it
to be more useful” [3I4RF]. For me I’m a mathematics teacher so I need space for using
formulae, I need some thing that can be used to do calculations and so on” [3I6RF].
From this statement, we can see that she is looking forward for more added features, in
addition to what she had mentions “good” after all her six observations, thus we can see
that there seemed a “knowledge quest” and an uplift in her Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge.

Therefore, the four teachers who were able to infuse Web-tools successfully
without much hindrance and integrate it in their classroom teaching were those teachers
who had sufficient TPCK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge), which seems
to have allowed them effectively to transform their subject knowledge for the purpose of
technology teaching.

This finding concurs the model for the adoption of new technologies by Hooper
and Rieber (1995). They proposed a model that consists of five specific phases:
familiarization, utilization, integration, reorientation and evolution. In the familiarization
phase, the teacher simply learns how to use the technology. At the utilization phase, the
teacher uses technology in the classroom but has little understanding of, or commitment
to, the technology as a pedagogical and learning tool. During the integration phase, the
technology becomes an integral part of the course in terms of delivery, learning,
management, or other aspect of the class. In the reorientation phase, the teacher uses the
technology as a tool to facilitate the reconsideration of the purpose and function of the
classroom. Finally, teachers who reach the evolution phase were continually able to
modify the classroom structure and pedagogy to include evolving learning theory,
technologies, and lessons learned from experience.

According to Hooper and Rieber, many teachers progress only to the integration
phase and do not transform their philosophical orientation of how learning can occur in
the classroom through technology. From the various levels of attainment the teacher
participants managed to journey through the Web-tools (Table 2), showed that the
lifespan of the majority of the teachers who were observed with the Web-tools were able
to progress only to the utilization phase and not as mentioned by Hooper and Rieber that
many teachers progress until the integration phase. This is because effective content
integration takes time, and new technologies may have glitches. As a result, teachers' first
technology projects generate excitement but often little content learning. Often it takes a
few years until teachers can use technology effectively in core subject areas (Goldman,
Cole, & Syer, 1999). Looking into the levels of attainment of these teacher participants
as a whole, it is worth noting that these outcomes where only based on the administration
of Web-tools based on the conceptual framework of Salmons’ 5 stage model, which
indicates how the tutor’s role should also change in order to support and encourage the
students as they progress through these 5 stages.

However, from the observation results only four teacher participants (Gouri,
Khalijah, Loh and Mohan) seem to have experienced in the manner Salmons defines in
his 5 stage model. Therefore, we can see that the learning curves of the teachers tend to
bend as they progress though different stage of Web-tool. However, there can be many
factors that influence the teachers in not effectively infusing the Web-tools. Some of the
predominant factors can be: i) desire to adapt to new teaching style or ii) low level of
self-efficacy or iii) the unwillingness to shift from traditional modes of delivery to Web-
based teaching or iv) no conducive learning environment. Thus it would be worth looking
at the diagrammatic illustration (Figure 3), as to how this transition affects the teachers’
level of attainments during the integration of technology in their classrooms using Web-
tools.

Figure: 3: Integration with Hooper & Rieber five phased model

Conclusion
This study attempted to find a means of empowering the secondary school
teachers in Malaysia by giving a new dimension in integrating technology in their
teaching using Web-tools. Various reasons seem to have contributed towards this state of
pedagogical traits that exist among the secondary school teachers. Some of them are
contributed by the teachers themselves, and there are other factors, which are contributed
by various other players. Although the reformers at the Ministry of Education seem to
have a clear objective when mandating technology teaching in secondary schools, they
may have failed to look upon the factors that can help teachers carry out the transition
from Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TCK) to Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK). This study therefore serves as a portal for the reformers who wish
to integrate technology teaching using Web-tools with the conceptual framework of
Salmons 5-stage model.

References

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction.
White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
Goldman, S., Cole, K., & Syer, C. (1999). The technology/content dilemma [Online].
Available:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/techconf99/whitepapers/paper4.html
Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.),
Teaching: Theory into practice, (pp. 154-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Hossein Arsham,(1995). Interactive Education: Impact of Internet on Learning and
Teaching at: http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/interactive.htm.
Naisbett, J. (1984). Megatrends. New York: Warner Books.
Noel LeJeune and Karen Richardson, (1998). Learning Theories Applied to Web-Based
Instruction.
Oliver, T.A. and Shapiro, F. (1993) Self-efficacy and computers. Journal of Computer
Based Instruction, 20 (3), 81-85.
Punya Mishra & Matthew.J.Koehler. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A
Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record Volume 108,
Number 6, June 2006, pp.1017- 1054.
Roblyer.M.D. , Jack Edwards Integrating Educational Technology into
Teaching. at http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/roblyer/.
Salmon (2000).cited in http://www.atimod.com/e-moderating/5stage.shtml.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring
the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilley (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating
cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp.201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT
press.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.