I feel the need to know whether what I introduce in and outside class room (i.e. Teaching Learning Environment (TLE), Personal Learning Environment (PLE) and Social Learning Environment (SLE)) for teaching and learning bring benefits to my students. I also feel the urge to whether they accept or against what I have introduced. Another important matter that I always feel crucial to know is whether they learnt and gain knowledge from what I have transferred and shared.

Therefore, to know whether they gain knowledge from the PLE, TLE and SLE introduced, I gathered feedback from my students. These are the real evidences that would make me improve myself for the better (I always tell myself that!). In gathering feedback, I conducted surveys and formal interviews with the help of my tutor. I also conducted a few informal discussions with students who would like to share opinions on my style of teaching. I also look at their performance between groups of students who followed my PLE vs TLE.

Some of the evidences collected are shared below.

During the first few semesters when I introduced PLE and TLE into my teaching, I really feel the need to know whether students could accept PLE or I should just stick to TLE. Therefore, there are few rounds of data collection conducted to few students of mine in different groups. Since it was the first few times I introduced the PLE and TLE, I really wanted to know whether they learn and gain knowledge from these styles of teaching. For this particular case, I have divided the group into two which are (i) students who go through PLE and (ii) students who go through TLE. I look at their performance and collect more data at a later stage.

Figure 3.1: Students’ score based on a test conducted between TLE group vs PLE group

Referring to this particular test shown in Figure 3.1, data was further analyzed as shown in Table 3.1. The table shows data that has been collected from the two different group of students (TLE vs PLE). These data shows that more than 60% of PLE students scored full marks in the test, while about 48% of students scored full marks in the TLE group. Nevertheless, the other distribution was found almost similar between PLE and TLE group.

Table 3.1: Students’ score based on a test conducted between TLE group vs PLE group

GROUP SCORE (/10) FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
TLE 10 7 46.67
9 2 13.33
8 4 26.67
7 1 6.67
6 1 6.67
<5 0 0.00
PLE 10 9 60.00
9 0 0.00
8 5 33.33
7 1 6.67
6 0 0
<5 0 0

There are times where I conducted an evaluation based on students work. In this particular case, I conducted an evaluation based on individual projects given. Students were divided into two groups (i) TLE group to complete the project and (ii) PLE group to complete the project with minimal supervision, but extra materials were given to them. In another individual project, the students were switched. The group that has undergone TLE is now being grouped to the PLE group and vice versa. Final project marks for both projects were collected as shown in Figure 3.2. The figure is showing each individual projects marks when students completed the TLE project and PLE project. Data were then analyzed further as shown in Table 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Students’ score based on individual project completed in TLE group and PLE group

Referring to the graph shown in Figure 3.2, there are 14 students who scored the same marks in both of their projects (i.e. TLE and PLE projects). On the other hand, 6 students scored better in their TLE projects as compared to the PLE projects. I also found that more students which is 12 of them scored better in their PLE projects than their TLE projects. Data are further analyzed as shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Students’ score based on individual project completed in TLE group and PLE group

SCORE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
PROJECT TLE > PROJECT PLE 6 18.75
PROJECT TLE = PROJECT PLE 14 43.75
PROJECT PLE > PROJECT TLE 12 37.50

In terms of percentage, majority of the students (i.e. 43.75 percent) scored the same marks for both their TLE and PLE projects. Although they are given different titles of each projects to be completed in TLE and PLE, and working at different environment (i.e. PLE and TLE), it seems that it does not affect their work to be delivered. Another group of students which is about 37.50 percent seems to work better in delivering their projects when in PLE as compared to TLE. Only a small number of students (i.e. 18.75%) works better in their projects when in TLE as compared to working in PLE.

Besides test and projects, I also conducted a quiz on a given topic to know how students perform during PLE vs TLE. The topic was given earlier, a group of students were selected to be attending lectures and tutorial covering that topic (i.e. TLE). Another group of students attended lectures and were given materials to be studied on their own whether individually or in groups. They were given their own freedom to conduct their own study groups and may use other reference materials as well for that topic (i.e. PLE). A quiz was then conducted to test on their knowledge and understanding. These two different groups of students were then switched. Another topic was then given on the following week. The same procedure takes place, which are learning through TLE and PLE for those different group of students. The quiz results were collected as shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3. Students’ quiz results (TLE vs PLE)

Based on the data collected shown in Figure 3.3, I could summarize that majority of the students (i.e. 17 of them) scored better when given the opportunity to learn in PLE rather than in TLE. Seven of them scored better when learning in TLE as compared to PLE. 6 of them scored the same marks during both tests when learning in TLE and PLE. In terms of percentage, it could be seen in Table 3.3 that majority of them (i.e. about 57%) scored better in their quiz after undergoing PLE. Only approximately 23% of the students scored better when learning in TLE.

Table 3.3. Students Quiz Results (TLE vs PLE)

SCORE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
QUIZ TLE > QUIZ PLE 7 23.33
QUIZ TLE = QUIZ PLE 6 20.00
QUIZ PLE > QUIZ TLE 17 56.67

Based on some of the data collected above, it shows interesting data on how students perform based on the TLE and PLE delivery. I find that it is something that I should reflect on. I could not make a conclusion that PLE is better than TLE and vice versa.

Therefore, after conducting PLE and TLE in my teaching delivery to few groups of students in different semesters and courses; I realized that there is a need to conduct both TLE and PLE in teaching and learning. It should be coupled together and not to be conducted alone or separately. In other words, TLE is needed and accompanied by PLE. Therefore, students get a balance of both. This will apply to all type of students. They need to listen to lecturers on the fundamental concepts and then proceed with the detail of it in TLE. Later on, they need to conduct PLE to master the concept, find solutions to problems and creatively think about way to apply the concept to other related cases. This is what I have concluded from the reflections I have done for few semesters.

Throughout this section, I have mentioned about students’ performance based on TLE and PLE. Nevertheless, I have not mentioned about SLE. I did not conduct any formal assessment on SLE. I did some observations on SLE and interview some students on how they learn throughout SLE delivery.

Most of the students mentioned that SLE is platform that they enjoyed learning outside of class. They honestly mentioned that SLE teach them things that could not be taught in books and in classroom by lecturers. As one of the students being interviewed mentioned

“I learnt a lot at competitions and exhibitions [SLE]. Although it is not so much about our syllabus, but it makes me confident about the product that I have developed using the concepts learn in class. I learnt how to present well, dress well, be prepared with technical and non-technical questions, prepare a budget and defense my work. It teaches me how to think fast and be creative too…. I met a lot of people from industry. That is what I treasured most. I got to shake hand with the CEO of XXX [name of company is removed for anonymity]!! I won’t be able to get this opportunity if I were to stay in class! And… I listen to many good speakers from different companies like XXX, XXX and XXX [name of company is removed for anonymity]. They shared their experience on how they become successful, their secrets in business, their ups and downs, which motivates me a lot. It helps me to feel motivated to do well and be like one of them!…”

 

This interview of how SLE motivates them to be better is a good value that makes them want to excel in class too. Therefore, I conclude that SLE is teaching my students to better in soft skills and other skills that could not be shared through teaching and learning through TLE and PLE. It is skills that could only be learnt by them participating, meeting people and experiencing the events.

 

One of the SLE (outside classroom) activity that was conducted by students related to the Course

Picture Source: Berita Harian. My students entering and organizing a competition related to knowledge management mobile apps. We received good feedbacks from the industry who attended as panel of judges. The competition received good response and media coverage. Students learnt a lot from this SLE activity where they participated as organizing committee and some participated as contestants.

 

Overall T&L Innovation Impact on Students’ Performance and Attainment

Figure 3.4 Students Performance and attainment for SDB4423 Course (Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques)

Semester Course Lecturer Student Centered Learning Pedagogy Used Average Grade
May 2017 SDB 4423 – Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques Noreen Izza Flipped Classroom Strategy with TLE, PLE and SLE activities A-
Jan 2018 SDB 4423 – Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques Anonymous Active Learning Strategy in Classroom B

Table 3.4 Students Performance and attainment for SDB4423 Course (Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques)

Referring to Figure 3.4 and Table 3.4, the graph and table presents students’ performance for the above-mentioned course. This course was taught in May 2017 by me and in January 2018 by another lecturer. The course syllabus, course learning outcome, assessments and materials remain the same for these two semesters. Nevertheless, the approach used for teaching in class differs between the 2 different lecturers. In conclusion, I would like to highlight that the flipped classroom strategy used during May 2017 that involves the TLE, PLE and SLE presents better results as compared to the January 2018 semester. The Average Score for May 2017 semester in ‘A-’ as compared to January 2018 which is ‘B’. The lecturer (name is kept anonymous) teaching in January 2018 semester used only active learning approach in class without having PLE and SLE activities conducted outside classroom as pre and post activities. This is an evidence showing that students performed better when flipped classroom strategy is introduced with TLE, PLE and SLE embedded in teaching and learning.

Figure 3.5 Students Performance and attainment for SDB4413 Course (Knowledge Management Strategies)

 

Semester Course Lecturer Student Centered Learning Pedagogy Used Average Grade
Jan 2017 SDB 4413 – Knowledge Management Strategies Noreen Izza Flipped Classroom Strategy with TLE, PLE and SLE activities A
Sept 2017 SDB 4413 – Knowledge Management Strategies Anonymous Active Learning Strategy in Classroom B
Jan 2018 SDB 4413 – Knowledge Management Strategies Noreen Izza Flipped Classroom Strategy with TLE, PLE and SLE activities A-

The same goes to another course which is SDB4413 Knowledge Management Strategies. The course was offered in three different semesters January 2017, September 2017 and January 2018. This course was taught by me during January 2017 and January 2018. The same course was taught by a different lecturer during September 2017 semester. The course syllabus, assessments, course learning outcomes and materials remain the same following the MQA document. Nevertheless, the strategy of teaching delivery was different between the two lecturers. Figure 3.5 graph presents that the average grade for January 2017 is A; September 2017 is B; and January 2018 is A-. It is concluded that flipped classroom strategy embedded with TLE, PLE and SLE strategy is found effective and impactful towards students’ achievement and attainment.

**Students achievement and mapping on constructive alignment to CLOs has been discussed and presented in Section 3b.