Effect of different teaching method implemented in the course of Basic Molecular Biology on academic achievement of UKM Biomedical Sciences students that took this course. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of research Basic molecular biology, NNNB2134, is a course which the goal is to cover the fundamentals about the branch of biology which deals with the molecular basis of biological activity. From the course students understands the interactions between various systems of a cell, inclusive of the interactions between different types of DNA, RNA and protein biosynthesis. Methods of regulations of these interactions are also a focus of this course. This course is taken by all Biomedical Sciences student during the first semester of the second year’s study. James R. Davis, in his book Better Teaching More Learning (1993), teaching is defined as the interaction of a student and a teacher over a subject. Various teaching methods are used in conducting this course in order to provide the most effective learning experience for the students who take this subject and various efforts have been poured in to improvise the teaching methods used. Two main teaching methods that are used in conducting the course are : the learner-centered approach and the teacher-centered approach. Firstly, teacher centered approach are in the form of lectures where course materials are presented by the instructors of the course, the lecturers, through lectures. Background information, materials of topics of molecular biology are delivered to the students in a short period of time (i.e. for an hour) in the setting of a lecture hall. Lecture notes are provided by lecturers to the students after the lecture. All classes before mid term examination are conducted via this approach. Secondly, the leaner-centered approach are done in the form where students participates in presentation of topics of the course via different styles and methods and in the form of self learning package where students complete reports of study of a specific topics in the field of molecular biology. In both these activities, lecturers plays a facilitative role in guiding learners in the construction of knowledge. This approach is applied in majority of the classes after mid term examination. In a research conducted by Matthew Steven Haas (2002), he investigated the influence of different teaching methodology on student achievement in the SOL(standards of learning) assessment for the subject of Algebra I. Six categories of teaching methods are assessed: cooperative learning; communication and study skills; technology aided instruction; problem-based learning ; manipulatives, models and multiple representations; and direct instructions. From the result obtained, teaching method are shown to be accounted for variance of students’ scores in the assessment. In addition, another study conducted by Guido Schwerdt and Amelie C. Wuppermann in year 2008, which aims to determine relationship between teaching practices and student achievement shows that teaching method which comprise of spending more time in class on lecture style presentation is found to be related to higher student achievements. On the contrary of the result of this study, another study conducted found that interactive teaching method enhances student performance compared to the use of teaching methods of teacher-centered approach, (Smith et al. ,2001). Taking into consideration effect of teaching method on learning experience of students which are reflected on their academic performances. Our group conduct a study on relationship between different types of teaching methods in the subject of molecular biology and the academic results of Biomedical Sciences students on this subject. 1.2 Research Justification Several literature compare between both teaching methodologies of teacher-centered approach and learner-centered approach to determine which method best promote effective learning among students. However, the result obtained are not uniform in showing which teaching method leads to the most optimum students’ academic achievement. Taking into consideration that types of teaching method used have impact on learning experience of students which are reflected on their academic performances and different types of teaching methodologies affect academic performances of students differently as shown in different studies. Therefore, our group conduct this study to investigate the effect of different types of teaching method used in Basic Molecular Biology course on academic performances of Biomedical Sciences students in this course and also to identify the teaching method that best facilitates learning among students of Basic Molecular Biology course. 1.3 Objectives 1.3.1 Research Question Does different teaching method implemented in the Basic Molecular Biology course, NNNB2134, affect academic performance of Biomedical Sciences student who took this course? 1.3.2 General Objectives To study the effect of different teaching methods used in conducting the subject of molecular biology NNNB2134 on academic performance of Biomedical Sciences students who took this subject. 1.3.3 Specific Objectives i) To categorize Biomedical Sciences students who took Basic Molecular Biology based on the aspect of gender, learning style, and their perceptions on the two types of teaching methods. ii) To compare between the effect of teaching method of learner-centered approach and teacher-centered approach on academic performance of students in Molecular Biology course. iii) To study the effect of different teaching methods on academic achievement of students of different gender. iv) To find out the effect of different teaching methods on students of different learning styles. v) To investigate the effect of perceptions of students on teaching methods towards the academic achievement of students taught via the method. 1.4 Research Hypothesis The different teaching method implemented in the Basic Molecular Biology course, NNNB2134, has effect on the academic performance of Biomedical Sciences student who took this course. Chapter II Literature Review 2.1 Learner-centered approach Student-centered learning (SCL), or learner-centeredness, is an education model that targets on the needs of the students, rather than lecturers or others involved in the educational process. Fosnot (1989) defined learning-centered approach as a modern view of learning was more constructivism, where students are expected to be active in their learning process by participating in discussion and or collaborative activities. In short, constructivist learning is an understanding that learners construct knowledge for themselves. This is a kind of active learning that give students a chance to explain what they understand regarding to particular topic to others. In such way, students have great impression on what they have learn and able to apply their learning into daily application in the future. Gibbs (1922) stated that SLC gives greater autonomy and control over choice of subject matter, learning methods used and pace of study. Such approaches have significance in their learning experience such as academic performance of students, interest of students in the subject, understanding of students in the subject and effective learning of students. This is in contrast to teaching method of teacher-centered approach which students passively pertaining knowledge from ‘expert’ teachers. SCL is stressed on the student’s demands, abilities, interests and learning styles with the facilitator of learning. Hence, student voice contributes as centre point of learning experience, playing an active role to be responsible in actively participating in discovery learning processes instead of being passive and receptive. SCL methods such as “hands-on” and group work providing opportunity for students to figure out on their own way about what they intent to do in class. In this way of distinctive learning styles, students are actively construct their own learning and capable of achieving life-long learning goals. According to studies done by Jo Barraket from University of Melbourne, outcomes of taking SCL approach indicate a better result of student’s performance in assessment compared to teaching-centered learning. A study is carried out to assess result of Policy Research Method (PRM) class among students of class 2004 which took the class where the class were taught via a range of specific techniques (namely case study, problem based learning, group work, small group activity and role-play simulation) and students of class 2003 which took the same class but using teaching method that are favored towards classroom teaching methods. The result obtained shows that students in the 2004 class showed a better understanding of the subject with the SLC approach when compared to the 2003 class and SCL appeared to have a positive impact on performance of students, satisfactory and learning experience in this analysis. The author suggested that the reason is because active participation of the students in the activity used in 2004 class induced critical analysis and enable experiential understanding of the students. Also, author suggested that repeated group work also assisted the students to gain different perspectives, think critically and reflectively about their own assumptions and values of research. Benefit of SCL is supported by an observation made in a study conducted by Benson and Blackman's (2003) which shows that activity-based approaches to teaching research methods facilitates in student learning better than the traditional model applied. In addition, (Heins, 1991) Alberecht and Sack (2001) found that combination of teaching-centered and student-centered learning approach will develop student’s leadership skills and team building by practicing pedagogy that includes group assignment, while role-playing will illustrate the value of negotiation. Perkins and Saris (2001) and Yoder and Hachevar (2005) further included that research on group-oriented discussion methods has shown that team learning and student-led discussion not only produce favorable student performance outcome but foster greater participation, self confidence and leadership ability. Another research conducted by G. McDowell also proved the effectiveness of SCL. From the observations made, if student put into considerably effort, they will learn much and gain a high mark. This high expectancy of success motivates students and stimulates urge of learning. Hence, a coursework set which comprises 5 tasks which requires filling in the blank and ‘pointer’ are given at suitable stages to assist revision of course theory and to complete the next step of the current task. Evidence (feedback questionnaires, the coursework marks and exam marks) suggests that students benefited from the SCL approach and ability successfully enhanced to apply fundamental principle to advanced level unseen problem-solving. Nicol(2001) stated out 3 perpectives that can be considered for the concept of SCL which are cognitive, motivational and social-contextual. From a cognitive perspective, students gain knowledge by interaction with and transformation of information receiving to become it as their own and make it meaningful leading to great understanding and useful knowledge. Ways of involving students in active processing such as questioning, explaining and discussion. ‘Metacognition’ is related to this approach. Motivation of learning influenced personally by needs and values respectively. Through the relevant learning task given to students, they expect to get success if they able to spend the time necessary to accomplish it. This way can enhance motivation. Students motivate each other by encourage them to take part in set tasks with others and help out each other. In this way able to greatly enhance motivation facilitates learning. This is so called the social perspective of student learning. Student learning up to how they perceive and practice the relationship with teachers and other students. 2.2 Relationship between Teacher-centered teaching method approach and learning experience The teacher-centred approach or conventional teaching method is a traditional method of teaching in which a teacher delivers the knowledge to students either through writing on the blackboard or whiteboard, given lecture using powerpoint slideshow or by using other instructional materials. Basically, the teaching is based on pre-determined instructional objectives in order to promote learning among the students. The teachers’ approaches to teaching are influenced by the conceptions of teaching they bring into their teaching contexts. McDonald (2002) state that teacher-centered approach is associated chiefly with the transmission of knowledge. In teacher centered teaching approaches, the focus is on the transmission of information to students, whose main role is receiving and assimilating information (Liu et al., 2006). Majority of literatures shows negative comment about effectivity of teaching method of teacher centered approach when compared with elarner centered approach. For instance according to studies done by Mohd Zin Mokhtar, Rohani Ahmad Tarmizi, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub and Mohd Ariff Ahmad Tarmizi from Universiti Tenaga Nasional, result obtained shows that teacher centered teaching method does not provide an active learning environment for engineering students especially in calculus subject. Studies found that even though teachers as a main source of knowledge and plays a leading role in transferring information, there are quite a number of students who can not be able to achieve a deep understanding in the calculus subject and thus they found that calculus is very hard, difficult and abstract. Feedback gathered from students shows that majority of the students do not actively involved in lectures but passively follow instruction of the teacher and this situation causes the feeeling of isolation from the real world in learning. In addition, author also stated that via teacher-centered teaching, the teachers only transmit knowledge without cultivate some lifelong learning skills for them. Thus, teacher centered teaching does not provide an active learning environment for students. Another study conducted among nursing students of Illinois State University (2006) also found that with implementation of lectures that are clsoely associated with teacher centered approachresults in students which have a low level of self-determination. However, there are also researches that suggested that teacher centered method are beneficial for immediate recall of the subject when compared to student centered teaching method (Fey 1982). In addition, a study conducted by Richard M. Felder, Donald R. Woods, James E. Stice, and Armando Rugarcia at North Carolina State University, McMaster University, University of Texas–Austin and Ibero americana University–Puebla (1960 -1980) though shows teaching methods of active learning approach are more superior than teachercenteres approach, but also suggested that via incorporation of visual information (i.e. presentation of information in the form of visual illustrations such as pictures, sketches, schematics, plots and flow charts) can improvise teacher centered teaching and can be able to stimulate interest of students better and also to aid students in gaining a better understanding on that subject. On the other hand, several researches that there is no single instructional method that is most effective in all teaching situations. After compare and contrast of a number of approaches to teaching and most of the studies that were done before concluded that there is no single instructional method that is most effective in all teaching situations. (Anderson, 1959, Keislar & Shulman, 1966; Peterson & Walberg, 1979). Fey (1982) discovered that different teaching methods provides different result with different students, depending on their prior knowledge or ability, where the author described that “weaker students seemed to benefit from expository teaching (teacher centered method) and stronger students from discovery (learner centered approach)”. Research on social studies by Tina Heafner indicates that the students often are uninterested in social studies because they perceive it as a boring subject even though the teacher integrated a variety of traditional and constructivist instructional methods such as incorporated a brief lecture, questioning strategies to discuss readings, graphic organizers, and video clips of recent election campaign commercials. The studies also show that the students tend to equate uninteresting with unimportant. Thus, they are not motivated to learn social studies content due to the lack of value of the content. 2.3 Effect of different teaching method on students of different learning style. There are vast collection of definition for the term learning style. Learning style is referred to as the general tendency towards a particular learning approach displayed by an individual (Keefe & Ferrell, et. al 1990) .That is, they describe students may prefer one approach to learning over other approaches so that the student can understand better. In addition, learning style is defined by Verster (2005) as the more or less consistent way which a person perceives, conceptualizes, organizes and recalls information. Learning style is also defined as a component of cognitive style and personality which can be expressed by an individual in the context of academic (Entwhistle 1987). Dybvig (2004) on the other hand, defines a learning style as the way in which a person processes, internalises and studies new and challenging material. Therefore, this implies that learning style affects the way individuals think, act and approach of learning. Each individuals are believed to have their own learning style in which they used to approach and master learning materials. On the other hand, teaching styles are defined by Heredia(1999) as behaviours that teachers’ exhibit in their interaction with learners. Kirby (1979) states that learning style contains various elements and are usually overlapping instead of the “either-or” extremes. Therefore, various learnings tyle models are developed for identification of learning styles namely the VARK model which is the VARK model which is an instructional and environmental preference model (Fleming 1987), the Felder-Silverman Learning stlyes model which is an information processing model (Claxton and Murrell 1987; Richard M. Felder and Silverman, 1993), the Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI) model, the Kolb learning style model,and the Herman Brain Demoninance Instrucment (HBDI) model . The model of learning style applied in this study is the VARK model which is developed by Neil Fleming (1987) and is abbreviated as VARK which stands for Visual, Aural, Read or Write and Kinethetic. This model categorised learners according to their preferred mode of interaction with others and is made based on the input stimulus and output performance. According to Fleming (197), visual learners learn best via pictures, diagrams, video, animation, flowcharts, colours, symbols, lecturers gestures and graphs; aural learners learn best via lecturers voices, discussions, verbal explanations, tape recordings, stories and jokes and recalling the learning content to other people; Read or write learners learn best via writing of lists, headings, usage of dictionaries, glossaries, textbooks and lecture notes; Kinesthetic learners learn best via real experiences, concrete examples, case studies, field trips, and laboratory experiments. Research conducted by Aguirre (2005) found that auditory or aural learning style was the strongest learning style identified among the sample group of the National University in Bogota. Majority of learners preferred the aural types of learning methods. On the other hand, research conducted by Denice Byrne(2002) at Dublin City University shows that the strongest learning style of the tested sample group are kinesthetic learning type which made up 35.48% of the group whereas the second strongest learning style is aural. Visual types of learning style only made up 3.22% of the group whereas read or write learning style learners made up 9.65% of the students. Also, 16.25% of the tested sample group possess strong in more than one learning style. Research conducted shows that there is a significant relationship between learning styles ( based on VARK model) and preference of teaching and learning metholodogies. 59% of studies examined supports the theory that intructional strategies or teaching methods have impact on achievement of students with different learning style. Research shows that learners are affected by the immediate environment( sound, light, temperature and design), own emotionality (motivation, persistence, responsibility, and the need for structure or flexibility), sociological needs( from self, pair, peers, team, adult or varied) and also physical needs (perceptual strengths, intake, time and mobility), (Dunn & Dunn 1978). Dr. Rita Dunn and Dr. Kenneth Dunn also states that when learners are taught in methods which relates to their learning style, students can be able to score higher on tests, have better learning attitudes, and also are more efficient in learning. Therefore, this implies that it will be beneficial if the educators teach students in teaching methods that the learners of different learning style can more easily relate. Kolb (1995) also suggest that failure to recognise and address learning styles of student when teaching can affect learning. As learning styles of students in a classroom varies, literatures also strongly suggests that teaching methods used should be able to target as many types of learning style as possible to promote effective learning. Application of multiple teaching methods are necessary to promote effective teaching and learning (Philipps et al 2008). Since students’ learning style can not be changed and varies widely in a classroom, hence instructors are encouraged to master several teaching methods in order to aid students at reaching their learning potential, (Gregorc 1982),. Various studies shows that teaching students based on their preferred learning style significantly increases their achievement level (Dunn, et. al 1990 ).Dunn (1996) shows in the book “ How to implement and supervise a learning style program” in a case study which shows improvement of grades of regular 11th grade class’s students with implementation of learning style approach when compared to accelerated 11th grade students who are taught using the traditional teaching methods. Scores of Standardised Achievement Test (SAT) in several schools in United States also improve significantly when students are moved to learning style classroom from traditional classroom. Research conducted by Sheila Tobias (1993) also shows that implementation of teaching method which are compatible wit the learning styles of students enable the students of the specific learning style to retain the information learnt longer and can be able to apply the information more effectively than those students where mismatching of teaching methods with learning styles are obvious. However, there are also literature which does not support matching teaching methods with learning styles as a cause for effective learning. A study conducted by Ching-Sue (2005) shows tjat matching students’ learning style with teaching methods does not result in significant improvement or change in students’ understanding of difficult science concepts such as air pressure. Argeuments stated by authors which oppose the theory are the lack of reliability and validity of instruments used to determine the learner’s preferences in teaching methods (Ellis 2001). Becta(2005) also questiona about the lack of longitudinal study which are necessary to determine stabilty of learning styles and also reliability of instruments used to provide consistent results on learning styles. Authors also questions about possibility of implementation of learning styles approach in teaching methodologies and claims that large scale adoption of matching teaching and learning styles are unrealistic (Coffield et al 2004). According to Doyle and Rutherford(2003), problems will be faced by teaching when implementing learning style approach due to the amount of diversity in learners to accomodate and also which learning style to prioritise. 2.4 Effect of different teaching method on students of different gender. Walberg (1999) defined teaching-centered approach as direct teaching which emphasizing systematic sequencing of lessons, a presentation of new content and skill, guided students practice, feedback and independent practice by student. On the other hand, Fosnot (1989) defined learning-centered approach as a modern view of learning that is emphasize more on constructivism, where students are expected to be active in their learning process by participating in discussion and or collaborative activities. As commonly seen in the education system, usually the educator will pass out the lecture notes, summary or overview of the lecture to the students. Educators use this lecture format because of the relative ease of information passing, the need to cover the content, a long history of traditional lecturing, and perhaps due to their own preferences in learning. Not all students can absorb the knowledge from the traditional lecturing and this might also differ according to genders. A classroom usually composed of students of both genders, several literatures address the issue to determine if teaching methods implemented in classroom impacted on students of different genders differently which in turn affect the academic achievement of students. It has been reported that males have a preference for rational evaluation and logic, whereas females use “elaborative” processing in which they tend to seek personal relevance or individual connections with the material being taught (Lie, Angelique and Cheong, 2004). In addition, males also tend to be more achievement oriented, whereas females are more socially and performance oriented (Chang,2005). The genders also differ in their beliefs about what is most important to student learning, with females ranking social interaction with other students and self-confidence as higher than males. Furthermore, males are likely to attribute their success in the classroom to external causes, such as teaching, whereas females generally see their success are being directly related to their efforts in the classroom (Grollino E, Velayo RS. 1996). This suggests that males tend to be more externally focused, but females tend to be more introspective and self critical. According to Glatthorn and Jailail (2000), by establishing effective styles in the class will provide increased opportunities to improve male achievement. The most common learning styles practiced by students are Visual, Aural, Read/Write or Kinesthetic (VARK). According to Marcy. V. (2001), students have different learning style and these can affect how they learn. In an article, it was said that boys see things and hear differently than girls (Kaufmann, 2010). Because the learning differences between genders are tendencies not absolute. Literally, male and female eyes are not organized in the same way. Male students tend to create pictures or moving object instead of drawn textures as seen by female. The author also state that boys and girls also hear differently as girls have a more finely tuned aural structure and are more sensitive to sounds than boys. But she does not state that which method is specific to which gender. On the other hand, an article by Erica, Heidi and Stephen on 2006 stated that student may have a preference for one modality or be multimodal. Multimodal learners have preferences in more than one mode. A study was done to test the hypothesis that males and females have different learning style preferences. In that study, the authors suggested that gender differences in learning preferences can be assessed. Importantly, more male students preferred multiple modes of presentation. Thus, in contrast to females, the majority of males preferred multiple modes of information presentation (Fleming ND., 1995). Male students may adjust to the different teaching styles faced in a day or they may opt in and out of alternative strategies, such as being visual in certain topic or reading/writing in other topics. The results of the VARK questionnaire conducted by Fleming ND on 2007 should convince teachers to use multiple modes of information presentation. This may require instructors to stray from their own preferred mode(s) of teaching and learn to using a variety of styles, which will positively affect learning. There is a significant difference in learning style preferences between males and females. As such, it is the responsibility of the instructor and the student to be aware of student learning style preferences to improve learning (Lie LY, Angelique L, and Cheong E. 2004). It is important to note that there is no study that promoting separation of gender in learning process. As suggested by Lie et al. (19), this actually supports mixed gender classrooms and study groups to allow both genders the opportunity to learn from each other. To serve the interests of education, we must be aware, at all times, of the choices we make and why we make them. Understanding the role that gender plays in online teaching and learning is critical; this role has serious potential effects on student learning and needs to be further examined and researched (Butler, 2000; Campbell, 2000; Dusick, 1998; Gefen & Straub, 1997). By using a variety of teaching approaches, teachers will reach more students because of the better match between teacher and learner styles. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1 STUDY POPULATION The effects of different teaching method implemented in the Basic Molecular Biology course, NNNB2134 on academic performance of UKM Biomedical Sciences students in this course is studied among Biomedical Sciences Year 2, year 3 and year 4 students in National University of Malaysia (UKM) from Faculty of Allied Health Sciences in session 2011/2012. 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN The study design is cross-sectional. 3.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE 3.3.1 Sampling Method The sampling method employs systemic random 3.3.2 Target Population The target population is Biomedical Sciences undergraduates in National University of Malaysia (UKM). 3.3.3 Sample Population The sample population is Biomedical Sciences Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 students in National University of Malaysia (UKM) in session 2011/2012 3.3.4 Sampling Frame The sampling frame is the list of Biomedical Sciences Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 students in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, in session 2011/2012. 3.3.5 Sample Unit The sample unit is the Biomedical Sciences Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 students in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, in session 2011/2012. 3.4 CRITERIA 3.4.1 Inclusion criteria The inclusion criterion is the Biomedical Sciences second, third and fourth year students who have already taken the Basic Molecular Biology subject in UKM, session 2011/2012, 2010/2011 and 2009/2011 respectively. 3.4.2 Exclusion criteria The exclusion criteria are the students who have not taken the Basic Molecular Biology course before. 3.5 Sample Size Calculation According to Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970), 2 NP(1 P) n 2 ( N 1) 2 P(1 P) 2 χ = Table value of Chi-Square @ d.f = 1 for desired confidence level. 0.01 = 2.71 0.05 = 3.84 0.01 = 6.64 0.001 = 10.83 N = Population table P = Population proportion (assumed to be 0.5) ∆2 = Degree of accuracy (expressed as a proportion) Therefore, from the equation; 3.84 x 220 x0.5(1 0.5) 0.05 (220 1) 3.84(0.5)(1 0.5) 211.20 n 0.5475 0.96 211.20 n 1.5075 n 140.09 n 2 The sample size is 141 students with significance level of 10% and degree of accuracy of 5%. The study employing universal sampling method and the sample size is 160 students. 141 / (1 - 0.1) = 156.67 Therefore, the sample is 160 students Year 2 = 62, year 3=78, year 4=80 To calculate the exact sample that should be taken from every batch: Year 2, (62 ÷ 220) X 100 = 28.18% Year 3, (78 ÷ 220) X 100 = 35.45% Year 4, (80 ÷ 220) X 100 = 36.36% The exact sample that should be taken for every batch is: Year 2, 28.18% X 160 = 45 Year 3, 35.45% X 160 = 57 Year 4, 36.36% X 160 = 58 3.6 Methodology The instrument used is close- and open-ended questionnaire. 3.6.1 Demographic Profile In this section, basic information will be acquired from the subjects such as year, gender, race and Grades of Basic Molecular Biology NNNB2134 (Mid semester examination and Final semester examination). The sample population consists of students of Biomedical Science students who have taken the subject called Basic Molecular Biology at their second, third and fourth year subject in UKM, session 2011/2012, 2010/2011 and 2009/2011 respectively. The gender is used in the later investigation to classify and compare between the sample populations. The grades of molecular biology will be classified into two categories: midterm exam grades and final exam grades. The grades will be converted into particular pointer based on the results obtained. The mean and standard deviation of pointer for both midterm exam and final exam are calculated and compared. 3.6.2 Teaching methods, learning styles, perception of students on teaching methods and gender There are many factors affecting the academic achievements of students. In this statistic analytical test, subjects from the Biomedical Sciences who took the subject called molecular biology are required to provide information such as different learning styles, different teaching methods used in conducting the subject of molecular biology. Among 14 hours of classes for the whole semester, 100% of classes were conducted via direct lecturing only whereas in second half semester, 75% of 8 hours of classes were conducted via learnercentered approach which is by student presentation and SLP. Therefore, we are able to categorize the result of midterm examination as academic result that reflects the effect of teaching method of teacher-centered approach and final examination results as academic result that reflect the effect of learner-centered approach on student academic achievements. Different teaching methods used might affect the understanding of students about the topic and how much student concentrates on the topic being taught in class. Hence, different teaching methods affect pointer of the subject. The teaching methods can be teacher-centered method or learner-centered method. Subjects are going to provide information about what methods they have been done at second half semester, which are either presentations of topics, self learning package (SLP) or video or animation. In this study, the significant difference between means of pointer of midterm examination and final examination will be determined. Another factor affecting the student academic performance of basic molecular biology subject is the learning style of students. Learning styles can be divided into visual, aural, reading and tactile-learning style. This study investigates the significant differences between different learning styles towards the academic performance of students. Lastly, the subjects are going to provide their responses on two kinds of teaching methods being taught in the basic molecular biology lecture, which are teacher-centered approach and learner-centered approach. The effect of perceptions of student on teaching methods on academic achievement of students will be determined. 3.6.3 Dummy Table for Questionnaire Respondent characteristic Number (n) Percentage (%) The variables for carrying out the statistical research are i) Gender ii) Teaching method 1. Teacher-centered approach 2. Learner-centered approach iii) Learning style iv) Student’s perceptions on teaching methods 3.7 STATISTIC ANALYSIS The data will be collected using questionnaire and will be analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 17.0. The first stage of statistical data analysis is descriptive analysis. 3.7.1 Independent T-test The study employs independent t-test. The Independent T-test is employed to compare the grades of students in Basic Molecular Biology between genders. 3.7.2 Paired T-Test Paired T-test is employed to compare the grades of students in Basic Molecular Biology between teaching method of teacher-centered approach and teaching method of learnercentered approach. The result can be determined by comparing the mean of pointer of Basic Molecular Biology between midterm examination and final examination. 3.7.3 One-Way ANOVA One-Way Independent ANOVA is employed to compare: 1.) Grades of students in Basic Molecular Biology subject between four different learning styles (visual, aural, reading and tactile-learning style) 2.) Grades of students in Basic Molecular Biology subject between different perceptions of students on teaching methods. 3.8 DEFINE VARIABLES The dependent variable is the academic achievement, which is student’s pointer of molecular biology of midterm examination and final examination. The independent variable is the different types of teaching methods. Learner-centered approached and teacher-centered approached are examples of the teaching methods. The covariates are student’s learning styles, student’s perceptions on teaching methods and gender. 3.9 DUMMY TABLE FOR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 3.9.1 Demographic Respondent characteristic Gender 4 Male 5 Female Race 6 Malay Number (n) Percentage (%) 7 Chinese 8 Indian 9 Other Prefer Learning Style 10 Visual 11 Aural 12 Reading 13 Tactile 3.8.2 Average grade pointer scored and standard deviation of gender and prefer learning style Gender Male Female Race Visual Aural Reading Tactile Average grade pointer Standard Deviation 3.8.3 Comparison of mean and standard deviation of grade pointer among gender by Independent T-test/Mann-Whitney Gender Mean of grade pointer Standard deviation Independent T-test MannWhitney Test Male Female 3.8.4 Comparison of mean and standard deviation of grade pointer between mid semester and final exam by Dependent T-test/ Wilcoxon Test Exam Mean of grade pointer Standard deviation Dependent Ttest Wilcoxon Test Mid semester Final 3.8.5 Comparison of mean and standard deviation of grade pointer between different learning styles by one way-ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis Learning Style Mean of grade pointer Standard deviation One way- KrsukalANOVA Wallis Test Visual Aural Reading Tactile 2.5.6 Comparison of mean and standard deviation of grade pointer between the different perceptions on the teacher-centered approach Perception Standard deviation Mean of grade pointer One way- KrsukalANOVA Wallis Test Like Neutral Dislike 2.5.7 Comparison of mean and standard deviation of grade pointer between the different perceptions on the learner-centered approach Perception Standard deviation Mean of grade pointer One way- KrsukalANOVA Wallis Test Like Neutral Dislike 4.0 GANTT CHART Events/Months Weeks Literature Review Questionnaire development Proposal Proposal Presentation Sampling Data Analysis Research Writing Research Presentation Research Hand In March 4 * * April 1 * * * * * REFERENCES 2 3 * * * 4 May 1 2 * * * * * 3 * * Albrecht, W.S. & Sack, R.J. (2001). “The Perilous Future of Accounting Education.” CPA Journal. 71(3):17-24. Anderson, R. 1959. Learning in Discussions: A resume/the authoritarian-democratic studies. Harvard Educational Review 29, 201-216. Bastick, T. (1995). “3AF: The Three-Ability Framework for Assessment in Tertiary Education”. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education, Finland. Barraket, J. (2005). Teaching Research Method Using a Student-Centred Approach? Critical Reflections on Practice. Australia. 2(2): 64-74 Benson, A. & Blackman, D. (2003). 'Can research methods ever be interesting?'. Active Learning in Higher Education 4 (1): 39-55. Chang WC. (2004). Learning goals and styles by gender–a study of NUS students. CDTL Brief 7: 4–5. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. 1986. Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Daniel Ngaru Muraya, & Githui Kimamo.2011. Effects of Cooperative Learning Approach on Biology Mean Achievement Scores of Secondary School Students’ in Machakos District, Kenya. Educational Research and Reviews Vol. 6(12), pp. 726-745, Eble, K.E. (1971). The Recognition and Evaluation of Teaching. Salt Lake City. Endang Lestari & Djauhari Widjajakusumah.2009. Students’ self-directed learning readiness, perception toward student-centered learning and predisposition towards student-centered behaviour.South East Asian Journal of Medical Education 3(1). Felder, R.M., and Brent, R. (2003). “Learning by Doing,” Chemical Engineering Education, Vol. 37, No. 4 , pp. 282–283. Online at http://www.ncsu.edu/felder- public/Columns/Active.pdf Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring Teachers, Enquiring Learners: A Constructivist Approach for Teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press Dohun Kim. 2002. The Relationships between Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching, Students’ Perceptions of Course Experiences, and Students’ Approaches to Studying in Electronic Distance Learning Environments. Fosnot, C. 1989. Enquiring Teachers, Enquiring Learners: A Constructivist Approach for Teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press Gibbs, G. 1992. Assessing more students. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University Grollino E, Velayo RS. (1996). Gender Differences in the Attribution of Internal Success Among College Students. Philadelphia, PA: Annual Convention of the Eastern Psychological Association, p. 1–12 Hein, G. E. (1991) 'Constructivist Learning Theory' paper presented at CECA (International Committee of Museum Educators) Conference, Jerusalem Israel, 15-22 October 1991. Kember, D. 1997. A reconceptualization of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning & Instruction, 7(3), 255-275. Lie LY, Angelique L, Cheong E. (2004). How do male and female students approach learning at NUS? CDTL Brief 7: 1–3, Maria Socorro C. Bacay.2006.Teaching Students with Different Learning Styles.CTDL Brief 9(1). Mohd Zin Mokhtar, Rohani Ahmad Tarmizi, Mohd Ariff Ahmad Tarmizi, & Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub. 2010. Wseas Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education: Enhancing Calculus Learning Engineering Students Through Problem-Based Learning. Perkins, D., and Saris, N. (2001). A Jigsaw Classroom technique for Undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 28 (2), 111-113. Smith, R.A. & Cranton, P.A. (1992). “Students’ Perceptions of Teaching Skills and Overall Effectiveness Across Instructional Settings.” Journal of Research in Higher Education. 33(6):747-764. Stephen J.Denig.2004.Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles:Two Complementary Dimensions.Teachers College Record 106(1) :96-111. Thomas D.Cox.2008.Learning Styles and Students’ Attitudes Toward the Use of Technology in Higher and Adult Education Classes. Institute for Learning Styles Journal 1:1-12. Tina Heafner. 2004. Using technology to motivate students to learn social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(1), 42-53. Walberg, H. (1999). Generic practices. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student achievement (pp. 9-21). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Services. Yoder, J. D., and Hachevar, C.M. (2005). Encouraging Active Learning can Improve Students’ Performance on Examinations. Teaching of Psychology. 32(2) APPENDIX A) Questionnaire Effect of different teaching method implemented in the course of Basic Molecular Biology on academic achievement of UKM Biomedical Sciences students that took this course. LETTER OF CONSENT Effect of different teaching method implemented in the course of Basic Molecular Biology on academic achievement of UKM Biomedical Sciences students that took this course. We are conducting a research on the effect of different teaching method implemented in the course of Basic Molecular Biology,NNNB2134, on academic achievement of all UKM Biomedical Sciences students that took this course. All data obtained in this questionnaire will be published anonymously and any personal information gained will not be shared with any parties not related with this research. Researchers: Faculty/Department: Year: I ________________________, i/c no: ____________________ hereby agree to participate in the above mentioned study voluntarily, by understanding the objectives and procedures of study conducted. I am acknowledged that the privacy and confidentiality of the information disclosed will be protected and guaranteed during publication and presentation of study. I am also understood that I am, without any restrictions whatsoever, free not to participate in this study and no penalty or punishment will be conducted on me. Yours truthfully, ( ( Witnessed by, ) ) I/C NO.: I/C NO: MATRIX NO.: MATRIX NO.: Tittle : Effect of different teaching method implemented in the course of Basic Molecular Biology on academic achievement of students in the course. Part 1: Demographic Data Name : _________________________ Gender : Male / Female Race : Malay/Chinese/India Age : ___ years old Course : _________________________ Year of study : Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Grades of Basic Molecular Biology (NNNB2134 ) Mid Semester Examination :_________ Final Examination :_________ Part 2 : Learning Styles assessment This section is designed to assess your learning style. Please tick the box that best describes the way you learn. 1. When I study I like to Use a highlighter to emphasize points Use a chanting rhythm to memorize Explain the information to someone else 2. I like to study In a group so I can listen to others With one other person using role playing games Alone in a quiet place 3. I remember things best if I Make lists and write them over and over Write things down and read them back Record the information and listen 4. I like to learn using Labs and demonstrations Rhymes and chants that I make up Photographs and diagrams 5. Sometimes when nobody is around I will Draw a picture showing a process I need to understand Act out information Create songs with my homework information 6. I remember things most when I Say them Read them Hear them 7. I have trouble remembering information if I Read it and don't talk about it in class Can't take notes Can't discuss it in class 8. I remember Faces Names Names and faces if I can shake hands 9. When I study for a test I like to Trace pictures , diagrams , and charts with my finger Make an outline Read out loud Part 3 : Please circle the most accurate response to each statement below. You may only circle one response for each question. The table below provides the definition for the terms used in this questionnaire. Definition : Terms Teaching approach Teaching approach method of method of Definition teacher-centered The teaching method where course materials are presented by lecturers through lectures in the setting of a lecture hall. Lecture notes are provided by lecturers to students after the lecture. learner-centered The teaching method where course materials are learnt by students via: 1. Participation in presentation of topics of the course in different styles (eg. Drama, poem, songs et cetera.) 2. Self Learning package where students are required to complete an assignment on a topic given by the lecturer. 1. In your opinion, how difficult do you find the course of basic molecular biology, NNNB2134. 1 2 3 4 5 Very Easy Easy Moderate Difficult Very difficult 2. The reason(s) to your answer in question (1). _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. Please tick the description that best fit your opinions on the following teaching methods: Strongly disagree 2- Disagree 3- Neutral 4- Agree 5- Strongly Agree Teacher-centered approach No. 1. Item I always gain sufficient information from the lectures delivered by lecturer. 2. I adapt well with traditional one way teaching method. 3. The medium used by lecturer during lecturing further enhance my understanding of the topic. 4. Teacher-centered approach student critical thinking. 5. I can barely understand the topic being taught by lecturer during class. 6. I always focus during lecture. helps 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 developing Student-centered approach No. 1. Item Student-centered approach student critical thinking. 2. I understand better by self-completing task. 3. I am dedicated to search for extra information during learning process. 4. Student learning package (SLP) increases my burdens. 5. I always get to enhance my knowledge by exchanging information with my group members during group discussion. helps developing 4. Please give your opinion on the teaching methods which you think would best promote effective learning in the course of Basic Molecular Biology? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Part 3 : Evaluation of questionnaire Please tick the description that best fit your opinion on this questionnaire. Evaluation statement Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral This questionnaire is applicable to assess the effect of different teaching method on academic achievement of students. The method of presentation of questions in this questionnaire is clear and easy to understand. The questionnaire is easy to answer. **Thank you for your cooperation** Agree Strongly agree