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