1. Se aiSu y e ot
cn r td R p r
o
eLan g d l
- ri Mo u
e n e

2. Scenario Study Report
e-Learning Module
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi (UKM)
Prof. Dr. Hanafi Atan (USM)
Prof. Dr. Sidek Abd Aziz (UPM)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Norazah Mohd Nordin (UKM)
Dr. Afendi Hamat (UKM)
Published by:
Higher Education Leadership Academy
Ministry of Higher Education
&
Centre for Academic Advancement
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
2012

4. Background
Information
Introduction
The National Higher Education Strategic Plan (PSPTN), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE),
is a document that translates the direction of national higher education for the future that
focuses on the development of quality human and intellectual capital. This is to realize the
country’s aspirations to become a developed, prosperous, and competitive nation. To ensure
that the implementation of the PSPTN is according to the set phases, the Ministry of Higher
Education (MOHE) has developed 21 Critical Agenda Project or CAPs. Each of these CAPs
has strategic objectives, indicators, and targets to be achieved through various planned
activities. These activities must be executed either at the Ministry level or at the agency
level, including all agencies under MOHE, which includes all Institutions of Higher Learning
(HEIs). As e-Learning has been identified as one the the Critical Agenda Project (CAPs) and a
Key Result Area (KRA) of MOHE, besides a study on e-Learning ímplementation in Malaysian
higher education institutions conducted by MEIPTA 2011, a scenario study on e-Learning
is commission by AKEPT to provide a baseline data for the development of a Training of
Trainers Module in the area of e-Learning.
Research Objectives
In general, the objectives of this research are to
1. identify the Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges) lecturers’
level of knowledge, skills and usage of e-Learning.
2. identify issues/problems/challenges of implementing e-Learning in Malaysian IHLs
(including polytechnics & community colleges).
3. identify current needs and future directions for training related to e-Learning in
Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).
Scope of the Study
On the basis of the objectives described above, this study explore five main aspects;
namely, (i) level of e-Learning knowledge, (ii) level of e-Learning competencies, (iii) level
of e-Learning usage, (iv) issues/problems/challenges of implementing e-Learning, and (v)
current needs and future directions for training related to e-Learning in Malaysian IHLs
(including polytechnics & community colleges).

5. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
Methodology
This is a survey study using an online developed and delivered questionnaire known as
the AKEPT e-Learning Survey (see Appendix 1). The sample involves 1022 lecturers from 58
Malaysian IHLs, comprising 20 public ILHs, 8 private IHLs, 25 polytechnics and 5 community
colleges as follows.:
Public ILHs
1. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
2. Universiti Sains Malaysia
3. Universiti Putra Malaysia
4. Universiti Malaya
5. Universiti Teknologi MARA
6. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
7. Universiti Utara Malaysia
8. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
9. Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia
10. Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia
11. Universiti Malaysia Sabah
12. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
13. Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
14. Universiti Tun Hussain Onn Malaysia
15. Universiti Teknikal Malaysia
16. Universiti Malaysia Kelantan
17. Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
18. Universiti Malaysia Perlis
19. Universiti Malaysia Pahang
20. Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin
Private IHLs
1. Multimedia University
2. International Medical University
3. UniKL
4. Wawasan Open University
5. Taylor’s College
6. International College of Yayasan Malacca
7. AlBukhary International University
8. Kolej Universiti Islam Selangor
Community Colleges
1. Kolej Komuniti Hulu Langat
2. Kolej Komuniti Selayang
3. Kolej Komuniti Kuala Langat
4. Kolej Komuniti Hulu Selangor
5. Kolej Komuniti Sabak Bernam
4

6. Background Information
Polytechnics
1. Politeknik Ungku Omar
2. Politeknik Shah Alam
3. Politeknik Johor Bahru
4. Politeknik Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah
5. Politeknik Kuching Sarawak
6. Politeknik Kota Kinabalu
7. Politeknik Kota, Melaka
8. Politeknik Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin
9. Politeknik Sultan Azlan Shah
10. Politeknik Sultan Idris Shah
11. Politeknik Muadzam Shah
12. Politeknik Balik Pulau
13. Politeknik Nilai Negeri Sembilan
14. Politeknik Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah
15. Politeknik Kota Bharu
16. Politeknik Port Dickson
17. Politeknik Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah
18. Politeknik Seberang Perai
19. Politeknik Kota, Kuala Terengganu
20. Politeknik Merlimau
21. Politeknik Tuanku Sultanah Bahiyah
22. Politeknik Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin
23. Politeknik Mukah
24. Politeknik Jeli Kelantan
25. Politeknik Banting Selangor
Research Instrument
A set of questionnaire was developed and used for this study. The instrument consists of 10
items comprising of 4 items on demographic information, 2 open-ended items and 4 Likert-
scale items for lecturers. This questionnaire was made available using an online survey called
SurveryMonkey.
Research Team
The research team comprised six members of the Malaysian Public ILHs e-Learning
Coordinators (MEIPTA) of the Research Universities:
1. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi (UKM) Head
2. Prof. Dr. Hanafi Atan (USM)
3. Prof. Dr. Sidek Abd Aziz (UPM)
4. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Norazah Mohd Nordin (UKM)
5. Dr. Afendi Hamat (UKM)
5

8. Findings
Background Information
A total of 1022 lecturers responded to the online questionnaire. Figure 1 shows that the
majority of the respondents (81.7%) are from the public Malaysian IHLs. This is followed by
the polytechnics (15.2%), private IHLs (2.3%) and community colleges (0.8%).
Figure 1: Distribution of respondents by IHLs
Figure 2 shows that of the majority of the lecturers involved in this study are from the Science,
Engineering and Technology discipline (44.9%) and the Humanities, Arts and Social Science
area (42.8%). Only 12.3% of the respondents are from the Medical and Health background. In
terms of years of service (see Figure 3), the data shows that the majority of the respondents
(83.7%) have 15 years of service or below. Only 16.7% have more the 16 years of service.

9. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
Figure 2. Field of study/disciple of the respondents
Figure 3. Years of service
8

10. Findings
In terms of formal training on how to teach, one third of the respondents (37.3%) indicated
that they attended periodic training provided by their institutions after becoming a lecturer.
A total of 29.7% modeled their teaching based on observing their professors/teachers;
while, 27.1% had a teaching certificate or degree in Education.
Figure 4. Formal training on how to teach
Conception of e-Learning
In the open-ended question of the online survey, the respondents were required to briefly
describe their conception of e-Learning. A total of 1022 responses were recorded with
varying conception of e-Learning. Figure 5 shows the responses analyzed according to 28
most important key words/phrased used by the respondents to conceptualize e-Learning.
Data shows that not much is said about social media. In addition, Figure 6 shows 28 most
important key words/phrases on how the respondents integrate e-Learning in their teaching.
Similarly, not much is described about the use of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning.
9

11. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
Figure 5. Key words/phrases used to describe e-Learning
10

12. Findings
Figure 6. Key words/phrases used to describe how e-Learning is integrated into teaching
11

13. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Application of Learning Theories
Data displayed in Figure 7 shows how much the respondents are familiar with the main
learning theories. In general, more than half of the respondents (53.5%) are very familiar
Bloom Taxonomy, whereas, nearly half of the respondents are quite familiar with Behaviorism
(49.7%), Constructivism (47.7%), Cognitivism (47.1%) and Learning Style (46.1%). However,
more than half of the respondents (52%) are unfamiliar with Andragogy; while nearly half
of them (42.6%) are unfamiliar with Instructional Design Principles. Data displayed in Figure
8 shows how much the respondents are competent with the main learning theories. In
general, nearly half of the respondents are quite competent with Learning Style (53.9%),
Behaviorism (50.5%), Cognitivism (49.1%) and Constructivism (46.6%). Moreover, more than
half of the respondents (56.4%) are not competent with Andragogy; while nearly half of
them (47.1%) are not competent with Instructional Design Principles. Data displayed in
Figure 9 indicates the frequency of application of learning theories by the respondents. Data
shows that only Behaviourism (55.8%) and Learning Style (41.8%) are always applied by the
respondents; whereas, Andragogy (53.8%) and Instructional Design Principles (44.4%) are
not at all applied in teaching.
Figure 7. Familiarity with learning theories
12

14. Findings
Figure 8. Competencies on learning theories
Figure 9. Frequency of application of learning theories
Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of e-Learning Tools
Data in Figure 10 shows the familiarity of respondents with the main learning tools. Generally,
most respondents are very familiar with PowerPoint (92.5%), Facebook (72.5%) and YouTube
(69%). In addition, nearly half of the respondents are also very familiar with Google Docs
13

15. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
(48.3%), Skype (45%), Blogger (43.1%). Suprisingly, only about one third of them are very
familiar with Learning Management Systems. Almost two thirds of the respondents are
unfamiliar with Open Resource Initiatives (68.9%) and Open Educational Resource (58.4%).
As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents are unfamiliar with most
of the available authoring tools in the market; namely, Raptivity (88%), Captivate (80.8%),
Articulate (74.6%), Camtasia Studio (71.4%) and LectureMaker (62.6%). Data shows that two
third or more of the respondents are unfamiliar with the following Web 2.0 tools:
Crocodoc (95.1%)
Posterous (94.8%)
Flipsnack (94.8%)
Vyew (94.7%)
Edistorm (94.1%)
Glogster (94%)
Animoto (93.4%)
Elluminate (93.2%)
Zoho (93.2%)
PBWorks (93%)
Etherpad (92.8%)
TweetDeck (92.3%)
Edmodo (91.4%)
Snagit (91.2%)
Diigo (91.1%)
Polldaddy (91%)
Twiddla (90.6%)
Issuu (89.4%)
VoiceThread (89.3%)
Edublog (88.9%)
TypeWith.me (87%)
Myebook (85.4%)
Scribblar (85.2%)
Delicious (84.1%)
Wallwisher (83.5%)
GoAnimate (83.4%)
Evernote (82.1%)
Jing (81.7%)
Prezi (78.1%)
Livestream (75.1%)
Wikispaces (64.8%)
In addition, nearly half of the respondents are also unfamiliar with Picasa (54.6%), Dropbox
(49.2%), SurveyMonkey (45.3%), Flickr (43.7%), LinkedIn (40.4%) and iGoogle (40.3%).
14

16. Findings
15

17. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
16

18. Findings
17

19. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
Figure 10. Familiarity with e-Learning tools
Data in Figure 11 shows the level of competency of the respondents with the main
e-learning tools. In general, most respondents are very competent with PowerPoint (80%).
Nearly half of them are competent with Facebook (54.6%) and YouTube (47%). In addition,
nearly a third of the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%), Learning
Management Systems (36.6%), Skype (35.5%) and Google Docs (35.1%). Almost more than
two thirds of the respondents are not competent with Open Resource Initiatives (73.3%) and
Open Educational Resource (65.8%). As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the
18

20. Findings
respondents are not competent with most of the available authoring tools in the market;
namely, Raptivity (88.9%), Captivate (82.68%), Articulate (78.86%), Camtasia tudio (77.5%)
and LectureMaker (69.6%). Data show that two third or more of the respondents are not
competent with the following Web 2.0 tools:
Crocodoc (95.4%)
Posterous (94.9%)
Vyew (94.9%)
Flipsnack (94.8%)
Animoto (94.4%)
Elluminate (94.3%)
Edistorm (94.2%)
Glogster (94.1%)
Zoho (93.6%)
PBWorks (93.2%)
Etherpad (93.1%)
Diigo (93%)
TweetDeck (92.4%)
Twiddla (92.3%)
Edmodo (92.2%)
Polldaddy (91.8%)
Snagit (91.6%)
Wordle (91.4%)
VoiceThread (90.8%)
Issuu (90.3%)
TypeWith.me (88.6%)
Myebook (88.6%)
Scribblar (87.7%)
GoAnimate (87.74%)
Delicious (87.3%)
Wallwisher (85.5%)
Evernote (85.6%)
Jing (84.1%)
Livestream (83.8%)
Prezi (83.7%)
Wikispaces (73.1%)
In addition, nearly half or more of the respondents are also not competent with Picasa
(64.2%), flickr (61.7%), SurveyMonkey (62%), Dropbox (57.9%), LinkedIn (57%), iGoogle
(52.3%), Slideshare (50.7%), Scribd (49.5%), Wordpress (47.8%) and Twitter (47.1%).
19

21. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
20

22. Findings
21

23. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
Figure 11. Competencies on e-Learning tools
Data in Figure 12 shows respondents’ frequency of usage the main e-learning tools. In
general, most respondents always use PowerPoint (87.3%). Nearly half of them always use
Facebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%). Suprisingly, only about one third of the respondents
usually use Learning Management Systems (35.7%). Almost about two thirds or more of the
respondents never use Open Resource Initiatives (73.7%) and Open Educational Resource
(64.9%). As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents never use most
of the available authoring tools in the market; namely, Raptivity (90.8%), Captivate (83.5%),
Camtasia Studio (80.5%), Articulate (79.5%), and LectureMaker (71.8%). Data shows that two
third or more of the respondents never use the following Web 2.0 tools:
22

24. Findings
Crocodoc (96.7%)
Flipsnack (96.2%)
Vyew (96%)
Posterous (95.8%)
Animoto (95.6%)
Etherpad (95.2%)
Elluminate (95.1%)
Edistorm (94.9%)
Zoho (94.9%)
Glogster (94.8%)
PBWorks (94.8%)
Diigo (94.6%)
TweetDeck (93.6%)
VoiceThread (93.2%)
Twiddla (93.2%)
Edmodo (93.2%)
Polldaddy (92.9%)
Wordle (92.8%)
Issuu (91.4%)
GoAnimate (90.8%)
TypeWith.me (90.7%)
Scribblar (89.7%)
Delicious (89.7%)
Myebook (88.6%)
Evernote (87.8%)
Wallwisher (87.7%)
Jing (86.6%)
Livestream (85.6%)
Prezi (84.4%)
Wikispaces (76.9%)
Flickr (67.9%)
Picasa (67.7%)
SurveyMonkey (65.1%)
LinkedIn (63.9%)
In addition, nearly half or more of the respondents never use Dropbox (59.9%), Twitter
(56.9%), iGoogle (55.9%), Wordpress (55.3%), Slideshare (53.7%), Scribd (52.6%), Skype
(42.9%) and Blogger (42.8%).
23

25. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
24

26. Findings
25

27. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
Figure 12. Frequency of usage of e-Learning tools
Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of Integrating e-Learning
Data displayed in Figure 13 shows that more than half the respondents felt that lack of time
to prepare e-learning materials (66.7%), poor infrastructure (e.g. slow internet connection)
(63.9%), lack of time (60.9%), lack of training (53.2%) and poor technical support (50.2%)
are the main problems they face in integrating e-Learning in their lesson. In addition,
about a third of them felt that poor maintenance (38.6%), lack of facilities (38.9%), lack
of resources (39%) and lack of knowledge (43%) as the main constraints/hindrance.
26

28. Findings
Figure 13. Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of integrating e-Learning
Future Training on e-Learning
When asked what topics should be included in future training on e-Learning, the majority of
the respondents (73.5%) would like to know more about e-Assessment and Mobile Learning
(60.4%) (see Figure 14). Nearly half or more of the respondents would like topics such as
Web 2.0 (55.1%), OER or Open Educational Resources (54.6%), Blended Learning (52.9%),
Instructional Design (51.8%), Learning Theories (51.2%), Andragogy (46.9%) and Learning
Preferences (44.4%) to be included in training related to e-Learning.
27

29. Figure 14. Topics that should be included in training related to e-Learning

30. Summary of
Findings &
Implications
for
Development of
Training Module
Summary of Findings
From the analysis conducted on the data collected from 1022 lecturers from 58 Malaysian
IHLs, comprising 20 public ILHs, 8 private IHLs, 25 polytechnics and 5 community colleges
using the AKEPT e-Learning Survey, the following of the key findings of the e-Learning
Scenario Study:
1. The majority of the lecturers involved in this study are from the Science, Engineering and
Technology discipline (44.9%) and the Humanities, Arts and Social Science area (42.8%).
2. In terms of years of service, the majority of the respondents (83.7%) have 15 years of
service or below.
3. In terms of formal training on how to teach, only a third of the respondents (37.3%)
reported that they attended periodic training provided by their institutions after
becoming a lecturer.
4. When asked to conceptualize e-Learning, not much is said by the respondents about
social media and the use of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning.
5. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with learning theories, more than half of them
(53.5%) are very familiar Bloom Taxonomy, nearly half of them are quite familiar
with Behaviorism (49.7%), Constructivism (47.7%), Cognitivism (47.1%) and Learning
Style (46.1%); whereas, nearly half or more (52%) are not familiar with Andragogy and
Instructional Design Principles (42.6%).
6. In terms of the respondents’ competencies of learning theories, nearly half of them are
quite competent with Learning Style (53.9%), Behaviorism (50.5%), Cognitivism (49.1%)
and Constructivism (46.6%); whereas, nearly half or more (56.4%) are not competent
with Andragogy and Instructional Design Principles (47.1%).
7. In term of usage of the learning theories, only Behaviourism (55.8%) and Learning
Style (41.8%) are always applied by the respondents; whereas, Andragogy (53.8%) and
Instructional Design Principles (44.4%) are not at all applied by them.
8. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with e-Learning tools, most respondents are
very familiar with PowerPoint (92.5%), Facebook (72.5%) and YouTube (69%).

31. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
9. In addition, nearly half of them s are also very familiar with Google Docs (48.3%), Skype
(45%), Blogger (43.1%).
10. However, only about a third of them are very familiar with Learning Management
Systems.
11. Almost two thirds of the respondents are not familiar with Open Resource Initiatives
(68.9%) and Open Educational Resource (58.4%).
12. As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents are not familiar with
Raptivity (88%), Captivate (80.8%), Articulate (74.6%), Camtasia Studio (71.4%) and
LectureMaker (62.6%).
13. Two third or more of the respondents are not familiar with most of the major Web 2.0
tools.
14. In terms of the respondents’ competencies of the e-Learning tools, most respondents
are very competent with PowerPoint (80%).
15. Nearly half of them are very competent with Facebook (54.6%) and YouTube (47%).
16. In addition, nearly a third of the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%),
Learning Management Systems (36.6%), Skype (35.5%) and Google Docs (35.1%).
17. Almost more than two thirds of the respondents are not competent with Open Resource
Initiatives (73.3%) and Open Educational Resource (65.8%).
18. As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents are not competent
with Raptivity (88.9%), Captivate (82.68%), Articulate (78.86%), Camtasia tudio (77.5%)
and LectureMaker (69.6%).
19. Two third or more of the respondents are not competent with the major Web 2.0 tools.
20. In term of frequency of usage of e-Learning tools, most respondents always use
PowerPoint (87.3%).
21. Nearly half of them always use Facebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%).
22. However, only about a third of the respondents usually use Learning Management
Systems (35.7%).
23. Almost about two thirds or more of the respondents never use Open Resource Initiatives
(73.7%) and Open Educational Resource (64.9%).
24. As far as authoring tools are concerned, most of the respondents never use Raptivity
(90.8%), Captivate (83.5%), Camtasia Studio (80.5%), Articulate (79.5%), and LectureMaker
(71.8%).
25. Two third or more of the respondents never use the major Web 2.0 tools.
26. In terms of integrating e-Learning, more than half the respondents felt that lack of time to
prepare e-learning materials (66.7%), poor infrastructure (e.g. slow internet connection)
30

32. (63.9%), lack of time (60.9%), lack of training (53.2%) and poor technical support (50.2%)
are the main problems they face in their lesson.
27. As far as future training on e-Learning, the majority of the respondents (73.5%) would
like to know more about e-Assessment and Mobile Learning (60.4%)
28. Nearly half or more of them would like topics such as Web 2.0 (55.1%), OER or Open
Educational Resources (54.6%), Blended Learning (52.9%), Instructional Design (51.8%),
Learning Theories (51.2%), Andragogy (46.9%) and Learning Preferenes (44.4%) to be
included in training related to e-Learning.
Implications for the Development of e-Learning Training Module
Generally, the findings of this Scenario Study support the needs for developing a training
module on e-Learning for Malaysian Institutions of Higher Learning. In addition, the
following considerations should be considered:
1. Training should include the current conceptualization of e-Learning that include social
media and the use of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning.
2. Training should include exposure to various learning theories including Behaviorism,
Constructivism, Cognitivism, Learning Style, Andragogy and Instructional Design
Principles.
3. Training should include exposure to Open Resource Initiatives and Open Educational
Resource.
4. Trainees should also be introduced to authoring tools available in the market for
developing e-Learning materials/packages including Raptivity, Captivate, Articulate,
Camtasia Studio and LectureMaker.
5. Trainees should be trained how to the major Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning.
6. Topics for training should include e-Assessment and Mobile Learning.
7. Other topics such as Web 2.0, OER or Open Educational Resources, Blended Learning,
Instructional Design, Learning Theories, Andragogy and Learning Preferences should
also be included in training related to e-Learning.
8. In encouraging the application of Andragogy theories, activities, tasks and projects in
the modules need to be related to trainees’ work and institution.
9. The training need to encourage collaborative effort among the trainees across the
IHLs in line with the concepts of interactive and collaborative learning espoused in the
modules.
10. As the modules incorporate work-based activities and projects during the training
sessions, all participating IHLs need to have a standard minimum infrastructure/facilities
(especially good internet connection) to encourage the application of the modules in
the trainees workplace.

34. Appendices
33

35. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
34

36. Appendices
35

37. Scenario Study Report - e-Learning Module
36

38. Appendices
37