1. Se ai Su y e ot
cn r td R p r
o
Itrci Lcue d l
neat e etr Mo ue
v

2. Scenario Study Report
Interactive Lecture Module
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi (UKM)
Prof. Dr. Abd. Karim Alias (USM)
Prof. Dr. Abdul Halim Sulaiman (UM)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Faizah Majid (UiTM)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Supyan Hussin (UKM)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Saemah Rahman (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 Critical Agenda Project (CAPs) and a Key Result
Area (KRA) of MOHE, besides a study on e-Learning implementation in Malaysian higher
education institutions conducted by MEIPTA 2011, a scenario study on Interactive Lecture is
commissioned by AKEPT (Akademi Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia) to provide a baseline data for
the development of a Training of Trainers Module in the area of Interactive Lecture.
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 Interactive Lecture.
2. identify issues/problems/challenges of implementing Interactive Lecture in Malaysian
IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).
3.
4. identify current needs and future directions for training related to Interactive in Malaysian
IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).
Scope of the Study
On the basis of the objectives described above, this study explores five main aspects; namely,
(i) level of Interactive Lecture knowledge, (ii) level of Interactive Lecture competencies,
(iii) level of Interactive Lecture usage, (iv) issues/problems/challenges of implementing
Interactive Lecture, and (v) current needs and future directions for training related to
Interactive Lecture in Malaysian IHLs (including polytechnics & community colleges).

5. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
Methodology
This is a survey study using an online developed and delivered questionnaire known as
the AKEPT Interactive Lecture 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 13
items comprising of 4 items on demographic information, 4 open-ended items and 5 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 IHLs e-Learning
Coordinators (MEIPTA) of the Research Universities,:,
1. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi (UKM) Head
2. Prof. Dr. Abd Karim Alias (USM)
3. Prof. Dr. Abdul Halim Sulaiman (UM)
4. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Faizah Majid (UiTM)
5. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Supyan Hussin (UKM)
6. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Saemah Rahman (UKM)
5

8. Findings
Background Information
A total of 1022 lecturers took part completing 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 - Interactive Lecture 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 Teaching & Interactive Lecture
In the open-ended question of the online survey, the respondents were required to briefly
describe their conception of teaching and Interactive Lecture. A total of 1022 responses
were recorded with varying conceptions of teaching and Interactive Lecture. Figure 5 shows
the respondents’ conception of teaching categorized according to the 28 most important
key words/phrases. In general, data shows that the main key words used like ‘delivering
knowledge’, imparting knowledge’, and ‘giving knowledge’ reflect the traditional conception
of teaching. In a similar fashion, Figure 6 shows the responses analyzed according to 28 most
important key words/phrases used by the respondents to conceptualize Interactive Lecture.
Some key words used by the respondents include ‘interactive’, ‘two-way communication’
and ‘active’. Not much is mention about engaging every student in the learning process.
Figure 7 shows 28 most important key words/phrases on how the respondents normally
conduct a one hour lecture. Some of the key words include ‘discussion’, ‘questions/Q&A’ and
‘PowerPoint’.
9

11. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
Figure 5. Key words/phrases used to describe teaching
10

12. Findings
Figure 6. Key words/phrases used to describe Interactive Lecture
11

13. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
Figure 7. Key words/phrases used to describe how an hour lecture is conducted
12

14. Findings
Interactive Lecture Techniques
Data displayed in Figure 8 shows Interactive Lecture techniques reported to be used by the
respondents. Results show that the most common technique used is lecturing followed by
questions (Q&A). Not much is mentioned about Interactive Lecture techniques like Think-
Pair-Share, One Minute Paper and Muddiest Point etc.
Figure 8. Techniques used by the respondents during teaching
Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Application of Learning Theories
Data displayed in Figure 9 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,
13

15. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
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
10 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 11 indicates the frequency of learning theories application 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 9. Familiarity with learning theories
14

16. Findings
Figure 10. Competencies on learning theories
Figure 11. Frequency of application of learning theories
15

17. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of Interactive Lecture Techniques
Data in Figure 12 shows the familiarity of the respondents with three Interactive Lecture
techniques. Majority of the respondents (85.5%) are unfamiliar with the Muddiest Point and
more the two third (68.4%) are unfamiliar with One Minute Paper; whereas, more than half
(59.9%) are unfamiliar with Think-Pair-Share.
Figure 12. Familiarity with Interactive Lecture techniques
Data in Figure 13 shows the respondents’ competencies for three Interactive Lecture
techniques. Majority of the respondents (85.6%) are not competent with the Muddiest Point
and more the two third (70.94%) are not competent with One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly
two third of them (63.8%) are not competent with Think-Pair-Share.
Figure 13. Competencies of Interactive Lecture techniques
Data in Figure 14 show the respondents’ frequency of usage of the three Interactive Lecture
techniques. Majority of the respondents (87%) never use the Muddiest Point and more the
two third (71.7%) never use One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly two third of them (64.9%)
never use Think-Pair-Share.
16

18. Findings
Figure 13. Frequency of usage of Interactive Lecture techniques
Familiarity, Competencies & Frequency of Use of Interactive Learning Tools
Data in Figure 14 shows the familiarity of respondents with the main interactive 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 (48.3%), Skype (45%), Blogger (43.1%). Data also shows that two third or
more of the respondents are unfamiliar with the following interactive 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%)
17

19. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
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%).
18

20. Findings
19

21. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
Figure 14. Familiarity with interactive learning tools
Data in Figure 15 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 one third
of the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%), Skype (35.5%) and Google
Docs (35.1%). Data shows that two third or more of the respondents are not competent with
the following interactive Web 2.0 tools:
20

22. Findings
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%).
21

23. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
22

24. Findings
23

25. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
Figure 15. Competencies on interactive learning tools
Data in Figure 16 shows respondents’ frequency of usage the main interactive learning
tools. In general, most respondents always use PowerPoint (87.3%). Nearly half of them
always use Facebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%). Data shows that two third or more of the
respondents never use the following interactive Web 2.0 tools:
24

26. 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%).
25

27. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
26

28. Findings
27

29. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
Figure 16. Frequency of usage of interactive learning tools
Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of Integrating Interactive
Lecture
Data displayed in Figure 17 shows that more than half the respondents felt that lack of time
to prepare interactive lessons (70.7%), poor infrastructure (e.g. slow internet connection)
(62.6%), lack of time (59.6%), lack of training (58.8%) and poor technical support (52%) are
the main problems they face in integrating Interactive Lecture in their lesson. In addition,
more than a third of them felt that lack of resources (45.8%), lack of knowledge (44.5%),
28

30. Findings
lack of facilities (43.5%), students’ preference for teacher-centered lesson (36.4%) and poor
maintenance (34.8%) as other main constraints/hindrances.
Figure 17. Issues/Problems/Constraints/Hindrances/Challenges of integrating e-Learning
Future Training on Interactive Lecture
Data displayed in Figure 18 shows areas of knowledge the respondents felt important for
effective teaching. The majority of the respondents believe that knowledge on Teaching
Strategies (80.2%), Educational Technology (70.2%) and Educational Psychology (62.5%)
are important for effective teaching. More than half of them also indicated that knowledge
related to Instructional Design (55.1%) and Learning Theories (54.6%) are also crucial for
effective teaching. When asked what topics should be included in future training on
Interactive Lecture, the majority of the respondents (78.3%) would like to know more about
Interactive Lecture Strategies, Tools for Learning (74.5%) and Active Learning (72.9%) (see
Figure 19). Nearly half or more of the respondents would like topics such as Collecting
Feedback on Understanding/Learning (54%), Andragogy (52.3%) and Learning Theories
(51.8.4%) to be included in training related to Interactive Lecture.
29

31. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
Figure 18. Knowledge important for effective teaching
Figure 19. Topics that should be included in training related to Interactive Lecture
30

32. 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 Interactive
Lecture 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 teaching the main key words used like ‘delivering
knowledge’, imparting knowledge’, and ‘giving knowledge’ reflect the traditional
conception of teaching.
5. When asked to conceptualize Interactive Lecture, the main key words used by the
respondents include ‘interactive’, ‘two-way communication’ and ‘active’. Not much is
mentioned about engaging every student in the learning process.
6. When asked how they conducted an hour lecture, the main key words/phrases reported
by the respondents ‘discussion’, ‘questions/Q&A’ and ‘PowerPoint’, indicating the
conventional approach to conducting a lecture.
7. 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%).
8. 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%).

33. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
9. In term of frequency of application 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.
10. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with Interactive Lecture techniques, the. majority
of the respondents (85.5%) are not familiar with the Muddiest Point and more the two
third (68.4%) are not familiar with One Minute Paper; whereas, more than half (59.9%)
are not familiar with Think-Pair-Share.
11. In terms of the respondents’ competencies of Interactive Lecture techniques, the.
majority of the respondents (85.6%) are not competent with the Muddiest Point and
more the two third (70.94%) are not competent with One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly
two third of them (63.8%) are not competent with Think-Pair-Share.
12. In term of frequency of usage of Interactive Lecture techniques, the majority of the
respondents (87%) never use the Muddiest Point and more the two third (71.7%) never
use One Minute Paper; whereas, nearly two third of them (64.9%) never use Think-Pair-
Share.
13. In terms of the respondents’ familiarity with interactive Learning tools, most respondents
are very familiar with PowerPoint (92.5%), Facebook (72.5%) and YouTube (69%).
14. In addition, nearly half of them s are also very familiar with Google Docs (48.3%), Skype
(45%), Blogger (43.1%).
15. Two third or more of the respondents are not familiar with most of the major interactive
Web 2.0 tools.
16. In terms of the respondents’ competencies of the interactive Learning tools, most
respondents are very competent with PowerPoint (80%).
17. Nearly half of them are very competent with Facebook (54.6%) and YouTube (47%).
18. In addition, nearly a third of the respondents are quite competent with Blogger (36.9%),
Skype (35.5%) and Google Docs (35.1%).
19. Two third or more of the respondents are not competent with the major interactive
Web 2.0 tools.
20. In term of frequency of usage of interactive Learning tools, most respondents always
use PowerPoint (87.3%).
21. Nearly half of them always use Facebook (51.7%) and YouTube (4.17%).
22. Two third or more of the respondents never use the major interactive Web 2.0 tools.
23. In terms of implementing Interactive Lecture, more than half the respondents felt that
lack of time to prepare interactive lessons (70.7%), poor infrastructure (e.g. slow internet
connection) (62.6%), lack of time (59.6%), lack of training (58.8%) and poor technical
support (52%) are the main problems they face in their lesson.
32

34. Summary of Findings & Implications for Development of Training Module
24. In addition, more than a third of them felt that lack of resources (45.8%), lack of
knowledge (44.5%), lack of facilities (43.5%), students’ preference for teacher-centered
lesson (36.4%) and poor maintenance (34.8%) as other main constraints/hindrances.
25. The majority of the respondents believe that knowledge on Teaching Strategies (80.2%),
Educational Technology (70.2%) and Educational Psychology (62.5%) are important for
effective teaching.
26. As far as future training on Interactive Lecture, the majority of the respondents (78.3%)
would like to know more about Interactive Lecture Strategies, Tools for Learning (74.5%)
and Active Learning (72.9%)
27. Nearly half or more of the respondents would like topics such as Collecting Feedback on
Understanding/Learning (54%), Andragogy (52.3%) and Learning Theories (51.8.4%) to
be included in training related to Interactive Lecture.
Implications for the Development of Interactive Lecture Training Module
Generally, the findings of this Scenario Study support the needs for developing a training
module on Interactive Lecture for Malaysian Institutions of Higher Learning. In addition, the
following considerations should be considered:
1. Training should include the contemporary conceptualization of teaching and Interactive
Lecture that includes active learning, students’ engagement and integration Web 2.0.
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 Interactive Lecture techniques including Think-Pair-
Share, One Minute Paper and Muddiest Point.
4. Trainees should be given specialized coaching on how to integrate various interactive
Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning.
5. Topics for training should include Interactive Lecture Strategies, Tools for Learning and
Active Learning.
6. Other topics such as Collecting Feedback on Understanding/Learning, Andragogy and
Learning Theories should also be included in training related to Interactive Lecture.
7. In encouraging the application of Andragogy theories, activities, tasks and projects in
the modules need to be related to trainees’ work and institution.
8. 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.
9. 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.
33

36. Appendices
35

37. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
36

38. Appendices
37

39. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
38

40. Appendices
39

41. Scenario Study Report - Interactive Lecture Module
40